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

To: Damion Wilson <dwilson,AT,ibl,DOT,bm>
Subject: Re: Win 2000 Cipe Question....
From: Mike Gende <mgende,AT,gendesign,DOT,com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:03:07 -0600
Cc: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
Organization: GenDesign Corporation
References: <1054905268.3ee093b499b83@chaos.smallworld.no> <1054911464.3ee0abe8618f2@chaos.smallworld.no> <3FE0D73C.38772612@gendesign.com> <200312172104.18351.dwilson@ibl.bm>

hello again,

Made some changes and am seeing progress,  but could still use a little
hand-holding. We have the cipe interface coming up on the Win2000 laptop and
configured on the Linux host on the same subnet. When we start the interface 
on
the Win2000 box, we see a "new peer" on the Linux host for that connection.
Typically, we're home free at this point. But, here's what happens:

When looking at the "sent" and "received" counters via the Status of the 
Mobile
Modem card and the Cipe device, we see only increments on the Modem Card. The
Cipe device remains at 0 sent, 0 received despite explicit attempted use of 
the
Cipe connection. Is that to be expected?

Pings from the Linux hosts to the local IP address are seen to increment the
"received" counter of the Modem Card, but (again) not the Cipe device. The 
Cipe
tunnel must be being used or the Linux hosts wouldn't know where that IP 
address
was. However, the Win2000 box doesn't respond to the ping. Pings from Win2000 
to
Linux don't seem to increment any "sent" counters so I'm not sure they are
leaving the laptop. Nonetheless, we did see that "new peer" message on the 
Linux
side and it was what we were expecting.

Finally, in configuring the Cipe device, we left the Gateway field blank. We
didn't want to use the Mobile Modem card as that address is dynamic. Could 
that
be our trouble?

I'm open to all critiques or advice. Many thanks again to Mr. Wilson for 
comments
heretofore.

Mike

> When you are pinging, I presume that you are using the CIPE adapter's 
> assigned
> IP addresses.
>
> Make sure that the netmask for the CIPE adapter allows the packet for the
> destination address to go that way. CIPE-Win32 acts like an Ethernet
> interface, so the two peer addresses must be on the same subnet. CIPE on
> Linux uses point to point semantics, so it doesn't care that the two
> addresses are on different subnets.
>
> I didn't answer right away because I took a vacation without the laptop. 
> This
> appeared to make the wife happier for some reason.
>
> DKW


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