My routing table definitely looks wrong to me:
route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 millie.mills.cu 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo default 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
And, "route" hangs for a while before printing the last line. My network response is fine. Comments? TIA, Bill
The hanging is because it's trying to do a DNS lookup on 192.168.1.1. running it with the -n switch will fix that. Could you paste the output of route -n to us? I'd like to see what ip address millie.mills.cu is. And include the output of 'ifconfig eth0' just so we have a complete picture. Scott On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
My routing table definitely looks wrong to me:
route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 millie.mills.cu 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo default 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
And, "route" hangs for a while before printing the last line. My network response is fine.
Comments?
TIA, Bill
_______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug@mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Scott, Thanks for the analysis. Here's the output of "route -n" Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 The IP millie.mills.curran is 192.168.1.10. I'm inside a linksys firewall/router. I don't have an internal DNS server set up yet. I guess once I do I won't need the "-n" switch. (I've been playing with a DNS server config, but I haven't had the time to finish it up. It's a learning project.) Looking at the table above, and comparing it to one from work (running RedHat 6.0), I would think that the first entry should be something like: 192.168.1.10 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0 I'm running RedHat 7.0 at home. Thanks, Bill On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Scott Venier wrote:
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 22:43:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Venier <scottven@umich.edu> Reply-To: wlug@mail.wlug.org To: Worcester Linux Users Group <wlug@mail.wlug.org> Subject: Re: [Wlug] routing table question
The hanging is because it's trying to do a DNS lookup on 192.168.1.1. running it with the -n switch will fix that. Could you paste the output of route -n to us? I'd like to see what ip address millie.mills.cu is. And include the output of 'ifconfig eth0' just so we have a complete picture.
Scott
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
My routing table definitely looks wrong to me:
route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 millie.mills.cu 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo default 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
And, "route" hangs for a while before printing the last line. My network response is fine.
Comments?
TIA, Bill
_______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug@mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug
_______________________________________________ Wlug mailing list Wlug@mail.wlug.org http://mail.wlug.org/mailman/listinfo/wlug
Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
My routing table definitely looks wrong to me:
route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 millie.mills.cu 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo default 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
Comments?
"Comments/" is a dangerous thing to write :-) The second line looks right to me. The first line then becomes suspect since you do not need a gateway (as in the G of UG) to the network you are part of. In turn, that default on the last line also makes me suspicious. To set up my default gateway, I type something like route add default gw 192.168.1.1 and I get a line in the route -n output that looks like 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 with no default in the first position but rather the more reasonable 0.0.0.0 which, with the rest of the line says to go to 192.168.1.1 for anything outside of the local network. The combination of these two features makes me wonder whether you are mistyping the route command to set up the GW line. When I get something like those two lines I get rid of them and reenter what I then hope to be :-) a more syntactically correct route command and then check route -n to see if I got it right. Hope this helps a bit. :-)
And, "route" hangs for a while before printing the last line.
I can't comment on that :-( doug -- Douglas R Waud 17 Lantern Lane, Shrewsbury, MA, 01545-2006 http://www.ummed.edu/pub/d/drw/
Bill Mills-Curran wrote: I missed that -n omission first time round :-( (thanks to Bill M-C for picking up on that!) so my comments about the last line's "default" being odd are wrong. As the route -n output shows, default is, indeed the 0.0.0.0 it should be. That first line still looks redundant to me. doug -- Douglas R Waud 17 Lantern Lane, Shrewsbury, MA, 01545-2006 http://www.ummed.edu/pub/d/drw/
participants (3)
-
Bill Mills-Curran -
doug waud -
Scott Venier