On 05/14/11 20:53, James McKenzie wrote: > On 5/14/11 8:42 PM, JD wrote: >> On 05/14/11 19:41, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: >>> On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote: >>>> On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: >>>>> On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: >>>>>> On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: >>>>>>> On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: >>>>>>>> I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora >>>>>>>> from Powerbook. No go!! >>>>>>> That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to >>>>>>> see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. >>>>>> Thanx! >>>>>> I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) >>>>>> to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). >>>>>> The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. >>>>>> no problems there. >>>>>> The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine >>>>>> connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses >>>>>> on the public net. >>>>>> They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! >>>>>> Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. >>>>>> And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the >>>>>> fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). >>>>>> Still these two machines refuse to talk. >>>>>> >>>>> Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? >>>>> >>>>> James McKenzie >>>>> >>>> Tried it. >>>> Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. >>>> All it shows is asterisks. >>> Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go "direct" between machines.... >>> >>> Can you add a "special" static route between the 2 specifying the router >>> as the gateway? >>> >>> As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local >>> interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by >>> just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't "route" those >>> packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over >>> the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be >>> redundant. >>> >>> Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing >>> that the route the packets take will get there. something like: >>> >>> On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at >>> w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: >>> >>> # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 >>> >>> I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it >>> may still fail. But its worth a try. >>> >> No that would not do anything because already the default route is >> 192.168.1.254 >> which is the gateway/router. >> > That default route will ONLY be used if you specified the IP range as > /32, i.e. 192.168.1.1/32. Otherwise the system will assume /24 and > nothing local will be able to be located (you should be able to ping > outbound the gateway, but nothing else in that subnet.) > > James McKenzie > # route add -host 192.168.1.70 gw 192.168.1.108 dev wlan0 # ping 192.168.1.70 PING 192.168.1.70 (192.168.1.70) 56(84) bytes of data. From 192.168.1.108 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.108 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.108 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable Also, on the Fedora PC: # traceroute 192.168.1.60 traceroute to 192.168.1.60(192.168.1.60), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 192.168.1.108 (192.168.1.108) 3007.379 ms !H 3007.348 ms !H 3007.327 ms !H and it stopped right there. Whereas on the Powerbook, all I get is many lines of asterisks and then it gives up. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
