[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Adrian Padilla" <selage at sbcglobal dot net>
 To:  "Claude Morin" <klodefactor at gmail dot com>, "Chris Olive" <chris at technologease dot com>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Can not see network any more
 Date:  Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:23:30 -0500
Yes i have connectivity to them all i can ping them all and i have ping 
results to all the subnets i question

Microsoft(R) Windows DOS
(C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-2001.

C:\DOCUME~1\ADRIAN~1>c d\
'C' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.

C:\DOCUME~1\ADRIAN~1>cd\

C:\>cd windows

C:\WINDOWS>cd system32

C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32>ping 172.16.10.199

Pinging 172.16.10.199 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 172.16.10.199: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 172.16.10.199: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 172.16.10.199: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127
Reply from 172.16.10.199: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=127

Ping statistics for 172.16.10.199:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32>

***************************************************8

C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32>ping 192.168.2.1

Pinging 192.168.2.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.2.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=64

Ping statistics for 192.168.2.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32>
*****************************************************
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32>ping 192.168.1.104

Pinging 192.168.1.104 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 192.168.1.104: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.104: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.104: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 192.168.1.104: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 192.168.1.104:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32>

i have ping all three subnets in question, so now what should i try
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Claude Morin" <klodefactor at gmail dot com>
To: "Chris Olive" <chris at technologease dot com>
Cc: "Adrian Padilla" <selage at sbcglobal dot net>; <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Can not see network any more


> Of *course* it's a bad idea to use anything but low-level protocols to
> confirm connectivity.  But if you read the first three messages in
> this thread, you'll see that Adrian has connectivity between the local
> networks.  The problem is that SMB-based browsing isn't working;
> that's the question I answered.
>
> Hmmm...just took a closer look at Adrian's question & first response.
> You're right; it's not clear that he has IP connectivity.  I jumped
> the gun; mea culpa.
>
> Adrian: ignore everything I said until you confirm that you have
> connectivity between the computers on your internal networks.  Easiest
> is "ping", assuming you're not blocking it on the PC you're trying to
> reach.  You should ping by IP address first; when this works, you have
> IP connectivity between the nodes.  Then, try to ping by name; when
> this works, you have DNS name resolution working properly.
>
> There's another thread on this mailing list that confirms that
> popluating your client PCs' hosts files will work for SMB-based
> browsing, on Windows 2000 and newer machines.
>
> -klode
>
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:55:04 -0500, Chris Olive <chris at technologease dot com> 
> wrote:
>>  Claude Morin wrote:
>>  [It's late, so I may be forgetting something. Can anyone confirm or 
>> refute
>> this response?] I would refute it in approach (not necessarily that any 
>> of
>> your SMB based detail is off)...  And that is that I would never 
>> "confirm"
>> that a network or node is "up" or "down" or that I did or did not have a
>> route to a node on the basis of SMB, WINS, LMHOSTS or any other Window's
>> NetBEUI-based protocol (even if it is supposedly over IP) when trying to
>> solve lower layer IP problems.  Go straight IP to the lowest layer 
>> possible
>> and work your way up/out.
>>
>>  I imagine you don't have an active directory server, a domain 
>> controller,
>> or a WINS server, correct? If that's your setup, the network 
>> neighbourhood
>> and SMB file sharing functionality you're looking for requires an MS 
>> "browse
>> master" for name lookup functionality. The problem is that -- as far as I
>> know -- the browse master functionality requires IP broadcasts, which are
>> *not* passed between m0n0wall interfaces (for good reason; see the 
>> m0n0wall
>> mailing list). Your options: - Running an active directory server or 
>> domain
>> controller is probably ridiculous in your setup (though you could do it
>> cheaply with Samba if you have a UNIX box handy). - Assuming you have an 
>> MS
>> Windows server on one of the internal networks, you could spin up a WINS
>> server on that server, and point all clients to it via the LMHOSTS file.
>> WINS...ugh. - simplest, but not sure it'll work: populate the LMHOSTS or
>> HOSTS file on all machines, with the IPs and names of all machines. 
>> 'ping'
>> would be a much simpler starting place and would better confirm why NONE 
>> of
>> this other stuff is working if you can't even ping a desired node.
>> (Notwithstanding any ICMP traffic that may or may not getting
>> blocked/rejected.)  I believe this is more along the lines of the "see" 
>> CB
>> was probably looking for...
>>
>>  [snipage]
>>
>>  -ceo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>