On 7/25/06, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:

well, ubuntu is right. What network were you trying to connect to? A cable ISP?

I guess it is right by principle. By principle a network gateway should belong to the network. But windows takes care of this discrepancy very smoothly. I guess it must be assuming a direct route to the gateway. On similar lines if a gateway is specified as being outside the network then it wouldn't be that bad an idea add a -host route to the gateway.

I'm thinking of another little hack wherein I don't have to go through the entire "create another startup script" routine. I'll keep the list posted if it works.

Regards, Siddhesh

On 7/25/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Is the system using pppoe?

What difference does it make? Either ways my basic net configuration has to happen right? Once I get the net config right I can login to hathway using cyberoam.

Regards, Siddhesh

On 7/26/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

PPPoE overides IP settings. In a pc that I maintain, there is no IP alloted by the cablenet, so by default the nic card is set to dhcp. The dhcp server does not exist so after some hanging around, it gets some default ip like 169.XXX.XX.... The pppoe dialer is used to login to the cablenet and it takes over the ip, gateway and dns settings.

Well I have an IP, gateway, etc. alloted by the cablenetwalla. Also, the connection is directly through ethernet; there is no cable modem involved.

Siddhesh

On 7/26/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

different networks? Normally they don't. In windows where it works, before you run the dialler, open the network connections and in your ethernet properties check the option that indicates a bad or incomplete connection. It should show a yellow triangle in your network card icon in the system tray. See if your cable guy gives you a ip and gateway on the same network.

Hmm, I haven't checked that way. By default the dialer launches and connects at startup. I'll try all this today evening and let you know.

Regards, Siddhesh

On 7/26/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

What is the ip and gateway of the ppp interface after its connected? In command prompt run `ipconfig /all'. See if you can cheat the network by giving the final ip in the ethernet card settings. Or does a random 10.10.10.254 as IP and 10.10.10.1 as gateway work for the same? That would be the least used one. Once the same network settings are possible, it should work in linux too.

The IP address and gateway are static and were provided at windows install, not configured after dial-in. So I guess that windows network config assumes a direct route to the gateway, which should be a fair assumption right?

Here's what I did to the interfaces file which got it to work in the end. Now I don't need a separate script to set the direct route to gateway.

<snippet from /etc/network/interfaces> iface eth0 inet static up route add -host 10.10.10.2 dev $IFACE up route add -net 0.0.0.0 netmask 0.0.0.0 gw 10.10.10.2 dev $IFACE down route del -net 0.0.0.0 netmask 0.0.0.0 gw 10.10.10.2 dev $IFACE down route del -host 10.10.10.2 dev $IFACE address 172.20.x.x netmask 255.255.255.0 network 172.20.x.x broadcast 172.20.x.x # gateway 10.10.10.2 # dns-* options are implemented by the resolvconf package, if installed dns-nameservers 10.10.10.2 </snippet>

Basically, the sequence for initialization is: 1) Set up interface without the gateway 2) Set up direct route to gateway 3) Add default gateway

For de-initialization: 1) Remove default gateway 2) Delete route to the gateway 3) deinitialize interface

But really, isn't it worth it to add this little hack that will assume(add) a direct route to the gateway like windows apparently does?

Regards, Siddhesh

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 09:36:04PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

On 7/26/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

...

What is the ip and gateway of the ppp interface after its connected? In command prompt run `ipconfig /all'. See if you can cheat the network by giving the final ip in the ethernet card settings. Or does a random 10.10.10.254 as IP and 10.10.10.1 as gateway work for the same? That would be the least used one. Once the same network settings are possible, it should work in linux too.

The IP address and gateway are static and were provided at windows install, not configured after dial-in. So I guess that windows network config assumes a direct route to the gateway, which should be a fair assumption right?

What are the actual figures in ipconfig /all ? Did you call up the isp CC for your ip details and the peculiar settings? Are they willing to give you a new IP?

Regards,

Rony.

___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:10:03PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

Even if the dialer changes it then it really doesn't make a difference. My issue is just that windows configures a foreign gateway (if we could call it that) just like a normal config while Ubuntu does not. I wanted to know if its something that we should be working on or is it a serious enough network design flaw to have a foreign gateway that we disallow it?

http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_BGPTopologySpeakersBorderRoutersandNeighbor...

Could you check the total protocols installed for the ethernet in windows? What is your subnet value?

Regards,

Rony.

___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:06:56PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

On 7/28/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

...

Could you check the total protocols installed for the ethernet in windows? What is your subnet value?

I'll check the protocols when I get access to the machine, hopefully in a couple of days time. The subnet is 255.255.255.0.

Why do you need the protocol list btw?

