> From: [email protected] [mailto:discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Chadbourne > > eric@webserver1:~$ ping google.com > ping: unknown host google.com
That's a pretty conclusive dns failure... > eric@webserver1:~$ ping 173.194.43.38 > PING 173.194.43.38 (173.194.43.38) 56(84) bytes of data. > < hangs forever here > I don't know what that IP address is, but it should be pingable. The failure to reply certainly indicates an ICMP failure as well as DNS failure... > eric@webserver1:~$ ping 10.0.0.15 Oh dear. You should never use the 0 or 255 networks either. While this is ok sometimes, the problem is: Some devices just assume a netmask derived from the zero's, or just assume a broadcast because of the 255. I had this situation (granted, 10 years ago) where my boss gave me a router, told me to configure the following networks (insert network diagram here). It was a cisco router, and the syntax for creating the routes did not allow me to explicitly specify the netmask - The 10.0.0.0 was implied to be 10.0.0.0/8, while 10.1.1.0 was implied to be 10.1.1.0/24. Hopefully this sort of thing is becoming antiquated and phased out in the modern day. > eric@webserver1:/etc$ sudo tail -100 resolv.conf > # Dynamic resolv.conf(5) file for glibc resolver(3) generated by resolvconf(8) > # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE BY HAND -- YOUR CHANGES WILL BE > OVERWRITTEN > nameserver 4.4.8.8 > nameserver 8.8.8.8 Google's nameservers are 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 That's a type-o. Still, I think it's safe to conclude that your firewall is blocking both outbound ICMP and DNS. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
