[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LAN/NAS problem.

On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 12:10:01PM +1000, Marc-Adrian Napoli wrote
> hi all,

Hello, Marc!

> we have an ascend server that serves a dial up customer sitting on
> routing table on the ascend server:
>   wan12    rGT    120   2    6575    5169
>   wan12    rT      60   1    4150    5169
> they are given the subnet from radius.
> on the customers end is a linux box acting as a router for their /27 subnet.
> ifconfig on the debian box shows:
> lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
>           inet addr:  Bcast:  Mask:
>           UP BROADCAST LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:3584  Metric:1
>           RX packets:7607 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
>           TX packets:7607 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
> eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:00:E8:47:F3:9C
>           inet addr:  Bcast:  Mask:
>           RX packets:85592 errors:0 dropped:23 overruns:0
>           TX packets:6940 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
>           Interrupt:9 Base address:0x240
> ppp0      Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
>           inet addr:  P-t-P:  Mask:
>           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING  MTU:1524  Metric:1
>           RX packets:10757 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
>           TX packets:10410 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0


Using the network address ([]) as the interface
address isn't a good idea.  It may be treated as special for all
sorts of reasons and you can't rely on it to behave like a
regular host IP, or even for different TCP/IP stacks to deal
with it consistently.

For example on my local LAN, with a network address of, all of my Debian boxes (running kernel
2.2.15) respond if I ping, but it would be equally
understandable if none of them did (as is the case if I run
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/icmp_echo_ignore_broadcasts
).  Change the interface address to (say); it may
not fix your problem, but it removes the most obvious reason why
it may not work.

John P.
http://www.mdt.net.au/~john Debian Linux admin & support:technical services

Reply to: