> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> >> Since rpc.lockd and rpc.statd expect to be able to do IP broadcast
> >> (same goes for rpcbind), I suspect that might be a problem w.r.t.
> >> jails, although I know nothing about how jails work?
> >>
> > Oh, and you can use the "nolock" mount optio
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011, Rick Macklem wrote:
Since rpc.lockd and rpc.statd expect to be able to do IP broadcast
(same goes for rpcbind), I suspect that might be a problem w.r.t.
jails, although I know nothing about how jails work?
Oh, and you can use the "nolock" mount option to avoid use of
rpc.lo
#x27;special files' of a sort aren't working,
> > for
> > when I try and startup Apache, I get:
> >
> > [Fri Apr 01 19:42:02 2011] [emerg] (65)No route to host: couldn't
> > grab
> > the
> > accept mutex
> >
> > When I try and do
't working,
> for
> when I try and startup Apache, I get:
>
> [Fri Apr 01 19:42:02 2011] [emerg] (65)No route to host: couldn't grab
> the
> accept mutex
>
> When I try and do a 'newaliases', I get:
>
> # newaliases
> postalias: fatal: lock
011] [emerg] (65)No route to host: couldn't grab the
accept mutex
When I try and do a 'newaliases', I get:
# newaliases
postalias: fatal: lock /etc/aliases.db: No route to host
Yet, for instance, both MySQL and PostgreSQL are running without any issues
...
So, the mount is th
startup Apache, I get:
[Fri Apr 01 19:42:02 2011] [emerg] (65)No route to host: couldn't grab the
accept mutex
When I try and do a 'newaliases', I get:
# newaliases
postalias: fatal: lock /etc/aliases.db: No route to host
Yet, for instance, both MySQL and PostgreSQL are runnin
I mistyped "netmask" as "network" in my email.
But removing that second line like you said fixes the problem. Thanks.
> You should delete the second line (an interface will be marked up if an IP
> address is assigned to it) and fix the netmask keyword.
Are you missing a quote on the ip address line? What does ifconfig output?
- Original Message -
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
To: FreeBSD Mailing List
Sent: Sat Aug 08 19:38:39 2009
Subject: Setting up LAN: no route to host
I'm trying to set up a LAN that is isolated
On Saturday 08 August 2009 16:38:39 Nerius Landys wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a LAN that is isolated from the internet, and I
> don't know what to put in /etc/rc.conf for certain variables. I'm
> running FreeBSD 7.1 with the latest patches.
>
> So far my /etc/rc.conf file has the following lines
like to leave this blank, but I
put something here anyways.
hostname="speedy.i"
ifconfig_fxp0="inet 192.168.0.254 network 255.255.255.0"
ifconfig_fxp0="up"
My /etc/hosts includes this line:
192.168.0.254 speedy.i speedy
Now when I am logged in to this machine and
On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Redd Vinylene wrote:
I think I just got some help on IRC:
is it on the local network of your firewall and not this
computer?
yes!
thats why you can't connect to it
Suggestions on how to fix this problem using pf would be greatly
appreciated though.
Many th
Redd Vinylene wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Redd Vinylene wrote:
I'm trying to connect to my friend's FTP server but I'm getting a "No
route
to host" when trying from my NAT workstation. It works
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Redd Vinylene wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the default route is set. Routing works just fine. In fact, it's
>> been working for years. It's just this one FTP server that it won't connect
>> to.
>>
>
> Then it could be a leg
On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Redd Vinylene wrote:
Yeah, the default route is set. Routing works just fine. In fact,
it's been working for years. It's just this one FTP server that it
won't connect to.
Then it could be a legitimate error being returned by a remote router,
also. traceroute/
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Redd Vinylene wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to connect to my friend's FTP server but I'm getting a "No
>> route
>> to host" when trying from my NAT workstation. It wor
On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Redd Vinylene wrote:
I'm trying to connect to my friend's FTP server but I'm getting a
"No route
to host" when trying from my NAT workstation. It works just fine
when I
connect from my NAT server though.
