Re: [gentoo-user] Question about /etc/conf.d/net entry
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Shawn Singh wrote:
The cable checked out. I used it to hookup my work laptop with the other
laptop I was using as my client, and was able to ping each host. The fact
that I had no link made me curious ... and I realized it made user error ...
I was SURE that I verified the NIC I was plugging into was eth1, as I've
got 3 NICs in the machine ... the one with no link is really eth2 ... not
eth1 ... I plugged into the correct interface, and (perhaps) needless to
say, my client is now seeing the gateway and the gateway sees the client.
I'd suggest using udev rules (create or add to
/etc/udev/rules.d/10-local.rules) like this:
ACTION==add, SUBSYSTEM==net, SYSFS{address}==00:10:b5:0e:d6:e9,
NAME=extra
(note, one = in the last one, two in all of the others) to give intuitive
names to all of the network cards. Then you replace eth1 everywhere with
extra. This makes it easier to read, so you don't forget which is which,
and it means that if the kernel device enumeration changes, your rules
don't break, and if you need to repurpose cards or something, you can just
change the MAC addresses and the rules will be right.
It's a lot easier to keep left, middle, and right (or uplink,
downlink, and extra) straight than eth0, eth2, and eth1.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Question about /etc/conf.d/net entry
Dan, The cable checked out. I used it to hookup my work laptop with the other laptop I was using as my client, and was able to ping each host. The fact that I had no link made me curious ... and I realized it made user error ... I was SURE that I verified the NIC I was plugging into was eth1, as I've got 3 NICs in the machine ... the one with no link is really eth2 ... not eth1 ... I plugged into the correct interface, and (perhaps) needless to say, my client is now seeing the gateway and the gateway sees the client. Thanks for the pointers on my config. They helped me ensure that I had my machine setup properly! Thanks, Shawn On 2/2/07, Dan Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:51:37 -0500 Shawn Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan, Thanks for the reply. The client is a laptop running Windows XP Home EditionI'. Server is a tower running Gentoo 2006.1, shorewall 3.0.8. The client is setup as follows: IP address: 192.168.1.2 Netmask:255.255.255.0 Gateway:192.168.1.1 DNS: 192.168.1.1 I've changed my /etc/conf.d/net to: # Interface Handler modules=( ifconfig ) # eth0 (WAN) config config_eth0=( dhcp ) # eth1 (LAN) config config_eth1=( 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 ) for what it's worth, netmask and broadcast will also default to those settings in ifconfig if you set the ip to 192.168.1.x I have all that I need compiled into my kernel (2.6.19-r1). I agree. let's see what happens -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- Doing linear scans over an associative array is like trying to club someone to death with a loaded Uzi. Larry Wall
[gentoo-user] Question about /etc/conf.d/net entry
Hello list, I've got my /etc/conf.d/net setup as follows: # Interface Handler modules=( ifconfig ) # eth0 (WAN) config config_eth0=( dhcp ) # eth1 (LAN) config config_eth1=( 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 ) routes_eth1=( 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.1.1 ) # the idea here is that I wish to have all traffic intended for hosts on 192.168.1.0 pass through 192.168.1.1. Here's the output from ifconfig eth1: eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:B5:0E:D6:E9 inet addr:192.168.1.1 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:10 Base address:0x6c00 This is my routing table: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth1 c-71-203-144-0. * 255.255.252.0 U 0 00 eth0 loopback* 255.0.0.0 U 0 00 lo default c-71-203-144-1. 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 One odd thing is, if I run mii-tool eth1, I get: eth1: no link eth1 is connected to my client machine via crossover cable (the wire scheme A end is plugged into eth1, and the wire scheme b end is plugged into the client machine) I'm experiencing difficulty where my client can't get to the Internet (the pages just time out), and I can't ping the gateway (192.168.1.1) from the client. Also, from the firewall, I can't ping the client machine ( 192.168.1.2). Pings from the firewall to the client result in Destination Unreachable, and if I remember correctly, pings from the client to the firewall just time out. I'm running shorewall (v 3.0.8), so I've tried shutting it down (shorewall clear) to eliminate that as an option, but still not getting anywhere. .config has the following entries in it, please let me know if there are others that you need to see. CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER=y CONFIG_NETFILTER=y CONFIG_IP_NF_NAT=y Thanks, Shawn Doing linear scans over an associative array is like trying to club someone to death with a loaded Uzi. --Larry Wall
Re: [gentoo-user] Question about /etc/conf.d/net entry
Hello, On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 12:07:59PM -0500, Shawn Singh wrote: I've got my /etc/conf.d/net setup as follows: # eth1 (LAN) config config_eth1=( 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 ) routes_eth1=( 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.1.1 ) # the idea here is that I wish Er, shouldn't this work by default? It is the netmask thing, right? Because what I think you are trying to do is: Whatever goes to 192.168.1.*, send it to the machine at 192.168.1.1, it will know. But the problem IMO is, this machine is local, so it again runs the packet trough the table and sends it to itself… Did you try removing the routing rule? I guess it should work by itself and you needed it only if there was a machine somewhere, like 10.0.0.1 that would be reachable trough 192.168.1.15… But I'm not sure, I hope I do not talk complete jebrish. -- The cost of living is going up, and the chance of living is going down. Michal 'vorner' Vaner pgpEdPkpKdp0n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Question about /etc/conf.d/net entry
