Re: Stupid Telnet question.
Keith Beattie said
> stick@richnet.net wrote:
> >
> > I've seen this before, but don't remember what I did to make it work.
> > Have a remote user wanting access to a Linux system. That user used
> > to just telnet <hostname> with no problem.
> >
> > Now they are getting:
> > chuck@fuller: telnet 205.242.10.73
> > Trying 205.242.10.73...
> > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host
> >
> > But I can do a ping and a traceroute from fuller to the Linux host.
> > At this point I've spent so much time on it I'm getting frustrated...
> >
> > What's the short answer for where this is not working?
>
> Well, I'm not sure of the short answer but you can try pinging with
> larger packets sizes to see if it is the network itself. (man ping
> and look for the -s flag) I recall that improperly configured ATM
> networks can have problems with packet de/fragmentation, where small
> (ATM and ping size) packets get through but larger (TCP/IP size)
> packets don't.
>
I don't think this is it.
I've tried telnetting to other ports on this server from the workstation
in question. Ports w/ a listener connect, ports w/o a listener say
Connection refused. Telnet's port says no route to host.
> HTH,
> ksb
>
Chuck
--
Chuck Stickelman, Owner E-Mail: <stick@richnet.net>
Practical Network Design Voice: +1-419-529-3841
9 Chambers Road FAX: +1-419-529-3625
Mansfield, OH 44906-1301 USA
Reply to: