From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: chuck gelm Subject: Re: daisychain addresses Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:10:09 -0500 Sender: linux-newbie-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <4051E0E1.3080400@gelm.net> References: <40518631.5020203@arrakis.es> <4051C5E5.6080004@gelm.net> <4051CEA1.3020502@arrakis.es> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4051CEA1.3020502@arrakis.es> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Andrew Langdon-Davies Cc: linux-newbie@vger.kernel.org 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?". >> >> 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 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