Very sorry that I took so long to reply - had to leave early yesterday... I don't know why there is no traffic on eth1 - I think that is the fundamental question here. I will say that I only recently activated the nic to create a test network. The eth1 nic was present when I installed the os - I just never activated it. I did remove the bad route as requested. As I said earlier I added it just to see if I could force eth1 to talk to eth0. I added it on the eth1 interface via the gui and then removed it via the gui but it stayed in the routing table leading me to claim that it may be a bug. The only way to remove it was with route del. I'm digressing - the route is gone and as I said earlier the firewall is empty. It's an internal machine that I'm not too worried about. [root@redfish default]# route del 0.0.0.0 gw 204.62.134.209 [root@redfish default]# netstat -nr Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 10.10.30.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 204.62.134.0 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 0.0.0.0 204.62.134.248 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 [root@redfish default]# iptables -L Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination [root@redfish default]# ping -I eth1 204.62.134.209 PING 204.62.134.209 (204.62.134.209) from 10.10.30.248 eth1: 56(84) bytes of data. >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable CFrom 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=5 Destination Host Unreachable >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=6 Destination Host Unreachable --- 204.62.134.209 ping statistics --- 7 packets transmitted, 0 received, +6 errors, 100% loss, time 6021ms , pipe 3 [root@redfish default]# As you can see I still cannot ping from eth1 to eth0. Please let me know if you need more info and thanks again to everyone!! -Jim Jason Staudenmayer <jasons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: redhat-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx 06/24/2004 03:46 PM Please respond to General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list@xxxxxxxxxx> To "'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'" <redhat-list@xxxxxxxxxx> cc Subject RE: More help needed please Why isn't there any traffic on eth1? No you don't need a route for the NIC installed in the system. Remove that bad route and post your firewall settings. > -----Original Message----- > From: jim.marnell@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jim.marnell@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:18 PM > To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list > Subject: Re: More help needed please > > > Thanks to all responders. Both nics are set to come up at boot time. > Here's more info... > [root@redfish root]# netstat -nr > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS > Window irtt > Iface > 0.0.0.0 204.62.134.209 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 > 0 > eth0 > 10.10.30.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 > 0 > eth1 > 204.62.134.0 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 > 0.0.0.0 204.62.134.248 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 > 0 > eth0 > [root@redfish root]# ifconfig eth0 > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:5A:11:83:C0 > inet addr:204.62.134.209 Bcast:204.62.134.255 > Mask:255.255.255.0 > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:5899 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:824 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 > RX bytes:590413 (576.5 Kb) TX bytes:94622 (92.4 Kb) > Interrupt:10 Base address:0xe400 > > [root@redfish root]# ifconfig eth1 > eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:04:75:81:5A:01 > inet addr:10.10.30.248 Bcast:10.10.30.255 > Mask:255.255.255.0 > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:48 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 > RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:2880 (2.8 Kb) > Interrupt:5 Base address:0xe800 > > [root@redfish root]# > That first routing entry should not be there and may be a bug. In an > attempt to solve this problem I added a route on the eth1 > interface via > system settings/network. It didn't help so I removed it but > it remains in > my routing table. > My real default route is the last entry. > Do I need any routing in place for one nic to talk to the other in rh > land? > -Jim > > > > Ed Wilts <ewilts@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent by: redhat-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx > 06/24/2004 02:57 PM > Please respond to > General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > To > General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > cc > > Subject > Re: More help needed please > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:37:39PM -0400, > jim.marnell@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Anyone else care to take a stab at why my rh 8 box with 2 > nics cannot > talk > > to each other. I'll try anything. > > eth0 can ping itself > > eth1 can ping itself > > eth0 can ping eth1 > > eth1 CANNOT ping eth0 > > > > ip_forward has been set to 1 > > Do you have routes to get from where you are to where you want to go? > > # netstat -rn > > -- > Ed Wilts, RHCE > Mounds View, MN, USA > mailto:ewilts@xxxxxxxxxx > Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > > > > -- > redhat-list mailing list > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