Internet -> NAT server (192.1
Hi,
I'm trying to connect to my friend's FTP server but I'm getting a "No route
to host" when trying from my NAT workstation. It works just fine when I
connect from my NAT server though.
Internet -> NAT server (192.168.187.1) -> NAT workstation (192.168.187.2)
I&
Hello,
Approximately 90%-95% of file transfers during portupgrade result in the
error message "No route to Host". If the file in question resides only
on an ftp site, I disable the firewall in order to transfer the file in.
Yesterday, I resorted to commenting out the second of t
Am Freitag, 18. März 2005 23:42 schrieb Feroz F. Basir:
> Hi,
>
> I compiled ipfilter option in my kernel. As usual
> reboot my machine. When I run "ntpq -p" I got an error
> "ntpq:write to localhost.domain failed: no route to
> host". Before I compiled in ip
Hi,
I compiled ipfilter option in my kernel. As usual
reboot my machine. When I run "ntpq -p" I got an error
"ntpq:write to localhost.domain failed: no route to
host". Before I compiled in ipfilter, it worked. My
/etc/ipf.rules contains "pass in all and pass out all"
--- Begin Message ---
One important remark - if you are in stress, reboot to old working
kernel (hope that will work :-) ) and wait till evening.
Vladimir
Ok I did not delete the old kernel. Everything is fine now. Thank you
for your help.
Laci
--- End Message ---
_
What did you changed in kernel CONFIG ?
My original kernel was the GENERIC kernel that was included on the
distribution CD.
I only added some options to that, did not remove anything. Added things
were:
NETGRAPH (all netgraph modules)
HZ=1000
DUMMYNET
BRIDGE (can it be the problem?)
and some
Laszlo Zsolt Nagy wrote:
Try to turn off your firewall first. ( pfctl -d or something similar
if using ipfw ) I hope this helps.
Vladimir
Vladimir Dvorak
I set
firewall_enable="NO"
in /etc/rc.conf
Did not work. Please also note that I did not change my configuration
on this machine, I just com
Try to turn off your firewall first. ( pfctl -d or something similar
if using ipfw ) I hope this helps.
Vladimir
Vladimir Dvorak
I set
firewall_enable="NO"
in /etc/rc.conf
Did not work. Please also note that I did not change my configuration on
this machine, I just compiled a new kernel.
All
2.16.0.26): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: No route to host
"named" does not work either. It is started but when I start nslookup
it says 'No response from server'.
Is it a missing 'options' from the kernel config? The same machine was
working before with the same setting
:50:1d:5f:18:20 on rl0 [ethernet]
>
> I also tried this:
>
> messias>route add default 172.16.0.1
>
> The default gateway became "172.16.0.1 UGSc rl0". Despite this:
>
> messias>ping 172.16.0.26
> PING 172.16.0.26 (172.16.0.26): 56 data bytes
&
he LAN:
messias>arp 172.16.0.26
? (172.16.0.26) at 00:50:1d:5f:18:20 on rl0 [ethernet]
I also tried this:
messias>route add default 172.16.0.1
The default gateway became "172.16.0.1 UGSc rl0". Despite this:
messias>ping 172.16.0.26
PING 172.16.0.26 (172.16.0.26): 56 data bytes
At 01:01 PM 2/16/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
route add default 192.168.0.1
Looks you don't have a default route set, so your packets never get routed
outside.
Thanks Jan. That worked and the worst part is that the cmd rings a bell iow
I did this before but didn't find it in browsing the prio
talled fbsd 4.8 rel last week and don't know how to fix my
> internet connection.
>
>
> %ping -c2 freebsd.org
> PING freebsd.org (216.136.204.21): 56 data bytes
> ping: sendto: No route to host
> ping: sendto: No route to host
>
> --- freebsd.org ping statistics
> My lan has dialup through 192.168.0.1 [delliver] which shares using ics on
> xp. Works fine for my rh9, debian woody, and w98 boxes and used to work
> fine on this too till I started over again.
