odd networking issue
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Aperture bug #1002
Next: Old game: Coins
From: Ben Shimmin on 21 Feb 2010 15:02 James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid>: > Ben Shimmin wrote: >> James Taylor wrote: >>> That links to a page that requires JavaScript >> >> You must find the web a whole lot of fun... > > Oops! You pressed a hot button. > > As everyone knows, it's not safe these days to browse with JavaScript > enabled by default, Um, okay... b. -- <bas(a)bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/> `It is like Swinburne sat down on his soul's darkest night and designed an organized sport.' -- David Foster Wallace, _Infinite Jest_, on American football
From: James Taylor on 21 Feb 2010 15:03 Jim wrote: > James Taylor wrote: > >> What is under the menu opposite "WAN IP Mapping"? > > Pretty much the same sort of thing - "Router WAN IP Address (defauls) > followed by a string of private IPs in the 10.26.242.x range. Strange. Why would the WAN interface have private IP ranges unless it was possible to connect it to a private subnet? Surely, if the WAN interface is the ADSL line, it will always have a public IP. Is this router really an ADSL modem, or is the WAN port an ethernet socket that you connect to a separate modem? >> Is "wotan" a hostname on your LAN? I think wotan cannot be the BSD >> gateway box, as that would not have the IP 192.168.2.2. > > wotan *is* the BSD box. It has IPs 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.2 Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you had said that the BSD box got the ADSL line's *public* IP via DHCP from the router. Now I'm confused. Are you saying that it has those two private IPs on one NIC or two separate NICs one connected to the router and one to the hub of your LAN? What happened to the public IP we were discussing? Was that hypothetical? Sigh... I had hoped that this conversation would lead to greater understanding of the router for us both, but I feel I've already taken up too much of your time and we don't seem to be getting any closer to an understanding. So please feel free to end it here. -- James Taylor
From: Jim on 21 Feb 2010 16:48 James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you had said that the BSD box got the > ADSL line's *public* IP via DHCP from the router. Now I'm confused. Are > you saying that it has those two private IPs on one NIC or two separate > NICs one connected to the router and one to the hub of your LAN? What > happened to the public IP we were discussing? Was that hypothetical? er...go back and read my original post. We're dealing with a single FreeBSD machine with two NICs. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: James Taylor on 22 Feb 2010 04:35 Jim wrote: > James Taylor wrote: > >> Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you had said that the BSD box got the >> ADSL line's *public* IP via DHCP from the router. > > er...go back and read my original post. We're dealing with a single > FreeBSD machine with two NICs. Ok, here's what you wrote about that in the first post: Jim wrote: > re0 has a static ip address of 192.168.1.1 and is the NIC for the > internal network (mostly Macs). > > dc0 gets its IP address via DHCP from a BT Business Hub 2700HGV ADSL > router. > > Here's where it starts to get a bt strange... > > The Business Hub is set to issue DHCP in the range 192.168.2.2 to > 192.168.2.10 - in fact there will only be a single device connected > to it. The router itself is at 192.168.2.1 > > However, when the FreeBSD machine gets its IP, it's getting the WAN > IP address (212.159.71.78) and not 192.168.2.2 as I would expect. Then you posted a link to the image at: <http://img.skitch.com/20100221-phh3ad71nt74gyc7awgf5anehe.jpg> showing "wotan" with IP 192.168.2.2 and you added that: > wotan *is* the BSD box. It has IPs 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.2 So there is definitely an inconsistency. Perhaps you'd like to clarify this for me. Indeed maybe there has been a mistake and this will reveal something. Does wotan get the 192.168.2.2 address via DHCP or not? If it does, then where's your problem? What happened to the public IP that you previously claimed was allocated to wotan's dc0 interface via DHCP? Do you still uphold that claim? If the public IP is passed to wotan's dc0 interface by DHCP as you believe then I'm very curious to know how the router arranges for itself to be used as the gateway. Please type netstat -rn on wotan to see. PS. A quick tip for you: Running ProFTPD, OpenSSH, and Apple Remote Desktop (VNC) on the default ports is asking for the wrong kind of attention. I assume you accept the risks of exposing Apache on a box within your own network, but the other services can be configured to listen on high random ports where opportunistic scans won't find them. -- James Taylor
From: Jim on 22 Feb 2010 04:46
James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > > wotan *is* the BSD box. It has IPs 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.2 > > So there is definitely an inconsistency. Perhaps you'd like to clarify > this for me. Indeed maybe there has been a mistake and this will reveal > something. > > Does wotan get the 192.168.2.2 address via DHCP or not? Yes, it does - now. It didn't previously because I'd misconfigured the BT Business Hub. The NIC that should be 192.168.2.x is getting its IP via DHCP from the BT unit, but I'd misconfigured the BT unit. > If it does, then where's your problem? I don't have a problem now - I fixed it. > > What happened to the public IP that you previously claimed was allocated > to wotan's dc0 interface via DHCP? Do you still uphold that claim? That was due to me misconfiguring the Business Hub. It was answering the DHCP request from wotan by giving it the WAN IP instead of the private 192.168.2.2 IP. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ |