First, now that I see the Windows ME host does not have a second Internet connection, I assume you have verified that it can ping the SAME IP addresses that the RH host cannot ping. (That is, this is not some problem with your ISP blocking ping traffic ... rare but not unheard of, and downright common a few years ago ... or simply your trying an IP address that does not reply to pings. If you are having trouble finding on that does reply, use mine (get it from the Received: headers).)
Second, just to review, the RH host can ping the Dach host at its internal IP address, but it cannot ping a well-known Internet site.
The next step in diagnosis is to see a bit more exactly just how far out the RH host can ping (if at all). See if it can ping, in this order (and without making any changes between tests) --
the RH host's own IP address (192.168.1.200, I mean)
the Dach router's internal IP address
the Dach router's external IP address
the Dach router's gateway address (get it from the routing table of the Dach router; "netstat -nr" is one way).
whatever IP address is getting used as your off-LAN DNS server (almost surely provided by your ISP, but I don't know how it tells you that info)
an Internet IP address known to respond to pings ... use the ME host to verify that it works
Do all of these tests with the second (192.168.0.x) interface physically disconnected from its LAN, just to make sure the ME host is not involved somehow.
Where in this sequence you stop getting replies will help you, and us, figure out the likely location of the problem.
Since the RH host has no firewalling in place -- just default ACCEPT policies -- this is not the source of your problem.
At 09:22 AM 2/12/2004 -0500, Earl Wilson wrote:
To Both Ray O. and Charles S.:
"questions beget questions beget questions beget questions....." - EW, senior year high school, 1975
Where to begin? First, thanks for the help.
I definitely agree, the setup is weird, and even (especially) I, don't know how it actually works, but it does. The actual 192.168.0.x network is peer-to-peer rather than client-server, as it's original purposes were for experimentation and experience, intranet-gaming, and most of all, controlled internet access for my 3 children (2 special needs among them - if I want them off the clients, i shut down ICS). I added the rh box even before the LEAF, and have it set up as a Samba server to allow more storage space for my (ahem, lol) "users". Within my intranet, and because I have ICS set up, I cannot set any of the ICS client machines to static IP's - though allowing pinging and even the running of Trillian (w/AOL IM accounts), the ICS clients cannot browse the internet w/o being set up dynamically (the only machines set up w/static ip's on the 192.168.0.x network are the WinME and the Red Hat boxes, and I have no problems browsing w/the WinME box while the connected to the LEAF). LEAF ---------(Comcast cable modem) | | 4-PORT HUB ----------- RH (eth0=192.168.0.4 / eth1=192.168.1.200) | | | __________|____________________________ | | | WinME (eth0=192.168.0.1 / eth1=192.168.1.x [dhcp] ) | | | | | 8-PORT HUB -------------------------------------------------- _____________ | ______________ | | | | | | | | win98 win98 winXP win98 (all ICS clients, dhcp / 192.168.0.x)
The reason I'm pursuing internet connectivity on the rh box is that I'm now examining the idea of using the rh box as a small, internet-facing ftp server, with the LEAF as the firewall. I thought I had turned the firewall off on the rh box during a previous re-install, but with your suggestions, I got the following:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# ipchains -nvL ipchains: Incompatible with this kernel [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# iptables -nvL Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 53612 packets, 4819K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 51850 packets, 4379K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
As far as the routing table on the rh box, it seems that the LEAF is listed as the default GW:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# ip route show 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1 scope link 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link default via 192.168.1.254 dev eth1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo default firewall 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
Charles, here are the results of the rh box's ifcfg file searches; note that eth1 rather than eth0 is pointing at the LEAF:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] network-scripts]# cat ifcfg-eth0 DEVICE=eth0 ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=static IPADDR=192.168.0.4 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 GATEWAY=192.168.0.254 [EMAIL PROTECTED] network-scripts]# cat ifcfg-eth1 DEVICE=eth1 ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=static IPADDR=192.168.1.200 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 GATEWAY=192.168.1.254
In looking at all this info, I'm guessing rather blindly that the issue is going to be the firewall settings on the rh box......
One last note: I have X access to the rh box via Exceed, which allows me to run Mozilla on the rh box from my WinMe box. Hope this helps more than confuses, and again want to relay my appreciation for the help.
------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
