Re: daisychain addresses

[chuck gelm <chuck@gelm.net>]

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


-
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