LinuxQuestions.org - RH 7.2 can't ping one XP Pro machine

- Linux - Networking (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-networking-3/)

- - RH 7.2 can't ping one XP Pro machine (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-networking-3/rh-7-2-cant-ping-one-xp-pro-machine-195066/)

RH 7.2 can't ping one XP Pro machine

Hi there. I've just installed a Linksys WRT54G Wifi Router, with an SMC 10/100 bridge, and three PCs.
PC 1 is "hideaway" - RH 7.2 samba server
PC 2 is "XPPRO" - WinXP Pro SP1
PC 3 is a Tablet PC (WinXP Tablet Edition SP1)

Now, the tablet sees the samba server fine, but the XPPRO machine doesnt. Standard network resource error there.
Poking away at it, I find that XPPRO can ping HIDEAWAY, but HIDEAWAY cannot ping XPPRO.
In the middle of troubleshooting this, the tablet PC has died. D'oh.
Anyway, here's the XPPRO ipconfig/all:

Code:

Windows IP Configuration



        Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : XPPRO

        Primary Dns Suffix  . . . . . . . :

        Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid

        IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No

        WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No



Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:



        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :

        Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Macronix MX98715-Based Ethernet Adap

ter (Generic) #2

        Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-A0-0C-C1-CE-08

        Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes

        Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes

        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.100

        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0

        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1

        DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1

        DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 64.59.160.13

                                            64.59.160.15

        Primary WINS Server . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.2

        Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Thursday, June 17, 2004 11:57:47 PM

        Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Friday, June 18, 2004 11:57:47 PM

And here's the ifconfig from HIDEAWAY:

Code:

eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:20:35:22:04:EE

          inet addr:192.168.0.2  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0

          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1

          RX packets:21158 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0

          TX packets:15803 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0

          collisions:0 txqueuelen:100

          RX bytes:1796213 (1.7 Mb)  TX bytes:4760277 (4.5 Mb)

          Interrupt:11 Base address:0x1000

Finally, Hideaway's route -n

Code:

Kernel IP routing table

Destination    Gateway        Genmask        Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface

192.168.0.0    0.0.0.0        255.255.255.0  U    0      0        0 eth0

127.0.0.0      0.0.0.0        255.0.0.0      U    0      0        0 lo

0.0.0.0        192.168.0.1    0.0.0.0        UG    0      0        0 eth0

The Linksys router is 192.168.0.1, and runs DHCP. It connects to a cable modem and to the SMC switch; all other machines plug into the switch. The tablet PC worked in both wifi and wired to the switch.
Before the tablet died, hideaway was able to ping it. It was also running DHCP.

Thoughts?

When you ping XPPRO from HIDEAWAY, are you typing "ping HIDEAWAY" or "ping 192.168.0.2"?
if you try both, is there any difference? (I mean, is there any WINS related problem?)

Regards,

To clarify, pinging XPPRO from HIDEAWAY has no difference between the two - ping 192.168.0.100 or ping XPPRO.
100% packet loss in both cases.

From XPPRO, pinging HIDEAWAY by name or by address (192.168.0.2) works fine.
I also access HIDEAWAY by VNC from XPPRO, that works fine, as do telnet and http.

Additional info: not sure what it means, but "arping XPPRO" or "arping 192.168.0.100" from HIDEAWAY works just fine

Code:

[root@hideaway root]# arping -c 5 192.168.0.100

ARPING 192.168.0.100 from 192.168.0.2 eth0

Unicast reply from 192.168.0.100 [00:A0:0C:C1:CE:08]  0.792ms

Unicast reply from 192.168.0.100 [00:A0:0C:C1:CE:08]  0.795ms

Unicast reply from 192.168.0.100 [00:A0:0C:C1:CE:08]  0.809ms

Unicast reply from 192.168.0.100 [00:A0:0C:C1:CE:08]  0.799ms

Unicast reply from 192.168.0.100 [00:A0:0C:C1:CE:08]  0.750ms

Sent 5 probes (1 broadcast(s))

Received 5 response(s)

Oh well, never mind - its definitely a config issue on the one machine (XPPRO), and not a routing problem.
I can ping the machine successfully from HIDEAWAY if I boot XPPRO in "Safe Mode with Networking".

So, still a problem, but one for another site & forum.

Did you ever figure this out? I have the exact same problem, suspected DoS attack at first but it's only affecting my windows machine...figures don't it?

Thanks

I am also having this same problem, and would really like to know the solution. The only part that is different, actually, is that I cannot ping my Linux machine from my Windows machine by the machine name - only the IP. I'm assuming this is a windows setting too.

Ok here's an update...

I managed to fix the problem after restoring my windows XP machine to an earlier point in time. I noticed that this problem had been happening to me for almost a week now, so I restored and magically the problem was gone. I restored back to the current date just to check, and sure enough - the problem re-appeared. However, the confusing part is that after restoring to a point in time about a week ago, I reinstalled the windows updates that had been installed in the past week one by one to try and see which one caused the problem. (Those are the only changes I can think of that have been made to the system lately). Well, a few hours later and after re-installing all of the windows updates, I still don't experience the original problem. So it must have been something else.

As a test, I also tried pinging my winXP machine from another win2K machine I have. It was able to ping my WinXP machine just fine when the Linux machine had problems, and also no matter what the state of the windows updates was.

As for the windows machine not resolving the Linux machine host name, of course I realized that I just needed to add that to my hosts file, and all is well.