[svlug] RH6.2 on an HP LPr - NIC Problem

[Tin Le]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hmm, well, I was very tired, still am.

Thinking back, the environment I saw the problem a couple years back was
mixed and mostly older OS at the time, i.e. before most of them support
variable length subnet mask (VLSM).  I know Solaris 2.5.1 had problems and
does not like mixing subnets that are part of larger natural network class.
That particular box got very confused at times and had to be rebooted on
a regular basis.

Given your description and all the things you've tried, I still think it is
your netmask that is causing problem.

You said 80% ping loss, is that one way?  ie from the HP to router only?
or also happen from router to HP?  I am not clear on your network
topology, so if you could, please draw a simple chart of where the box
is and router/gw is would help.

Are you using class A every where on your network? i.e. 255.0.0.0? and just
your box that is using class C?

Tin Le
- ----
http://tin.le.org
Tin Le - tin at le.org
Firewall and Security Consulting

On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Tom Large wrote:

> It is a 100baseT switched environment using Cisco Cats.  Everything else on
> my subnet (Win2K, Win NT 4, and Solaris 2.8) work fine, redhat works fine to
> specified subnets.  The subnets listed in the routing table right now work
> for anything they point at, it's when I try to give it a 0.0.0.0 route that
> it fails, including the base default entering my default gateway during
> setup results.  I've rebuilt the machine several times using different
> methods (from the bloated everything on it for workstation use to bare bones
> firewall nothing but necessary stuff on it) and all get exactly the same
> problem.  As for what I try to ping and what subnet it's on, with the
> default route (0.0.0.0 to 10.1.69.1) nothing responds with better than 80%
> packet loss, even stuff on the same subnet as me (including the router),
> UNLESS I set the route table to say for X subnet use 10.1.69.1 as the
> router.  Very odd.  As far as whether or not it's the hardware, I have one
> other box that's running--installed from even the same CD as these--just
> fine using the base default install.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i

iQCVAgUBOaRJFRiIIbPkDHhBAQHsKwP+LNXu3IKEIg23Lh4jLe+2dP3x+qRrjrDL
nULcvPuJPMJK4jij/PwAgN+cWSQDWQEYP9W4suhE27phSvxVY3RYVNumhOtnByIH
Jxv1TqGwA3jOq/5ZWZd9PBxD/0ZIMHEI7c0+t5Z7nqdU8h8ZB3oC7KtOK7CbjKW6
TOfRK3SUUEQ=
=s9k0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----