You are not logged in.

#1 2006-09-09 21:07:07

spotslayer
Member
From: Texas
Registered: 2006-09-09
Posts: 22

route problem

Hi all,  I am new to this forum and also new to Archlinux. I have been using SuSE for 4 years and learned how to use that gui. I never learned the grassroot of linux though. I completed the install on my TPad 600e without any problem at all. I am using a old orinoco gold that has been my standby forever. I have googled and searched this forum for several hours and tried all the suggestions I came across. My problem seems to be the same as many others have had. I had originally thought it was a route problem, but the output or netstat -nr is exactly the same as the output on my SuSE computer. I am not good with words, but let me try a description.

I cannot connect to my home lan at all. I have assigned a static ip and the output of iwconfig verifies that it is correct as I have assigned. When I try to ping my router the system returns the famous "Destination Host Unreachable" As mentioned I have tried to setup my default gateway and it is identical to the the output from my SuSE computer. When I try a dhcp setup and do a network restart the restart always fails. I have gone over and over my conf files looking for a fatfinger mistake but all looks exactly the way the examples I have searched up and I cannot see any typos. I would like to get this figured out for myself but I am out of clues on where to look and would appreciate new ideas.

It is as if there is a firewall in place, but this is a straight from the CD basic install to which I have installe the network section.

I really need to be pointed in a new direction.

David

Offline

#2 2006-09-09 22:27:54

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 4,050

Re: route problem

please post the networking section of /etc/rc.conf , so we can see what you have set.

Are you using wireless or a wired connection ?


Booting with apg Openrc, NOT systemd.
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#3 2006-09-09 22:43:11

spotslayer
Member
From: Texas
Registered: 2006-09-09
Posts: 22

Re: route problem

These are the last settings I have tried. I have also used other sets, especially in defining eth0. No matter the setting the results are the same. It is a wireless setup using an orinoco gold. dhcp never would load and ip.

David


####-----------------------------------------------------------------------
# NETWORKING
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------
#
HOSTNAME="TPad"
#
# Interfaces to start at boot-up (in this order)
# Declare each interface then list in INTERFACES
#   - prefix an entry in INTERFACES with a ! to disable it
#   - no hyphens in your interface names - Bash doesn't like it
#
# Note: to use DHCP, set your interface to be "dhcp" (eth0="dhcp")
#
lo="lo 127.0.0.1"
###eth0="dhcp"
eth0="eth0 192.168.7xx.125 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.7xx.255"
INTERFACES=(lo eth0)
#
# Routes to start at boot-up (in this order)
# Declare each route then list in ROUTES
#   - prefix an entry in ROUTES with a ! to disable it
#
gateway="default gw 192.168.7xx.1 dev eth0"
###wireless="default gw 192.168.7xx.1 dev eth0"
ROUTES=(gateway !wireless)
#
# Enable these network profiles at boot-up.  These are only useful
# if you happen to need multiple network configurations (ie, laptop users)
#   - set to 'menu' to present a menu during boot-up (dialog package required)
#   - prefix an entry with a ! to disable it
#
# Network profiles are found in /etc/network-profiles
#
#NET_PROFILES=(main)

Offline

#4 2006-09-09 23:06:29

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,835

Re: route problem

I'm sure this is not it, but can you confirm that 7xx, as used in 192.168.7xx.1 four times above, does NOT mean "7 and two more numbers" e.g. 747?

Offline

#5 2006-09-09 23:27:22

spotslayer
Member
From: Texas
Registered: 2006-09-09
Posts: 22

Re: route problem

It does not mean 7 and two numbers. It is just one number, just not those numbers. Should have made it just x, but thought that would be confusing as well.

D

Offline

#6 2006-09-10 00:28:15

ralvez
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2005-12-06
Posts: 1,546
Website

Re: route problem

Actually, the 192.168.x.x is a private network and there is absolutly no risk of someone getting to you at all even if you post your whole address. The only way for someone to reach that address from the Internet is if they knew your public address (the one on your router) and they could crack through it.
Here ... my IP is 192.168.1.21 try to reach me  wink

You know why it is not possible? Because there are 1000s of 192.168.x.x networks over the world.

I just thought to share that because I noticed that people in public forums tend to be unconfortable "disclossing" addresses in private networks, but on the other hand there is no real danger to compromise that address unless other more detailed knowledge of the public address on that network is accessible ... and that assuming the public address is not properly firewalled.

Offline

#7 2006-09-10 08:16:04

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,835

Re: route problem

ralvez wrote:

Here ... my IP is 192.168.1.21 try to reach me  wink

Gotcha!

PING 192.168.1.21 (192.168.1.21) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=5.21 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=3.62 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=7.20 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=4.03 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=5.38 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=5.31 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=5.33 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=5.31 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=4.83 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=4.84 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=4.12 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=8.28 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=5.25 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=5.24 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=4.21 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=5.20 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=4.19 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.21: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=6.17 ms

--- 192.168.1.21 ping statistics ---
18 packets transmitted, 18 received, 0% packet loss, time 17096ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 3.624/5.212/8.288/1.101 ms

OK - fun's over. Spotslayer, can you post the output of ifconfig and iwconfig? (and don't mind ralvez - hide anything you want big_smile )

Offline

#8 2006-09-10 18:09:12

spotslayer
Member
From: Texas
Registered: 2006-09-09
Posts: 22

Re: route problem

Hey guys,  I decided to trash everything and start all over by hosing the whole setup. What did I have to lose, didn't work anyway. I repartitioned the hard file and did the same install all over again. Since I was a little more informed of things this time I went ahead and edited the conf files from the install menu. When I pushed the reboot button things came up working. DHCP and all. Already did a sys refresh just to check and dang if everything went like clock work. Now I just gotta get a WM going. I like fluxbox but am open to suggestions. May even give KDE a go.

I don't mind advice like ralvez gave. I been doing this a long time(since 82 mostly with windows, dos and a good dose of novell) and know many of the theory's.  There was enough info in my post for several of the guys in my computer group to give me a whack or two. All they had to do was read it.

Thank's guys for you help. Will probably be back for more.

D

Offline

#9 2006-09-10 19:20:28

ralvez
Member
From: Canada
Registered: 2005-12-06
Posts: 1,546
Website

Re: route problem

tomk,

That was a good one ... just how do you know the answer came from MY newtork and not yours (if you are in a 192.168.x.x.) or someone else? lol
That address exists in about 2 million other netwroks over the world.

BTW the sole purpose of my posting was to help the process of troubleshooting ... and of course no one has to post full addresses just to as for help.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB