On 9/22/06, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mikkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote: > I got this back, but I'll sanitze the outside addresses to protect the > guilty. :-) > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: howto isolate 2 nics? > Date: Friday 22 September 2006 13:20 > From: Jim Hines <jhines@xxxxxxxx> > To: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Please post the results of route -n and ifconfig -a. It sounds like you >> may have a default route issue. >> >> Bob... > > route -n > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface > 66.xx.xx.xx 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth0 > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 > 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo > 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.12 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 > > > > ifconfig -a > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:5F:7C:6B > inet addr:66.xx.xx.xx Bcast:66.xx.xx.xx > Mask:255.255.255.240 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:16990702 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:8227520 errors:3 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:3 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 > RX bytes:3080066568 (2937.3 Mb) TX bytes:1206913340 (1151.0 > Mb) Interrupt:5 Base address:0x9000 > > eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:50:DA:B4:0E:93 > inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:62903099 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:1 > TX packets:58704388 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 > RX bytes:1244767257 (1187.1 Mb) TX bytes:3080714873 (2937.9 > Mb) Interrupt:12 Base address:0xd800 > > 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:2274417 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:2274417 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 > RX bytes:450462974 (429.5 Mb) TX bytes:450462974 (429.5 Mb) > The default route is through eth1 with a gateway of 192.168.1.12. It should be through eth0 with what ever gateway address is provided by the ISP. This is why traffic for the Internet, that should g out eth0, is going out eth1. It looks like the default route was set the way it was in order to get to the 169.254.0.0 network through 192.168.1.12 instead of providing a proper route to that network. If this is the case, then what is needed instead is a route specificity for 169.254.0.0 using 192.168.1.12 as the gateway. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Hi Mikkel! Just wondering. The IP 169.254.0.0 looks a bit strange (I thought .0 was not allowed or represented some kind of broadcast. Also the address when "whois"ed references RFC 3330 and there I find it mentioned as: 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not be found. My thinking when I saw it is that it is part of Zeroconf - which I simply do not understand. I would think that if he sets the network up by hand or by using DHCP on the local network from his mentioned machine the reference to 169.254.0.0/16 becomes moot. Thanks! Tod -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