Try
route add default 192.168.0.1
Looks you don't have a default route set, so your packets never
%ping -c2 freebsd.org
PING freebsd.org (216.136.204.21): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: sendto: No route to host
--- freebsd.org ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
%
My lan has dialup through 192.168.0.1 [delliver] which shares using i
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-11-10 07:47:26 -0500:
> At 07:06 AM 11/10/2003, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> ># [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-11-09 19:00:28 -0500:
> >>
> >> So that third node on the IP addr represents what, the switch?
> >
> >no, it's the subnet. ok, this is not a helpful answer.
>
> But y
After successfully doing a build for PostgreSQL I've tried refetching
Apache, Mysql, and now CVSUP. Every attempt has failed with the subject msg
as in my latest:
>> cvsup-snap-16.1g.tar.gz doesn't seem to exist in /usr/ports/distfiles/.
>> Attempting to fetch from
ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/Fre
At 07:06 AM 11/10/2003, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-11-09 19:00:28 -0500:
>
> So that third node on the IP addr represents what, the switch?
no, it's the subnet. ok, this is not a helpful answer.
But your relating that to the subnet mask later makes total sense, thank
you
t; Very cool Luke; this worked and my FBSD box now can ping my Windoz boxes
> and vice versa.
>
> >There is no route to host for the other machines because
> >as far as FBSD is concerned the other machines should be on a different
> >wire.
>
> So that third node o
I take it back. Just able to ftp to the fbsd box from my xp workstation.
Very easy and very cool. Maybe all this agita will be worth it after all?
I'm telnetted in too. Ok, this is too easy now and I'm getting worried.
ttyl,
Marty Landman Face 2 Interface Inc 845-679-9387
Sign On Required: We
is no route to host for the other machines because
as far as FBSD is concerned the other machines should be on a different
wire.
So that third node on the IP addr represents what, the switch? IOW you're
saying since all the other boxes on the LAN are 192.168.0.nnn the FBSD box
needed to be as
na hear something funny? I didn't want to take 20 minutes to
> write all this so I spent an hour and a half instead trying to mount a
> floppy and then copy the output from these commands onto it so I could then
> copy & paste the verbiage onto my email from a windows box.
quot;Permission denied" so I then did "ipfw disable firewall" and
was able to do those two pings. And when trying to then ping some other
nodes again got "No route to host".
my local area network:
192.168.0.1 (win-xp)
192.168.0.150 (win-95)
192.168.7.7 (freebsd-4.8/mini)
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 09:49:54 -0500
Marty Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> granted us these pearls of wisdom:
> At 03:00 AM 11/9/2003, you wrote:
>
> >If the correct information is not there then something like
> >
> ># route add default -interface ep0
>
> Ok I did this (there's no router). Now I can
At 03:00 AM 11/9/2003, you wrote:
If the correct information is not there then something like
# route add default -interface ep0
Ok I did this (there's no router). Now I can still ping my own ip and
localhost as before and when I try pinging another node on the lan it seems
to hang, i.e.
PING
my LAN get
>
> ping: sendto: No route to host
>
> An ifconfig shows ep0 UP and RUNNING; ipfw list replies Protocol not available.
>
> FWIW I also tried pinging the FreeBSD box from two other (Windoz) boxes on
> the LAN.
>
Hmm take a quick peek at your routing table - ch
I'm new to FreeBSD and have the 4.8 mini-iso installed. Have tried to
install the nic and can ping my ip and localhost ok, but when I try to ping
other boxes on my LAN get
ping: sendto: No route to host
An ifconfig shows ep0 UP and RUNNING; ipfw list replies Protocol not available.
F
On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 01:22, Gene Bomgardner wrote:
>
> thanks for the help.
> Now, care to take a shot at this one:
> Same machine, when I telnet to it (ie. telnet guardian1), regardless
> of kernel, I get the following:
> -
> td:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:40:48PM +, Stacey Roberts wrote:
> I had a look at the attachment, but could see anything (to my eyes) that
> look untoward in there, except the fact that you've got "maxusers" set
> to 0. This value tells the kernel how many "new file / processes can be
> opened.