I was going through google to see if its possible for different networks to talk to each other directly ( from your observation that you could ping a foreign gateway). I came across the link that was posted in the earlier mail. Your cyberroam client could be adding a protocol for this or something similar in windows. As a study you could carry a simple networking enabled laptop ( without any dialers) to the same place and plug in the lan cable and give the same settings to see if you can still ping a foreign gateway. All this is very intriguing.

Regards,

Rony.

___________________________________________________________ Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

On 7/28/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

I was going through google to see if its possible for different networks to talk to each other directly ( from your observation that you could ping a foreign gateway). I came across the link that was posted in the earlier mail. Your

I think you could reach any machine if it is directly connected to you (through a hub/switch/cross-connection) and you have an explicit route to it.

windows. As a study you could carry a simple networking enabled laptop ( without any dialers) to the same place and plug in the lan cable and give the same settings to see if you can still ping a foreign gateway. All this is very intriguing.

That's what I did in a way. I set up basic networking on the ubuntu box and test. The only additional setting was to set up a direct route to the gateway (route add -host ...). There is no extra settings done by the dialer.

Regards, Siddhesh

On 7/29/06, Rony ronbillypop@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

In an office, there was a room with existing pcs on a lan with network of 192.168.0.0 and I had to setup 4 pcs in another room which were to be a seperate group. So I gave a different network id to this group and got them talking on a lan switch. However the printer was a lan based one on the first network so I linked the two switches with a cable. However I could not ping the other network. Ultimately I had to use the first network id itself and have seperate workgroups.

I don't know how to add routes in windows. In *Linux (*nix for that matter I guess) you do a 'route add' to specify the route to take when it encounters a packet of a certain destination.

I'll tell you how it is in Linux and you can look for similar functionality in windows. Probably some networking gurus (I'm not even close to being one) on list could explain better if this sounds fuzzy ;)

Config 1: Add host routes for all computers outside the home network. For this you use the route command to add host route (route add -host) to each of the computers in the foreign network. This is obviously very tedious. So I'd recommend config 2.

Config 2: Use an old box (one of the machines on your network should do I think) as a router. to route packets between them. That way you simply have to add a route to the router IP for the networks on either side. Eg: 1) Let router be 192.168.0.200 on one side and 192.168.1.200 on the other 2) For computers on the 192.168.0.0 network: 2.1) route add -net 192.168.1.0 -netmask <netmask> gw 192.168.0.200 dev $IFACE 3) For computers on the 192.168.1.0 network 3.1) route add -net 192.168.0.0 -netmask <netmask> gw 192.168.1.200 dev $IFACE

Read the manpages on the route command to know more about this. Needless to say you configure the router to forward packets either ways. You should be able to find this stuff on the net easily.

What do you mean by explicit route? Normally a router links 2 different networks.

route add -host $ip dev $IFACE It simply says that if a packet is destined for $ip then don't go through the gateway, it's directly connected to me.

Which is why my question rose in a way. I think we can always assume that the gateway is directly accessible so why not create a direct route to it at config time if it seems to be on a different network? Windows seems to do it automatically. Is it an error/flaw/security concern of any sort? Or is it just a "it's a bad design so we won't support it" thing?

Regards, Siddhesh

On 7/29/06, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:

I'm no expert but its certainly not good. M$ has a habit of overlooking things just to make it easy for the user...

Well I don't understand why it isn't. Is it a security risk of some sort? Or is it simply "bad design" by the networking guys and hence should not be supported? Probably some networking gurus on list could elaborate.

Regards, Siddhesh

On Saturday 29 July 2006 06:37, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:

Thanks, I had it checked just now. It isn't adding a route like the way I was thinking. It probably simply assumes gateways to be directly connected to itself. Is that good?

I'm no expert but its certainly not good. M$ has a habit of overlooking things just to make it easy for the user...

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 01:13:53PM +0000, Dinesh Joshi wrote:

My limited amount of knowledge says, a gateway should act as a "gateway" to your network. So if you are in the IP range 10.x.x.x then there should be a gateway that routes all traffic in the subnets through it. If any node in that IP range wants to talk to, say 192.168.x.x then the packet first goes from the node to its own gateway, then through whatever networking equipment ( switches / hubs etc... ) to 192.168.x.x's gateway which then routes the packet to the appropriate node. Hence, a node in the IP range 10.x.x.x directly contacting 192.168.x.x's gateway is simply wrong.

Thats exactly what I feel too so I am surprised that he could directly ping a gateway 10.10.10.1 from a network ID of 172.X.X.X It beats networking norms. Thats why I wanted him to check it out with the ISP.

Regards,

Rony.

___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com