Re: Intermittent Routing Problem
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.comREMOVE)
Date: 04/05/04
- Next message: Bob Meyers: "Re: CUSM: SCO Schilling Solecism Solace (was Forbes.com: Linux Loyalists Leery)"
- Previous message: Bill Campbell: "Re: CUSM: SCO Schilling Solecism Solace (was Forbes.com: Linux Loyalists Leery)"
- In reply to: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Intermittent Routing Problem"
- Next in thread: David Kirk: "Re: Intermittent Routing Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:45:03 GMT
In article <gho1705k2gaccmc2pknc6r4op38m9s9281@4ax.com>,
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:54:59 +1200, David Kirk
><davidrkirk.NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>That is the whole point of this change. Our local LAN uses
>>192.100.100.0/24 which is owned by other people out there on the
>>Internet. We are moving to the 192.168.1.0/24 subnet.
>No problem. However, you're doing it all wrong. You really should
>look into a VPN. I struggled with shovelling multiple socket based
>services through a single IP address with routeing in the past and
>have literally given up. It can be done, but it's not worth the
>effort. A VPN is the only way to fly. You get all the benifits of an
>encrypted data stream (something you don't get with just routeing) as
>well as a totally transparent LAN, where all the IP socket numbers at
>both ends are visible.
>(End of sales pitch).
>>>Was this working properly *BEFORE* you twiddled with the IP
>>>addresses?
>>Yes, but we only had a single subnet, so we didn't even have a gateway
>>setup.
>Ok, so this is essentially a new topology.
>>The printer is a network printer. It is not attached to the SCO box
>>directly. It has a JetDirect card in it. The end of day reports get
>>stuck in the print queue until something (I don't know what) allows
>>the server to connect to the remote printer.
>
>The default setup for JetDirect boxes is to have the IP address
>assigned by DHCP. Are you sure that the printer has the desired IP
>address? Are you sure that it will stay that way? I suggest you
>either use a "static DHCP" assignment, or a static IP address in the
>print server.
>>The problem is that hosts on the old subnet (including the printer)
>>cannot connect to the server and vice versa. Telnet, ping, printing,
>>etc don't work between subnets.
>Yep. That's the way it's suppose to work between sub-nets. The whole
>idea behind subnets is to seperate the traffic. If you plugged both
>subnets into the same network without the router, you still would not
>be able to communicate. The router(s) need to provide the connection
>between the two networks. Think VPN.
If the router is even semi-smart then he could perhaps assign
both base networks the 192.168.100.0/24 and the 192.168.1.0/24
to the same interface [in Cicso it would be called secondary]
and have the router divert packtes for the 192.168.100.0/24
to the 192.168.1.0/24. It would only make the the 192.168.100.0/24
network unreachable, but make his local net work until the
migration is finished.
I suspect his router is set to forward all non 192.168.1 address
out to the real world.
A smarter switch could also do the same.
Bill
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Next message: Bob Meyers: "Re: CUSM: SCO Schilling Solecism Solace (was Forbes.com: Linux Loyalists Leery)"
- Previous message: Bill Campbell: "Re: CUSM: SCO Schilling Solecism Solace (was Forbes.com: Linux Loyalists Leery)"
- In reply to: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Intermittent Routing Problem"
- Next in thread: David Kirk: "Re: Intermittent Routing Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
