From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Langdon-Davies Subject: Re: daisychain addresses Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:52:17 +0100 Sender: linux-newbie-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <4051CEA1.3020502@arrakis.es> References: <40518631.5020203@arrakis.es> <4051C5E5.6080004@gelm.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4051C5E5.6080004@gelm.net> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org 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?". > > internetfw/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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs