>
STOP>>>>
>
>
>
>Jon, I'm not sure which mailing list you saw this on, but ISP-tech has
>been the only one attempting to help me out so far. Let me know and
>I'll include that list in the cc: addresses.
>
>I have decided to grant jon's request and post all the real information
>we are dealing with here. I'll also try and post a summary of what I
>have tried so far.
>
>We have 4 class C addresses assigned to Michiana.net,
>208.226.220.0-223.0. We have these variably subnetted. The class C we
>are dealing with is 208.226.220.0, here is how it is subnetted out:
>
>208.226.220.0/30 (Unusable, all 0's and 1's)
>208.226.220.4/30
>208.226.220.8/29
>208.226.220.16/29
>208.226.220.24/30
>208.226.220.28/30
>208.226.220.32/27
>208.226.220.64/26
>208.226.220.128/26 (** This is the subnet we are working with in this
>issue **)
>208.226.220.192/27
>208.226.220.224/27
>208.226.220.252/30 (Unusable, all 0's and 1's)
>
>From anywhere I can ping 208.226.220.135 (255.255.255.192) but I can't
>connect to port 80 from anywhere (including the server it's aliased on).
>One potentially important note here. If I ping one of the other aliased
>IP's from the server itself it answers with the IP:
>
>isp# ping 208.226.220.129
>PING 208.226.220.129 (208.226.220.129): 56 data bytes
>64 bytes from 208.226.220.129: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=2.4 ms
>64 bytes from 208.226.220.129: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=2.2 ms
>64 bytes from 208.226.220.129: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=116.6 ms
>
>--- 208.226.220.129 ping statistics ---
>3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
>round-trip min/avg/max = 2.2/40.4/116.6 ms
>
>However, if I ping the one that doesn't work for port 80 I get the
>localhost IP number back.
>isp# ping 208.226.220.135
>PING 208.226.220.135 (208.226.220.135): 56 data bytes
>64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.8 ms
>64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.5 ms
>64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.5 ms
>
>
>--- 208.226.220.135 ping statistics ---
>3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
>round-trip min/avg/max = 0.5/0.6/0.8 ms
>
>
>
>If I ping from any other host it responds with 208.226.220.135 however.
>Go figure.
>
>Things I have tried/checked:
>- routed is not running. I do not run rip.
>- There are no stray routes on the network. (i.e. there are no subnets
>inside of the 208.226.220.128/26 network)
>- I am getting no errors or messages of any kind in the webserver logs.
>- I have rebooted and restarted the webserver (apache) numerous times.
>- ifconfig reports nothing strange.
>- traceroute reports nothing out of the ordinary.
>- the httpd.conf file is correct (i.e. the virtual-server definitions)
>- The only host numbers that exhibit this problem are:
>
>135:10000111
>136:10001000
>143:10001111
>144:10010000
>151:10010111
>152:10011000
>159:10011111
>160:10100000
>167:10100111
>168:10101000
>175:10101111
>176:10110000
>183:10110111
>184:10111000
>
>None of these will work.
>- All the rest of the numbers in that network are aliased already and
>work fine. I have also now routed 208.226.222.128/26 to that same host
>and begun aliasing numbers from it for virtual hosting. This is working
>fine (so it isn't simply having too many aliases or anything) except for
>those same numbers in that network.
>- Nothing strange in my syslog.
>- loopback addresses are properly set with the appropriate netmasks.
>- I have also pounded on my desk, banged my head on a wall and paced
>till my co-workers were ready to cement me to my chair, all to no avail.
>
>Does this help? Is there more information that you need? Please let me
>know and I will provide it. (With certain reasonable limitations of
>course. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 9:57 PM
>To: Mark Bainter
>Cc: 'isp-unix@isp-tech.com'; 'isp-tech@isp-tech.com';
>'linuxisp@friendly.jeffnet.org'
>Subject: Re: IP Aliasing under Red Hat 5.0 (Weird problem)
>
>
>On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Mark Bainter wrote:
>
>TCP connections to port 80 from anywhere don't work, but you can ping
>them
>from anywhere?...or just from the server?
>
>> The problem follows along all of those ip numbers. Anybody got any
>> answers for me?
>
>Repost the question cleaned up a bit and with the real IP's and people
>can
>look into it. With made up addresses, all they can do is speculate.
>
>
>__________________The ISP-TECH Discussion List___________________
>To Remove, Send an Email To: mailto:remove-isp-tech@isp-tech.com
>To Join, Send an Email To: mailto:join-isp-tech@isp-tech.com
>
>CNET.COM and Snap! Online in SF have Positions open include Unix sys
>admin's, Software Engineers and Database Engineers. www.cnet.com/jobs
>
>
>
>__________________The ISP-TECH Discussion List___________________
>To Remove, Send an Email To: mailto:remove-isp-tech@isp-tech.com
>To Join, Send an Email To: mailto:join-isp-tech@isp-tech.com
>
>CNET.COM and Snap! Online in SF have Positions open include Unix sys
>admin's, Software Engineers and Database Engineers. www.cnet.com/jobs
>
>
>
>__________________The ISP-TECH Discussion List___________________
>To Remove, Send an Email To: mailto:remove-isp-tech@isp-tech.com
>To Join, Send an Email To: mailto:join-isp-tech@isp-tech.com
>
>CNET.COM and Snap! Online in SF have Positions open include Unix sys
>admin's, Software Engineers and Database Engineers. www.cnet.com/jobs
Ameritech, Our Link To Disaster
"On a day no different than the one now dawning, Leonardo drew the first
strokes of the Mona Lisa, Shakespeare wrote the first words of Hamlet, and
Beethoven began work on his Ninth Symphony." And Windows98 Crashed!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu