Re: daisychain addresses

Andrew Langdon-Davies
2004-03-12T14:52:17Z

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.