Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:15:28 -0600 (CST) From: Scott Pilz <tech@squid.tznet.com> To: Michael Lucas <mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: arplookup failed Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10111080912440.25210-100000@squid.tznet.com> In-Reply-To: <20011108101327.A8496@blackhelicopters.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ouch. I hate your answer :-) But if I have to live with it, I'll live with it. I'd like to keep things as near as possible.. .64 - .68 are going to remain in our CO. The rest will be shipped out to 5 different locations. Some machines will be running multiple class c's (the one I'm on, for example, runs both on the 68 block ((one address) and on the 64 block (3 more addresses). I think I know a stupid way around it -- using the route command I could route entire subnets to the ethernet instead of the router.. But that is a pain in the butt.. I have 9 some freebsd machines here, getting more in soon -- not to mention all the crap NT machines (which handle this problem without a trace by the way).. I wish I could disable this arp lookup, but I won't worry about it. Scott On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Michael Lucas wrote: > Well, yes, and you won't like it. :) > > If I understand you correctly, you have two machines on one Ethernet > network. Each is part of a different block of IP addresses. Correct? > > If that's correct, what you're describing is just wrong. It works, > mind you, but it's technically wrong. arplookup is trying to map an > Ethernet address to an IP address, as the response comes back via > Ethernet. And it gets an impossible answer, and complains. > > The arplookup message is FreeBSD's way of saying "I sent a message to > this router, and it came back over the Ethernet, from an address that > I know isn't on the ethernet. What the &*(!#& are you doing up there, > Mr Administrator Sir?" > > The upshot is, ignore it. It's harmless. Having worked at an ISP for > too many years, I assume you're doing this temporarily and will be > shipping one box or the other to a location where that network number > is appropriate. > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:59:26AM -0600, Scott Pilz wrote: > > > > Basically we have our main router plugged into a switch - where > > the LAN is at.. A pretty basic configuration. > > > > Say that I have the IP address of 66.170.64.x on a machine, netmask of > > 255.255.255.0 ... > > > > On another machine, I have the ip address of 66.170.68.x, netmask of > > 255.255.255.0 .. > > > > Assuming that the first one is FreeBSD, I will get the arp lookup failed > > message when I attempt to ping the .68.x machine - BUT it will still ping. > > For that matter, it's one hop away - it actually jumps to the router, then > > to that machine. > > > > Any ideas at all ? :( > > > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Michael Lucas wrote: > > > > > Ah, so much for the easy answer. I wondered how you had a /20 on your > > > local network. :) > > > > > > Are these machines you're trying to hit elsewhere on your network > > > (i.e., past the router)? In that case, is your default route set > > > properly? Do a "netstat -nr" and see. > > > > > > If you have a default router, then run a traceroute and see where it > > > dies. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 08:48:43AM -0600, Scott Pilz wrote: > > > > Well, there are some problems with doing this however. > > > > > > > > We don't want/can't have the entire /20 routed to just our main office. We > > > > have POP's all over the state that we will be sooner or later routing the > > > > addresses out to. The last block, being 66.170.79.255 would at that point > > > > be the broadcast -- but it won't even be routed to this router much > > > > longer, so it won't work. > > > > > > > > Any other ideas? > > > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Michael Lucas wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 07:31:18AM -0600, Scott Pilz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I've seen many posts on freebsd-questions but no answers that have > > > > > > helped me with this problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > We have recently obtained a new block of address space (66.170.64.1/20). > > > > > > > > > > > > I run around 8-10 FreeBSD machines in the office, every one has the same > > > > > > problem .. . > > > > > > > > > > > > They are on the 66.170.64.x block, netmask of 255.255.255.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > Upon trying to ping another machine -- NT lets say, that has the address > > > > > > of 66.170.68.x, or 65.x, etc. will issue the following error: > > > > > > > > > > > > /kernel: arplookup 66.170.xx.xxx failed: host not on local network. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, there MUST be a way to easily fix this. I'm sure it's just a > > > > > > configuration problem, please advise. > > > > > > > > > > You need to fix your netmask. You have a netmask of /20, yet your > > > > > machines are set to /24. > > > > > > > > > > The error means exactly what it says: 66.170.68.xx is not on the local > > > > > network. > > > > > > > > > > Set your netmask to /20, and it will just work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Michael Lucas > > > > > mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org > > > > > http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ > > > > > Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Michael Lucas > > > mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org > > > http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ > > > Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons > > > > > -- > Michael Lucas > mwlucas@blackhelicopters.org > http://www.blackhelicopters.org/~mwlucas/ > Big Scary Daemons: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10111080912440.25210-100000>