On 05/14/11 22:02, Shane Dawalt wrote: > On 05/15/2011 12:45 AM, JD wrote: >> On 05/14/11 21:28, Shane Dawalt wrote: >>> On 05/15/2011 12:18 AM, JD wrote: >>>> On 05/14/11 20:59, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: >>>>> On 05/14/2011 11:42 PM, JD wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> No. The default route is only used when there is not a route found for >>>>> the target machine. If the target machine is on the same subnet, then >>>>> the packets just get sent out on the local network device. While its >>>>> true that both the target machine and the router are on this network, >>>>> this is the configuration that is not working for you. What you want is >>>>> to either add a specific route "before" the local network route so that >>>>> all traffic to that machine gets sent to the router, or, remove your >>>>> local network route from your routing table. In that case, all you >>>>> should have is a default route (that might work). >>>>> >>>>> This is my laptop routing table: >>>>>> # route >>>>>> Kernel IP routing table >>>>>> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface >>>>>> local.net * 255.255.255.0 U 2 0 0 eth1 >>>>>> default 192.168.6.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 >>>>> Note that any traffic to my local network gets put on the local network. >>>>> (This is the first routing line.) BTW, local.net is 192.168.6.0/24. >>>>> >>>>> If there is traffic for *anywhere* else, that's what invokes the default >>>>> route, and that gets sent to my router. >>>>> >>>>> I'm suggesting that you either have: >>>>> >>>>> 192.168.1.108 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 UG wlan0 >>>>> 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U wlan0 >>>>> 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 >>>>> >>>>> or you have only: >>>>> >>>>> 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 >>>>> >>>>> I think you'll see a difference.... >>>>> >>>>> I'm also wondering if you'll have to do the something similar on the >>>>> "other" wireless machine.... (192.168.1.108?) I'm assuming your 2 >>>>> "wireless" machines are 192.168.1.60& 192.168.1.108, and that your >>>>> router is 192.168.1.254. >>>>> >>>> I do not seem to be able to alter the routing table. >>>> Current table on Fedora pc is: >>>> $ route -vn >>>> Kernel IP routing table >>>> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use >>>> Iface >>>> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 >>>> wlan0 >>>> 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 >>>> wlan0 >>>> >>>> I removed interfaces eth0 and virbr0 (i.e. I deactivated them) so they >>>> no longer >>>> get configured at bootup. >>>> >>> It simply cannot be a default route issue. The OP is attempting to >>> ping a device on the 192.168.1.0 network from a device on the >>> 192.168.1.0 network. They are local. No router will get involved with >>> this communication. The machines themselves will not use their default >>> route. They will use 802.3 layer-2 communications to talk with one >>> another, i.e., MAC addresses. The traffic should be bridged/switched. >>> >>> Shane >>> >>> >> Well, that bridge is the router. >> Wireless clients that are associated with an Access Point >> in "infrastructure" mode cannot directly talk to each other. >> Their traffic must flow through the router. >> If I had set the two computers to use AdHoc mode of >> "association" with each other, then indeed, their traffic >> would go directly to each other without any other facility >> in between. > Well yes. I'm using the terms "bridge" and "router" in the operative > sense. I think we are stumbling on semantics. But I suspect you're > right when you say your wireless router is misbehaving, either due to > software or due to it's configuration. > > Usually, firewalls don't inhibit ARP entries. To test this theory, > try "ping 192.168.1.70" from your 192.168.1.108 box. Directly after > that, issue the command "arp -a". If ARP works, you should see > something like this. > > ? (10.1.1.1) at 00:30:ab:13:9e:3d [ether] on eth0 > > (On my net, 10.1.1.1 is my gateway.) If it doesn't work, you'll see > something like this: > > ? (10.1.1.253) at<incomplete> on eth0 > > where 10.1.1.253 is a non-existent machine on my network. And you'll > see ping responses such as these: > > PING 10.1.1.253 (10.1.1.253) 56(84) bytes of data. > From 10.1.1.21 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable > From 10.1.1.21 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable > From 10.1.1.21 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable > > You've already posted something like this, so it's a good bet ARPs > aren't working. So the wireless router is a good bet at this point. > > Shane On the Fedora Machine: # arp -a ? (192.168.1.254) at 0:1d:1a:00:91:c1 [ether] on wlan0 On the PowerBook Machine: # arp -na ? (192.168.1.1) at 0:28:fe:6:ef:7 on en1 [ethernet] ? (192.168.1.108) at (incomplete) on en1 [ethernet] ? (192.168.1.254) at 0:1d:1a:00:91:c1 on en1 [ethernet] ? (192.168.1.255) at ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff on en1 [ethernet] Now this is really strange! Fedora's arp reports only the gateway! Whereas PowerBooks arp reports the gateway, the wired machine 192.168.1.1 and even the Fedora machine it cannot ping: 192.168.1.108 -- 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