>
On 30 Dec 2002 at 0:44, Stacey Roberts wrote:
> Hi Gene,
>Thanks for that information.
>
Found it.
>From the block of ipfw definitions, under ipfilter,
options IPFILTER_DEFAULT_BLOCK #block all packets by
Commented it out, recompiled and voila.
thanks for the help.
Now, care
Hi Gene,
Thanks for that information.
Now, could you try pinging a remote host and 192.168.123.8, then check
/var/log/messages & /var/log/security to see if anything is recorded
there, please? You should post any output from both files here.
At the same time, post what is actually returned on
Below is the output of "ipfw show" and netstat -rn
-
> ipfw list
65535 allow ip from any to any
>netstat -nr
Routing tables
Internet:
DestinationGateway
Hi Gene,
From what I've just been reading here, maxusers after about FreeBSD
4.5 can be safely left at 0 (as long as there is > 64MB RAM), which
replaces the previous default of 32.
Could you post /etc/hosts & the output from "netstat -rn" as well
please?
Cheers,
Stacey
--
Stacey Roberts
B.
On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 21:20, Gene Bomgardner wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2002 at 18:04, Stacey Roberts wrote:
>
> >
> > Run an sdiff on both kernels and post the output so that members can
> > take a look at the actual differences between the two kernels.
>
> sdiff only reports that the two binary files
"Gene Bomgardner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sdiff only reports that the two binary files are different. I don't see
> any options to force a display. Did you mean to run a diff on the
> conf files? If so, they are attached as an rtf file.
Do you still have the old and new kernel configurati
On 29 Dec 2002 at 18:04, Stacey Roberts wrote:
>
> Run an sdiff on both kernels and post the output so that members can
> take a look at the actual differences between the two kernels.
sdiff only reports that the two binary files are different. I don't see
any options to force a display. Did
"Gene Bomgardner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did that. It really is set to accept all.
Can you send the output of 'netstat -rn', and perhaps of 'ipfw list'
(just to make sure).
norbert.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the mes
Did that. It really is set to accept all.
On 29 Dec 2002 at 10:52, Sarah Woolley wrote:
> Someone had this problam a few days ago. It seems that although he
> thought his kernal was set default to accept, it really wasn't. You may
> want to try ipfw show to check and make sure it really is work
pfw stuff (including
> default_to_accept) and the netgraph definitions. All compiled and
> installed without a hitch. However, any attempt to access the
> network (telnet, ping, whatever) results in "No route to host". Even
> when trying to ping 127.0.0.1 Booting the origina
piled and
installed without a hitch. However, any attempt to access the
network (telnet, ping, whatever) results in "No route to host". Even
when trying to ping 127.0.0.1 Booting the original kernel back up
restores networking. I get the feeling I've missed something. Any
ide
Charles Pelletier
Tech. Coordinator
St Luke's School
- Original Message -
From: "Christian Münk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:33 AM
Subject: No route to host
> Hello FreeBSD Team.
> My name is Christian
Maybe I didn?t explain it enough. My Prob. is that I can?t ping in my LAN or anywhere
else. When I wanna go online i do ppp and dial and i get the PPP. But that?s it.
Network interface is o.k. Worked fine yesterday and works fine in an M$ environment.
Normal realtek chipset.
Any other ideas wha
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:33:31 + (UTC) in lucky.freebsd.questions, Christian M?nk
wrote:
> Hello FreeBSD Team.
> My name is Christian and I have a problem.
> I looked through the FAQ and the docs about the prob. when you get the No route to
>host reply when trying to ping. B
Hello FreeBSD Team.
My name is Christian and I have a problem.
I looked through the FAQ and the docs about the prob. when you get the No route to
host reply when trying to ping. But my nic is intact. I made some Kernel
configurations cause I want this one PC act as a router. So I thought
mountd: here we go
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to send; errno = No route to host
What's wrong? I can ping 192.168.0.2 and the firewall is completely open
towards 192.168.0.0/24. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Daniel
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscri
61 matches
Mail list logo
