Re: Network Horror
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.comREMOVE)
Date: 09/11/03
- Next message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: SCO Down News (3 Stories)"
- Previous message: Dim Gool: "SCO Unix 3.2v5.0.5 system/network settings and Oracle"
- In reply to: Chaz: "Re: Network Horror"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:57:01 GMT
In article <f9a3c53f.0309102340.20010076@posting.google.com>,
Chaz <chaz@ten-25.co.uk> wrote:
>Thanks for the reply, Bill.
>Now then.
>Obviously, I cannot give out the public IP address, but I have done a
>couple of route adds so that a 128.x.x.x external WAN can see via the
>gateway, and I have tried a route add 0.0.0.0 through the same gateway
>to try to acheive the desired result.
If you are not going to give the real address in the posts be sure
to mention you are using obfuscated addresses.
Are all your address on the same subnet?
>For whatever reason, Win95 and Win98 machines can see the server and
>vice-versa, but WinME and WinXP machines can not.
Are the 95/98 on the same subnet as the ME and XP? In the past
I've noted that some MS products totally ignore a netmask and will
use a gateway anywhere inside the full block and not from just
within the netmasked block as they are supposed to do. I've not
used the XP so I have no clue. I just remembered that when I'd set
up mixed networks for trade shows with mixtures of various MS
products, Apple machines, and various brands of routers underneath
the main blocks. Some days it was less than fun.
>In answer to your question on Routing tables, if you are referring to
>the arp structure, it looks fine, but cannot see the MAC address of
>the machines I am talking about.
>I can neither ping the devices nor can they ping me.
The IP gets the MAC and communications are MAC to MAC so if you
cant' seem the MAC you won't see anything.
How many machines are you talking about on this network? How many
subnets? Any intervening routers or smart switches.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Chaz.
>bv@wjv.comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion) wrote in message news:<HKDynG.8E4@wjv.com>...
>> In article <f9a3c53f.0308290443.285bdab0@posting.google.com>,
>> Chaz <chaz@ten-25.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Weird one this.
>>
>> >I have a network 126.x.x.x
>>
>> Just because the 96.0.0.0 thru 126.255.255.255 is a reserverd
>> block doesn't mean you should use them.
>>
>> Use the public blocks as the day the 126.x.x.x gets assinged you
>> will have to renumber everything you have.
>>
>> >My server and all devices on the network are 126.x.x.x with subnet
>> >255.0.0.0
>>
>> >I can see certain 126.x.x.x devices but some I can't
>>
>> You give not details. And since the 126.0.0.0 is a reserved block
>> and isn't assinged [see Arin on that] you need to give more
>> details.
>>
>> >The PC's can all see each other and the network prniters, but UNIX can
>> >only see a random selection.
>>
>> Are you saying you can not reach these machine by pinging the IP.
>>
>> What do your routing tables look like.
>>
>> Where does default or 0.0.0.0 point to?
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Next message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: SCO Down News (3 Stories)"
- Previous message: Dim Gool: "SCO Unix 3.2v5.0.5 system/network settings and Oracle"
- In reply to: Chaz: "Re: Network Horror"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|