Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:13:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Bryce Newall <data@dreamhaven.org> To: FreeBSD Questions List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Multiple aliases, can't ping each other Message-ID: <20010831180558.D525-100000@dreamhaven.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greetings all,
I'm writing on behalf of a friend of mine who has a FreeBSD box with 1
ethernet interface, with 4 IP addresses attached to it. In the list
below, the first IP address is the machine's "primary" IP, and the other 3
are aliases:
xl0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet xx.yy.17.211 netmask 0xfffffff8 broadcast xx.yy.17.215
inet xx.yy.17.210 netmask 0xfffffff8 broadcast xx.yy.17.215
inet xx.yy.17.212 netmask 0xfffffff8 broadcast xx.yy.17.215
inet 10.0.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.0.0.255
(I have blotted out the first 2 octets of the internet visible IP
addresses for security reasons.)
The problem is that I cannot ping the .210 or .212 addresses from the
local host, although I *can* ping 10.0.0.1. A friend of mine told me to
run "route get" on each IP and see what I got. Beyond that, he wasn't
able to help me, but here's what I got:
(for .211)
route to: bdsl.xx.yy.17.211.gte.net
destination: bdsl.xx.yy.17.211.gte.net
interface: lo0
flags: <UP,HOST,DONE,LLINFO,WASCLONED,LOCAL>
recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec rttvar hopcount mtu expire
0 0 0 15 38 0 1500 0
(for .210)
route to: bdsl.xx.yy.17.210.gte.net
destination: bdsl.xx.yy.17.208.gte.net
mask: 255.255.255.248
interface: xl0
flags: <UP,DONE,CLONING>
recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec rttvar hopcount mtu expire
0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 -10633
(for .212)
route to: bdsl.xx.yy.17.212.gte.net
destination: bdsl.xx.yy.17.208.gte.net
mask: 255.255.255.248
interface: xl0
flags: <UP,DONE,CLONING>
recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec rttvar hopcount mtu expire
0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 -10662
(for 10.0.0.1)
route to: 10.0.0.1
destination: 10.0.0.1
interface: lo0
flags: <UP,HOST,DONE,LLINFO,WASCLONED,LOCAL>
recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec rttvar hopcount mtu expire
0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 0
I can't help but notice that the interfaces associated with 10.0.0.1 and
xx.yy.17.211 are lo0, whereas the other two are xl0. I would think they
should all be associated with xl0, is that correct? Here are the relevant
snippets from /etc/rc.conf:
ifconfig_xl0="inet xx.yy.17.211 netmask 255.255.255.248"
ifconfig_xl0_alias0="inet xx.yy.17.210 netmask 255.255.255.248"
ifconfig_xl0_alias1="inet xx.yy.17.212 netmask 255.255.255.248"
ifconfig_xl0_alias2="inet 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0"
defaultrouter="xx.yy.17.209"
gateway_enable="YES"
firewall_enable="YES"
firewall_type="OPEN"
From what I can tell, that looks correct, and we should not be having this
problem. I've done this setup on other machiens, too.. but somehow, the
routing table seems to be getting hosed. Any thoughts or theories will be
greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance.
*********************************************************
* Bryce Newall * Email: data@dreamhaven.org *
* www.dreamhaven.org/~data *
* "Computers make very fast, very accurate mistakes." *
*********************************************************
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?20010831180558.D525-100000>