Yes yes , it's showing http listen:

[root@localhost ~]# ss -46tla
State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:Port
LISTEN 0 5 192.168.122.1:domain *:*
LISTEN 0 128 *:ssh *:*
LISTEN 0 128 127.0.0.1:ipp *:*
LISTEN 0 100 127.0.0.1:smtp *:*
CLOSE-WAIT 1 0 192.168.2.128:44877 192.168.2.128:http
LISTEN 0 128 :::http :::*
LISTEN 0 128 :::ssh :::*
LISTEN 0 128 ::1:ipp :::*
LISTEN 0 100 ::1:smtp :::*

yes they are in same subnet and vmnet8 switch .
one thing is that when tcpdump is running and then i ping from windows 192.168.2.128 (ping is successful although), the tcpdump output have no change!

Issue

arp -a

on both machines, then check if the MAC matches the other. CentOS might not have arp installed, so can use

ip link ls <CentOS Int>
tcpdump -tni <CentOS int> icmp

If you still don't get any ping traffic, I suspect that Windows is pinging a wrong node.

1 members found this post helpful.

[root@localhost logs]# arp -a

? (192.168.2.1) at 00:50:56:c0:00:08 [ether] on eno16777736
? (192.168.2.2) at 00:50:56:f3:8d:b5 [ether] on eno16777736

Attached Thumbnails

 

Take a look on these , too.

Attached Thumbnails

     

Thanks for the screen shots.

Now go back to CentOS, get the ouput of the command above. Check if the MAC address is: 00:0C:29:89:C9:EA (as per your screen shot).

1 members found this post helpful.

Thank you c0wb0y . some meaningfull information i just catched from tcpdump:

IP 192.168.2.1 > 192.168.2.128: ICMP echo request, id 1, seq 24, length 40
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo reply, id 1, seq 24, length 40
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP host 192.168.2.128 unreachable - admin prohibited, length 60
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP host 192.168.2.128 unreachable - admin prohibited, length 56
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo request, id 10431, seq 1, length 64
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo request, id 10431, seq 2, length 64
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo request, id 10431, seq 3, length 64
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo request, id 10431, seq 4, length 64
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo request, id 10431, seq 5, length 64
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo request, id 10431, seq 6, length 64
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo request, id 10431, seq 7, length 64
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo request, id 10431, seq 8, length 64
IP 192.168.2.128 > 192.168.2.1: ICMP echo request, id 10431, seq 9, length 64

i think if i solve this unreachable - admin prohibited , then i can see that htnml page on windows. because i think both agree that all other things is OK. isn't it?

Firewall or SELInux seem to be blocking icmps. Turn them off temporarily.

1 members found this post helpful.

[root@localhost logs]# traceroute 192.168.2.1
traceroute to 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 * * *
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 * * *
5 * * *
6 * * *
7 * * *
8 * * *
9 * * *
10 * * *
11 * * *
12 * * *
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * * *
18 * * *
19 * * *
20 * * *
21 * * *
22 * * *
23 * * *
24 * * *
25 * * *
26 * * *
27 * * *
28 * * *
29 * * *
30 * * *
[root@localhost logs]#

YYYYYYYYEEEESSSSS!!

Attached Thumbnails

 

Your traceroute ouput just confirmed my suspicion that interface 2.1 is not accepting icmp as denoted by '*'. Traceroute, btw, is less usefull in this instance as nodes are on the same subnet.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks from all who are helped me specially c0wb0y

Glad to hear you got it going.

Now, will you please marked it as [SOLVED].

1 members found this post helpful.

Should i bring back firewalls again? it's neccesary? i'm just using this centos for learning and experiment.

Disabling SELinux is safe?

1 members found this post helpful.