Re: ppp mystery
* Michel Dänzer (daenzer@debian.org) wrote:
> On Thu, 2001-11-15 at 02:12, Bruce McIntyre wrote:
> > * Michel Lanners (mlan@cpu.lu) wrote:
> > > On 18 Sep, this message from Bruce McIntyre echoed through cyberspace:
> > > > Pinging anything aside from localhost results in 100% packet loss.
> > >
> > > Have you looked at:
> > >
> > > - 'ifconfig', to see whether you got an IP address on your ppp0
> > > interface?
> > >
> > > - 'netstat -rn', to check whether you've got a default route set up
> > > through the ppp0 interface?
> > >
> > > > pinging say, www.google.com and running netstat gave:
> > > >
> > > > Active Internet connections (w/o servers)
> > > > Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State
> > > >
> > > > The report was incomplete, and netstat needed to be killed.
> > >
> > > That's netstat blocking on nameserver lookups. Use netstat -n (numeric)
> > > to avoid that.
> > >
> > > > Pinging a server
> > > > listed in resolv.conf (a numeric address) resulted in netstat giving a
> > > > full report (it goes on to report about unix domain sockets).
> > >
> > > Keep in mind that DNS lookups may take time.
> > >
> > > > I was stupid and did not think to pipe that output to a file. Switching to
> > > > single user mode and back ( a desperate measure ) did not help, but cycling
> > > > power fixed everything. Does anyone know what might be going on here?
> > >
> > > Without output of above commands, no....
> >
> > I think it is happening again... This time output of netstat -rn and
> > ifconfig is attached. also the results of pinging some numeric addresses
> > taken from netstat.
> >
> > I hope this helps,
>
> [...]
>
> > ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
> > inet addr:210.50.216.137 P-t-P:192.168.84.41 Mask:255.255.255.255
> > UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:3286 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:2821 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:10
> > RX bytes:2620221 (2.4 Mb) TX bytes:182797 (178.5 Kb)
> >
> > ppp1 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
> > inet addr:210.50.32.108 P-t-P:192.168.84.9 Mask:255.255.255.255
> > UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:52 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:51 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:10
> > RX bytes:2043 (1.9 Kb) TX bytes:1942 (1.8 Kb)
>
> Why are there two PPP interfaces?
Good question. At the moment (with a working connection) there aren't.
perhaps this is getting close to my problem... see attached files for the
current situation.
> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
> > 192.168.84.41 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
> > 192.168.84.9 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp1
> > 0.0.0.0 192.168.84.41 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0
> > ----
> But you can reach the other one. Making that the default gateway might
> work. But the question is really where the other one comes from.
I think you are on the money there: I only have one modem and no ethernet...
> --
> Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
> XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Thankyou for your help...
--
Bruce McIntyre.
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
192.168.84.9 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
0.0.0.0 192.168.84.9 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:3924 Metric:1
RX packets:4044 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:4044 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:831672 (812.1 Kb) TX bytes:831672 (812.1 Kb)
ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
inet addr:203.134.172.126 P-t-P:192.168.84.9 Mask:255.255.255.255
UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:411 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:391 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:10
RX bytes:186477 (182.1 Kb) TX bytes:22270 (21.7 Kb)
Reply to: