Linux - NetworkingThis forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Please Please help me with this one
I have 3 servers. I connected two servers with 'Cross Cable' and they work fine, but when I tried to connect server3 to server1 with Cross Cable they can't ping to each other
What I'm doing wrong? maybe I need router? or external switch?
look at this
[root@server1 /]# ping 192.168.1.54
PING 192.168.1.54 (192.168.1.54) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.56 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.56 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.56 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
192.168.1.56 is the eth1 of server one! why it's pinging into himself?
Each of your servers has multiple network interfaces. Why?
Your server1 has four network interfaces with four different IP addresses. How/why did you configure it that way.
I'm not sure of the rules for configuring multiple interfaces.
Server1 seems to "know" that 192.168.1.* is reached through eth1.
Maybe you need to configure the private network between server1 and server3 as something else, such as 192.168.2.*
Rewiring it all using one interface and one IP address per server and using a switch to tie them all together would be the more common method and less confusing. I don't know whether you hope to transfer so much local data that direct connections are noticeably better and worth the trouble of working through this confusion.
Last edited by johnsfine; 11-02-2009 at 08:57 AM..
It's not pinging into itself that I can see, it's trying to access x.x.x.54 from x.x.x.56 and x.x.x.56 doesn't seem to think that x.x.x.54 out there. I'm a big fan of routers and switches (a cheap gigabit switch can be had for under $50 here as of last week) so I've never tried your particular setup. Things I would check:
1. Can it ping itself? loopback and x.x.x.54
2. Can you ping in the other direction? that would tell you the cable and NICs are working correctly and that it's probably a path issue.
3. Swap cables around making sure to test a known good and the possible bad.
4. If all checks out well, try changing the network assignment for the specific link (change the x.x.1.x to x.x.2.x on both sides fo the link)
reconfigure the offending adapter.
Not knowing anything about your machine's setup aside from the adapter configuration, it may need additional configuration of services or packages.
In most setups I've seen, no two NICs are on the same subnet. If you have eth2 (on server 1) connected to server 3, and run a ping with eth1 on the same subnet, eth1 might reply that it can't find the address.
I would assume that changing either the subnet that server3 and server1 are communicating on, or changing the subnet of the other NIC should fix the problem.
If not running wireshark on the destination server will let you know if it,
1. See's the incoming ARP, and
2. If it's replying.
This should give you a good idea of where the problem is coming from.
In most setups I've seen, no two NICs are on the same subnet. If you have eth2 (on server 1) connected to server 3, and run a ping with eth1 on the same subnet, eth1 might reply that it can't find the address.
I would assume that changing either the subnet that server3 and server1 are communicating on, or changing the subnet of the other NIC should fix the problem.
If not running wireshark on the destination server will let you know if it,
1. See's the incoming ARP, and
2. If it's replying.
This should give you a good idea of where the problem is coming from.
I tried to set them on subnet class-b 255.255.X.X but they couldn't communicate
tnx! i need to give Wireshark a try
Quote:
Originally Posted by damgar
it's trying to access x.x.x.54 from x.x.x.56 and x.x.x.56 doesn't seem to think that x.x.x.54 out there. I'm a big fan of routers and switches (a cheap gigabit switch can be had for under $50 here as of last week) so I've never tried your particular setup. Things I would check:
1. Can it ping itself? loopback and x.x.x.54
2. Can you ping in the other direction? that would tell you the cable and NICs are working correctly and that it's probably a path issue.
3. Swap cables around making sure to test a known good and the possible bad.
4. If all checks out well, try changing the network assignment for the specific link (change the x.x.1.x to x.x.2.x on both sides fo the link)
reconfigure the offending adapter.
Not knowing anything about your machine's setup aside from the adapter configuration, it may need additional configuration of services or packages.
And remember, switches are cheap! Good luck.
1. Yes
2. Yes i can. if i turn off server2 and try to ping with server3 to server1, it's working.
3. I tried that already, also tried subnet class-b 255.255.X.X
Yeah my date-base center promised to give me 3com-switch for free))
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsfine
Each of your servers has multiple network interfaces. Why?
Your server1 has four network interfaces with four different IP addresses. How/why did you configure it that way.
.
Hmm I don't sure. At centos setup I had to set each eth* with ip and subnet, so I gave each eth a unique ip... can i give the same ip for eth1/2/3?
Quote:
Rewiring it all using one interface and one IP address per server and using a switch to tie them all together would be the more common method and less confusing. I don't know whether you hope to transfer so much local data that direct connections are noticeably better and worth the trouble of working through this confusion
please explain, what you mean by "Rewiring it all using one interface"
I can leave eth0(the internet connection on each server)
remove eth2 and etch3 from server1, then contact eth1 of each server to switch?
Last edited by Stephan_Craft; 11-03-2009 at 08:01 AM..
2. Yes i can. if i turn off server2 and try to ping with server3 to server1, it's working.
3. I tried that already, also tried subnet class-b 255.255.X.X
Seems that it's just path confusion. The switch should get you where you want to be. Maybe a reboot with the x.x.2.x's in place would get you working in the meantime (just a guess), but the switch is definitely a simpler configuration.
Seems that it's just path confusion. The switch should get you where you want to be. Maybe a reboot with the x.x.2.x's in place would get you working in the meantime (just a guess), but the switch is definitely a simpler configuration.
Good Luck
Never tried a switch before... how to config all that using switch?
I can leave eth0(the internet connection on each server)
remove eth2 and etch3 from server1, then contact eth1 of each server to switch?
Sounds like you will leave your Internet connections alone (public IP addresses/eth0 in your case I guess) and like you said above, leave just one other adapter per machine (eth1) and assign each of these an address from your 192.168.1.x private network. Plug a straight-thru cable into each adapter, the other end into the switch's lan ports and that should be the end of it. Simple. The only problem you might have is if the switch has a previous configuration in it you might need to default it or otherwise reconfigure it. That would be dependent on the switch model. Generally, there is nothing more to do than plug it in and assign addresses to the adaptors.
Sounds like you will leave your Internet connections alone (public IP addresses/eth0 in your case I guess) and like you said above, leave just one other adapter per machine (eth1) and assign each of these an address from your 192.168.1.x private network. Plug a straight-thru cable into each adapter, the other end into the switch's lan ports and that should be the end of it. Simple. The only problem you might have is if the switch has a previous configuration in it you might need to default it or otherwise reconfigure it. That would be dependent on the switch model. Generally, there is nothing more to do than plug it in and assign addresses to the adaptors.
In a standard configuration, each ethernet interface on a single device is expected to be on a unique subnet. Your server1 configuration shows interfaces eth1 - eth3 all having unique IP addresses, but are all on the same subnet. Looking at your routing table ('ip route show') you should have a path to each subnet reachable by that machine, with a single interface providing the path to each subnet, and ONE providing a default path to all other (unlisted) subnets. If you have multiple interfaces all pointing to the same subnet the machine won't know which to send traffic to. It is possible to interconnect three servers without a switch, but you'll need to configure a unique subnet for each connection pair, and enable routing on the machine in the middle if you want the machines on the ends to talk to each other.
Unless you are interesting in learning about subnets and routing (very beneficial if you have the time!), using a switch is by far the easier way to connect three servers. Plug ONE interface from each server into the switch, each with a unique IP but a matching subnet, and pick one to be the default gateway and pass traffic on to the next network (most likely the Internet).
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
my date-base center promised to give me 3com-switch for free))
