Re: daisychain addresses

chuck gelm
2004-03-12T16:10:09Z

Andrew Langdon-Davies wrote:

> chuck gelm wrote:
>
>> Andrew Langdon-Davies wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> In a daisychain network such as this:
>>> fw/router------server------workstation1------workstation2 (these are
>>> descriptions, not real hostnames), how should the addresses be set
>>> up? At the moment, all the machines are on 192.168.0.0. Is this
>>> wrong? Each machine can ping its neighbour but no farther, except
>>> for 'server', which can connect to the Internet via 'fw/router'. But
>>> 'workstation1' cannot ping 'fw/server', even after doing 'route add
>>> fw/router gw server eth0'. Using numerical addresses makes no
>>> difference. All my /etc/hosts list every machine. Daisychaining does
>>> not seem to be very much covered in the documentation I've found.
>>> I'm sure I'm making a basic mistake (apart from being too stingy to
>>> invest in hubs or switches or whatever). Therefore, a basic (and
>>> very general) question: What is the correct way to address machines
>>> in this sort of topology?
>>> TIA,
>>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> Comment: I would like to see the output of 'ifconfig' and 'route -n'
>> on 'workstation1'.
>>
> [root@p2 root]# ifconfig
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:24:8C:52:EE
> inet addr:192.168.0.11 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:3767699 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:2588830 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:266057 txqueuelen:100
> RX bytes:3880255550 (3700.5 Mb) TX bytes:217346015 (207.2 Mb)
> Interrupt:5 Base address:0x220
>
> lo Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
> UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
> RX packets:7417 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:7417 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
> RX bytes:6702039 (6.3 Mb) TX bytes:6702039 (6.3 Mb)
>
> [root@p2 root]# route -n
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref
> Use Iface
> 192.168.0.100 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0
> 0 eth0
> 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> 0 eth0
> 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
> 0 lo
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0
> 0 eth0
>
>
>> You have, at least, one other topology option without adding
>> hardware. Though,
>> I'll try to answer your question modified thusly:
>> "What is ['the correct','a way','a good way'] to address machines in
>> this sort of topology?".
>>
>> internet<?>fw/router<192.168.0.1>------<192.168.0.2>server<192.168.1.2>---
>>
>> ---<192.168.1.3>workstation1<192.168.2.3>------<192.168.2.4>workstation2
>>
> I suspected that might be the/an answer; I'll try it when I get a
> moment. But I don't understand why adding the gw line to the routing
> table as described in my original post makes no difference.
> Thanks for your time.
> Andrew

Hi, Andrew:

In your topology you show 'workstation1' connecting to both 'server'
and 'workstation2',
yet 'ifconfig' show only one external network device!

You need two external network devices in all hosts except
'workstation2'. :-|

HTH, Chuck