On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Jeff Graves wrote:
>> yes, he should be able to if
>
> >Of course this assumes the route exist for the interface
> >and the "local" network.
>
> he had the 192.168.1.0 entry in the tables.
>
Ermm... excuse me, I'm on a 192.168.0.x network. :-) But your point
is taken.
>
> H
>He should be able to ping the local windows boxes without the
default
>route right?
yes, he should be able to if
>Of course this assumes the route exist for the interface
>and the "local" network.
he had the 192.168.1.0 entry in the tables.
>The default would only be used if a host not in
>th
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Bret Hughes wrote:
>
> He should be able to ping the local windows boxes without the default
> route right? Of course this assumes the route exist for the interface
> and the "local" network. The default would only be used if a host not in
> the local net was accessed. The
Jeff Graves wrote:
> If there's no default route listed when you issue the command
> route -n, then you won't be able to ping out. If you type route you
> should get 4 entries (that's what I get on all the default install
> boxes i have):
>
> DestGateMask
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Jeff Graves wrote:
> If there's no default route listed when you issue the command
> route -n, then you won't be able to ping out. If you type route you
> should get 4 entries (that's what I get on all the default install
> boxes i have):
>
> Dest GateMas
If there's no default route listed when you issue the command
route -n, then you won't be able to ping out. If you type route you
should get 4 entries (that's what I get on all the default install
boxes i have):
DestGateMaskFlags Int
192.168.1.2 0
John Aldrich wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, eric clover wrote:
> > ICMP disabled/blocked in the firewall on the box???
> > mine is on my box at home and i can not ping anything and pings to the box
> > are blocked
> > eric
> >
> Well the wierd thing is it just suddenly stopped working yesterday.
John Aldrich wrote:
[snip]
> I don't know what route -n says, haven't checked that yet, but on my
> AMD k6 box here at work, "route" by itself shows the existing routes.
> Ifconfig eth0 shows the "normal" stuff, as I recall. I don't have
> that machine set up and hooked up to a monitor at the mome
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, eric clover wrote:
> ICMP disabled/blocked in the firewall on the box???
> mine is on my box at home and i can not ping anything and pings to the box
> are blocked
> eric
>
Well the wierd thing is it just suddenly stopped working yesterday.
It was working and then all of a su
1 AM
Subject: Re: Help! Network stopped working!
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Jake McHenry wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Bret Hughes wrote:
> >
> > --I don't know for sure but I would be suprised if even ping would work
if
> > --there was a 10/100 MB confusion.
> >
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Jake McHenry wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Bret Hughes wrote:
>
> --I don't know for sure but I would be suprised if even ping would work if
> --there was a 10/100 MB confusion.
>
>
> that's right. If you have a 10 meg network, and try to link up at 100 meg,
> the link ligh
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Bret Hughes wrote:
> What is the purpose of this machine? Is it your gateway/ firewall/ masq
> box or just a workstation. I don't think you need a default route if
> there is only eth0 as an interface (i.e. workstation). You will need a
> gateway entry if you need to access
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Bret Hughes wrote:
--I don't know for sure but I would be suprised if even ping would work if
--there was a 10/100 MB confusion.
that's right. If you have a 10 meg network, and try to link up at 100 meg,
the link lights normally will blink, or just not come on at all. It wi
John Aldrich wrote:
> My linux box at home is a dual-PPro motherboard (only uni-processor
> right now -- 2nd CPU died) with a built-in 10/100 Intel EtherExpress
> NIC.
> For some reason it has stopped seeing the network. My *guess* since I
> can ping the box from another machine is that somehow i
14 matches
Mail list logo
