From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Mar 5 6:57:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from bilver.wjv.com (spdsl-033.wanlogistics.net [63.209.115.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712CB37B417 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:57:35 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bv@localhost) by bilver.wjv.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g25EvVk44286 for stable@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:57:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bv) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:57:30 -0500 From: Bill Vermillion To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: recent networking troubles Message-ID: <20020305145730.GB43968@wjv.com> Reply-To: bv@wjv.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Organization: W.J.Vermillion / Orlando - Winter Park Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 09:16:52 -0800 > From: Michael Sierchio > Subject: Re: recent networking troubles > > Peter Schultz wrote: > > > At system boot I see this message twice: > > Starting final network daemons:rpc.umntall: 10.0.0.103: RPCPROG_MNT: > > RPC: Port mapper failure - RPC: Unable to send > > That's normal -- your pccard stuff probably hasn't settled down yet, but > you've got nfs compiled into the kernel rather than using a lkm, right? > > > If I try to mount NFS exports I can only successfully do one, the others > > will fail with: > > 10.0.0.100:/usr/ports/distfiles: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Timed out > > What kind of network card are you using? Are you using DHCP, or do > you have a fixed address? And is there a hostname entry in the local > DNS in every local /etc/hosts for these hosts on the RFC 1918 net? > What's your network setup? > > > Another clue that something is wrong is when I try to ping one of my > > local machines: > > PING bebox.jocose.org (216.239.16.183): 56 data bytes > > 64 bytes from 216.239.16.183: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=4035.362 > > 64 bytes from 216.239.16.183: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=3025.446 > > 64 bytes from 216.239.16.183: icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=2015.578 > > 64 bytes from 216.239.16.183: icmp_seq=4 ttl=62 time=1005.654 > > 64 bytes from 216.239.16.183: icmp_seq=5 ttl=62 time=0.752 > That's pretty funny. If you keep pinging, do the times keep getting > smaller? ;-) You will see that if the network comes up before the previous byte is considered lost. I used to get a big screen flash up when my outgoing ppp hadn't finished negotiating. Notice that each of the first four is almost exactly 1 second [1000ms] smaller than the previous. The packets are sent one each second and the interface came up just about 4 seconds after the first ping was sent that is why the first ping reply took 4 seconds, the next 3, and so on. Bill -- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message