Re: Networking: unable to get multi-homed host working in Debian 8
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016, Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
>
> Le 10/08/2016 à 03:16, Tom Browder a écrit :
>>
>> Then, as root, I executed "service networking restart" and all looked
>> well until I logged in to another host and tried to ping the new IP
>> and got no good ping.
>
> Can you elaborate "all looked well" and "no good ping" ?
> Commands, results ?
Thanks for the reply, Pascal.
Ping from another host to the test host (bigtom):
PING bigtom.tombrowder.com (192.168.0.17) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from bigtom.tombrowder.com (192.168.0.17): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64
time=3.05 ms
64 bytes from bigtom.tombrowder.com (192.168.0.17): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64
time=3.14 ms
Then a ping to the primary IP:
PING 192.168.0.17 (192.168.0.17) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.0.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.07 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=3.00 ms
Then a ping to the secondary IP (first alias):
PING 192.168.0.18 (192.168.0.18) 56(84) bytes of data.
>From 192.168.0.35 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.35 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
> What's the result of ping to these addresses from the host itself ?
I didn't think of that.
Ping from the test host itself to its host name:
PING bigtom.tombrowder.com (127.0.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from bigtom.tombrowder.com (127.0.1.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.019 ms
64 bytes from bigtom.tombrowder.com (127.0.1.1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.011 ms
Ping from the test host itself to its primary IP:
PING 192.168.0.17 (192.168.0.17) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.0.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.020 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.17: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.013 ms
Ping from the test host itself to its primary first alias IP:
PING 192.168.0.18 (192.168.0.18) 56(84) bytes of data.
>From 192.168.0.17 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
>From 192.168.0.17 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
Thanks again for your help.
Best regards,
-Tom
Reply to: