Date: Sat, 07 May 2011 20:52:03 +0200 From: Lokadamus <lokadamus@gmx.de> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_N=F8rgaard?= <norgaard@locolomo.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Link and network level in the tcp/ip stack Message-ID: <4DC594D3.10606@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4DC4654C.2020902@locolomo.org> References: <4DC4654C.2020902@locolomo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 06.05.2011 23:17, schrieb Erik Nørgaard: > Hi: > > This is a generic question about may, should and must: > > I have the following setup: > > 192.168.28/24 > +---------------+ > |.196 |.1 > SRV GW--------- RN > |.28 |.1 > +---------------+ > 10.225.162/24 > > The server, SRV, has default gateway set to 192.168.28.1, no routing > has been configured for the 10.225.162/24 network. The gateway is a > router, no NAT or firewall. Yup, we do have this setup, don't ask why. > > Now, the remote node RN pings the server on 192.168.28.196 fine, no > problem. Then it pings 10.225.162.28 and get destination unreachable. > > OK, so I did tcpdump first on the 10.225.162.28 interface, and saw > icmp echo requests coming in, but no replies going out. Then I did > tcpdump on the other interface and got this: > > 13:39:43.233419 arp who-has 192.168.28.1 tell 10.225.162.28 > > obviously no reply, wrong network. > Can your SRV (10.225.162.28) ping anything in 192.168.28? I don't think, because your SRV is looking for its gateway, but never get an answer from it. It's subnetmask is to small to reach another subnet. Put another network card in it with an ip of 192.168.28 and all will working. Sorry for my bad english ;( > Thanks, Erik > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DC594D3.10606>