For your information if you are using the new kernel and virtual ip's (ip
aliasing)
Thanks to Brian Moore, I was able to get rid of invalid
netmask/broadcast/etc.... as possible causes.
Turns out the new setup for networking, using /etc/network/interfaces, does
not add the host to the routing table. Therefor, each interface must have a
separate "up" command to do this. The problem is now fixed due to A)
correct network and broadcast numbers (thanks again) and B) by adding the line:
up /sbin/route add -host 216.62.82.??? eth1:?
in the /etc/network/interfaces file. I've attached a copy of mine if anyone
is planning to upgrade and uses virtual ip's
Rod
>X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed
>Feb 21 16:27:53 2001
>Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:27:52 -0600
>X-Envelope-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:07:18 -0700
>From: brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Virtual Addresses on new server
>Mail-Followup-To: brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
>X-Uptime: 9:00am up 56 days, 18:55, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
>X-Moon: The Moon is Waning Gibbous (81% of Full)
>X-Fingerprint: 9934 9836 64C9 2B72 C4E7 A1A1 377F CE24 8832 2B51
>X-GPG: 1024D/88322B51 at http://www.cmc.net/~bem/bem.asc
>X-Vile: yes
>X-11: R6.3
>X-10: yes
>Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailing-List: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archive/latest/4221
>X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 01:45:35AM -0500, R. W. Rodolico wrote:
> > I have five IP's with my DSL (very, very small ISP). On my current server,
> > I have all five working. However, when setting up a new server, two of the
> > five are not visible.
> >
> > My range is 216.62.82.121 - 125, with 126 being the gateway. This is
> > defined as the last three bits of the range, ie 0111 1xxx. I have set up a
> > netmask of .248 (1111 1000), and a broadcast of various values ranging
> from
> > .7 ( 0000 0111), .127 (0111 1111), .135 (1000 0111).
> >
> > The addresses that work are 121-123 (0111 1001 - 0111 1011), ie I only get
> > in trouble when the third bit is set (goes to 1).
> >
> > Any ideas? Obviously, I do not understand broadcast values as I have been
> > playing around with them a lot (I also used .255 once). From what I've
> seen
> > and read, I really don't think that is the problem, though.
> >
> > All these addresses work just fine on the old box ( 2.0.38 kernel ). I am
> > having problems with potato ( 2.2.17 kernel) I have set ipchains to accept
> > everything.
> >
> > I am attaching /etc/network/interfaces from the new box, and
> > /etc/init.d/setvirtual from the old one. Note that the latter is something
> > I kludged together.
> >
> > Any help would be appreciated.
>
>iface eth1 inet static
> address 216.62.82.121
> netmask 255.255.255.248
> network 216.62.82.0
> broadcast 216.62.82.127
> gateway 216.62.82.126
>
>Your 'network' is wrong. It should be 216.62.82.120.
>
>Now, the way these numbers work:
>
> IP number: 216. 62. 82.121
> Netmask: 255.255.255.248 (binary 'and')
> ------------------------------
> Network: 216. 62. 82.120
>
>That means that only the 'leftmost' bits are considered. Draw it out in
>binary (at least the last octet) and you'll see the magic.
>
>The broadcast (at least on modern systems -- there was a period of
>confusion in the olden days where broadcast was sometimes the "all 0's"
>host instead of the "all 1's") is the network with the "host" portion of
>the address set to 1's.
>
>To see the broadcast, invert the netmask to: 0.0.0.7 in this case (ie,
>the 0's become 1's) and do a binary 'or' with either the network
>(computed above) or a the host... ie, set the proper number of 'low'
>bits to 1.
>
>Yes, thinking in binary helps. :)
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
interfaces
R. W. "Rod" Rodolico
Daily Data, Inc.
POB 140465 - Dallas TX 75214-0465
214.827.2170 -- 214.821.5051 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.dailydatainc.com
Entia non sunt multiplicanda, praeter necessitatem
William of Occam