Dan, Thanks for the reply. The client is a laptop running Windows XP Home EditionI'. Server is a tower running Gentoo 2006.1, shorewall 3.0.8. The client is setup as follows: IP address: 192.168.1.2 Netmask:255.255.255.0 Gateway:192.168.1.1 DNS: 192.168.1.1 I've changed my /etc/conf.d/net to: # Interface Handler modules=( ifconfig ) # eth0 (WAN) config config_eth0=( dhcp ) # eth1 (LAN) config config_eth1=( 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 ) Amongst many other things, shorewall dump shows: Shorewall has detected the following iptables/netfilter capabilities: NAT: Available Packet Mangling: Available Multi-port Match: Available Extended Multi-port Match: Available Connection Tracking Match: Available Packet Type Match: Available Policy Match: Available Physdev Match: Not available IP range Match: Available Recent Match: Available Owner Match: Available Ipset Match: Not available CONNMARK Target: Not available Connmark Match: Available Raw Table: Available CLASSIFY Target: Available FORWARD Mangle Chain: Available So, I think I have all that I need compiled into my kernel (2.6.19-r1). I'll be home in a bit, and I'll get on the Windows computer and run ipconfig and route to find out what the IP info and routing table looks like on the client and post that. Thanks again for your help. Shawn On 2/2/07, Dan Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:07:59 -0500 Shawn Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello list, I've got my /etc/conf.d/net setup as follows: # Interface Handler modules=( ifconfig ) # eth0 (WAN) config config_eth0=( dhcp ) # eth1 (LAN) config config_eth1=( 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 ) routes_eth1=( 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.1.1 ) # the idea here is that I wish to have all traffic intended for hosts on 192.168.1.0 pass through 192.168.1.1. all on the 'server' right? The 'server' doesn't need a route to 192.168.1.0 through 192.168.1.1. That's going to be automatic on the server's end because of the line 192.168.1.0 *255.255.255.0 U 00 0 eth1 in route. A route through eth1 to the subnet eth1 is on will automatically be added. But does the 'client' computer have such a default route through 192.168.1.1? The command to set up such a route (again, on the client) would be route add default gw 192.168.1.1; Here's the output from ifconfig eth1: looks fine. This is my routing table: looks fine, as long as it's from the server and not the client. One odd thing is, if I run mii-tool eth1, I get: eth1: no link eth1 is connected to my client machine via crossover cable (the wire scheme A end is plugged into eth1, and the wire scheme b end is plugged into the client machine) You clearly know the difference between a patch and a crossover, but i don't see why the interfaces arent' registering a conection. I'm experiencing difficulty where my client can't get to the Internet (the pages just time out) you need ip forwarding enabled to pull that off. I can't ping the gateway (192.168.1.1) from the client. Also, from the firewall, I can't ping the client machine ( 192.168.1.2). This should be working right now, though. Can you post the ipconfig and route output from the 'client' ? Pings from the firewall to the client result in Destination Unreachable, and if I remember correctly, pings from the client to the firewall just time out. sounds like the client is not actually 'connected'. Although, clearly the physical connection is there. I'm running shorewall (v 3.0.8), so I've tried shutting it down (shorewall clear) to eliminate that as an option, but still not getting anywhere. oh oh. shorewall can really confuse things. Stop shorewall and have it save your iptables output, then I would suggest flushing .config has the following entries in it, please let me know if there are others that you need to see. CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER=y you don't need this. CONFIG_NETFILTER=y CONFIG_IP_NF_NAT=y you will need this. But only oce you get connected to 192.168.1.1 ! remember, the client needs a default route set. The server _isn't_ going to need a route to 192.168.1/24 explicitly set in conf.d/net Thanks, Shawn I'm on comcast too: 20: c-71-xxx-144-1.hsd1.fl.comcast.net (71.203.144.1)asymm 21 167.516ms reached Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 20 back 21 only 1 country's width and 20/21 hops away from you! I mangled your ip address even though you provide it yourself, to allow you to be the one invading your privacy and not me . ps, if you have a switch around, i bet it would work if you plugged in both to switch (/ hub) via patch cable. I bet your crossover is bad. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- Doing linear scans over an associative array is like trying to club someone to death with a loaded Uzi. Larry Wall
Re: [gentoo-user] Question about /etc/conf.d/net entry
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:51:37 -0500 Shawn Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan, Thanks for the reply. The client is a laptop running Windows XP Home EditionI'. Server is a tower running Gentoo 2006.1, shorewall 3.0.8. The client is setup as follows: IP address: 192.168.1.2 Netmask:255.255.255.0 Gateway:192.168.1.1 DNS: 192.168.1.1 I've changed my /etc/conf.d/net to: # Interface Handler modules=( ifconfig ) # eth0 (WAN) config config_eth0=( dhcp ) # eth1 (LAN) config config_eth1=( 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 ) for what it's worth, netmask and broadcast will also default to those settings in ifconfig if you set the ip to 192.168.1.x I have all that I need compiled into my kernel (2.6.19-r1). I agree. let's see what happens -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
