<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: Re: cipe-win32 not answering, am I stupid???
From: Damion Wilson <dwilson,AT,ibl,DOT,bm>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:50:08 +0200
In-reply-to: <31276.988416041@www32.gmx.net>

CIPE-Win32 does "remember" the address of the new peer, even if a non-zero
address is used for it in the control panel.

DKW

On Sunday, April 29, 2001 at 14:41:06 [ADT] Erik Wallin wrote:
> cipe32,AT,gmx,DOT,de wrote:
> 
> > > (Don't worry this will be fixed in a later release. :-)
> > Oh, so I am not the only one with the problem?
> 
> Well I don't know. I was referring to the problem of computers being
> stupid and
> that may improve in later version of your computer. Sorry, I'll never try
> to be
> funny again. Promise.:-)
> 
> Anyway. I think you might have spotted a problem in CIPE Win32.
> 
> Your home Linux machine does not have a fixed IP address if I understand
> things
> right. When it connects to the W2K machine, the cipe-server on the W2K
> will detect
> a new peer IP and port number. It will register this and start using it
> for
> traffic from the W2K to the home Linux. At least this is what is supposed
> to
> happen. But, I'm not sure this has been implemented yet.
> 
> Of course, if the IP of your home Linux changes without any traffic from
> it, the
> machine with fixed IP (your W2K) won't be able to reach it.
> 
> To see this in action - look in the log-files of a working Linux-CIPE.
> You'll see
> a message saying something like "New peer 123.456.789.123 port 4711"
> everytime a
> peer gets a new IP or when it connects for the first time.
> 
> > But I am sorry, I REALLY AM stupid, since I changed the addresses in
> the
> > netstat result (did not want to show my work address, but I made a
> mistake on
> > the first line and forgot changing it, well... :-)
> 
> No problem, I just wanted to verify this before I gave you a definite
> answer.
> 
> > > Can you ping the Linux-machine on the physical inteface from the
> Win2K
> > > machine?
> > No, the Linux-machine does not reply to echo requests, I made our
> firewall
> > not answering them. But I swear the port 1716 is open! :-)
> 
> I guess this is not a problem since the Linux-machine can send packets to
> the W2K
> machine. So the port must be open.
> 
> > > What does tracert say when you do a trace from the W2K to the Linux?
> > Traceroute done from a Sun in the same subnet, since I am at home now.
> >
> > traceroute to p3E9ED073.dip.t-dialin.net (62.158.208.115) 30 hops max,
> 38
> > byte packets
> >  1  csr1cz.lrz-muenchen.de (129.187.12.254)  1.90 ms  78.5 ms  0.897 ms
> > ...
> > 14  p3E9ED073.dip.t-dialin.net (62.158.208.115)  72.2 ms (ttl=243!) 
> 67.8 ms
> > (ttl=243!)  68.6 ms (ttl=243!)
> 
> Seems ok to me.
> 
> > > What networks do you have (including router address and netmask)?
> > Work: 129.187.12.0/24, my address is assigned by DHCP, usually host 68
> (but
> > only when I am working there, laptop), router 254
> 
> Ok, so you don't have any PAT (IP masquerading) in the firewall?
> 
> > Home: dynamic IP, get it over PPPoE, MTU of ppp0 is 1492
> 
> Ok, this might be the problem. If CIPE Win32 doesn't register the adress
> of the
> peer dynamically it would give the same symptoms that you are describing.
> 
> > > What are the physical/PPP interfaces on the three computers?
> > Home:
> > ppp0 via PPPoE (DSL) over a 3com card (eth1 below) (using rp-pppoe from
> > roaring penguin)
> > ppp0      Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
> >           inet addr:62.158.208.115  P-t-P:192.168.254.1
> > Mask:255.255.255.255
> >           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:1492  Metric:1
> >           RX packets:202804 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >           TX packets:142381 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >           collisions:0 txqueuelen:3
> >
> > eth1 is directly plugged into a DSL-modem and gets raw PPPoE data
> > eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:10:5A:XX:XX:XX
> >           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
> >           RX packets:666678 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >           TX packets:413166 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >           collisions:19 txqueuelen:100
> >           Interrupt:12 Base address:0x330
> 
> Ok, just wanted to understand if you are on a local net, but you are not.
> 
> > Work (my laptop): Win2K with an Intel 8255x
> > ipconfig /all returns the following:
> > Ethernetadapter "Ethernet":
> >
> >         Verbindungsspezifisches DNS-Suffix: home
> >         Beschreibung. . . . . . . . . . . : Intel 8255x-basierter
> > PCI-Ethernetadapter (10/100)
> >         Physikalische Adresse . . . . . . : 00-00-XX-XX-XX-XX
> >         DHCP-aktiviert. . . . . . . . . . : Ja
> >         Autokonfiguration aktiviert . . . : Ja
> >         IP-Adresse. . . . . . . . . . . . : 129.187.12.68
> >         Subnetzmaske. . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
> >         Standardgateway . . . . . . . . . : 129.187.12.254
> >         DHCP-Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 129.187.12.XXX
> >         DNS-Server. . . . . . . . . . . . : 129.187.10.25
> 
> Ok. Now I understand the connections.
> 
> > Second working Linux machine:
> > eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:00:XX:XX:XX:XX
> >           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:202371 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >           TX packets:162468 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >           collisions:4 txqueuelen:100
> >           Interrupt:11 Base address:0x2000
> > This machine is behind a Netpipe DSL router which does NAT, eth1 gets
> normal
> > ethernet data and their public address is mapped to the 192.168.0.2.
> 
> Ok, so this machine has a public address. When you connect to that using
> your
> home-Linux it works?
> 
> Can you connect the second Linux machine to the W2K machine? That would
> verify
> that the problem is in the dynamically assigned IP.
> 
> I'll eventually get to that part of the CIPE Win32-code, so I might have
> an
> answer. I'm reviewing (on my own initiative) the code to try to find
> weaknesses or
> bugs in order to improve the stability. Right now however I'm focusing on
> the
> driver (the part of the code that goes into the kernel) to make sure it
> doesn't
> crash the OS. The next step is to look at the service which does the
> actual
> CIPE-work.
> 
> Let me know how you do, and if you solve the problem.
> 
> /Erik
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Message sent by the cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de mailing list.
> Unsubscribe: mail majordomo,AT,inka,DOT,de, "unsubscribe cipe-l" in body
> Other commands available with "help" in body to the same address.
> CIPE info and list archive: 
><URL:http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/cipe.html>
> 





<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]