Hello all. I'm in the process of making a small server farm based mostly on Windows Server 2003. For simplicity's sake, the only non-2003 server will be a CentOS 5.4 server running only vsftpd, httpd, and mysqld. My plan is to have this server in a 2003 Server's network receiving a DHCP address from the Domain Controller.
Currently, I have two other (non-DC) servers running with no issues on the domain. NAT works as it should, and internet access is just fine. The CentOS box on the same network will not receive an IP address (only through static configuration, the non-DC 2003 boxes have no problem receiving an IP and DNS settings with auto settings) or get online. Even when defining a static IP on the CentOS box, there is no Internet access, unlike to the other clients. My question is, what could be restricting the DHCP and DNS information to the CentOS host, and why can't I access the internet/NAT forward a web server?
To summarize, I have four machines involved, all located on the same network:
- Machine 1 - Windows Server 2003 Enterprise - Domain Controller, DHCP server, DNS server, NAT server. - Machine 2 - Windows Server 2003 Enterprise - Domain member, Exchange server. - Receives DHCP and DNS information with automatic network settings. - Has internet access through NAT. - NAT forwards ports to this host. - Machine 3 - Windows Server 2003 Enterprise - Domain member, Sharepoint Server. - Receives DHCP and DNS information with automatic network settings. - Has internet access through NAT. - NAT forwards ports to this host. - *Machine 4* - CentOS 5.4 - On same network as other clients, hosts web server. - Does *NOT *receive DHCP address or DNS information. - Has *no *internet access - NAT does *NOT *forward correctly.
I am looking for a solution to get the CentOS server on the network like the other clients.
Any assistance on this problem would be greatly appreciated.
David
On 4/8/2010 1:57 PM, David Lemcoe wrote:
Hello all. I'm in the process of making a small server farm based mostly on Windows Server 2003. For simplicity's sake, the only non-2003 server will be a CentOS 5.4 server running only vsftpd, httpd, and mysqld. My plan is to have this server in a 2003 Server's network receiving a DHCP address from the Domain Controller.
Currently, I have two other (non-DC) servers running with no issues on the domain. NAT works as it should, and internet access is just fine. The CentOS box on the same network will not receive an IP address (only through static configuration, the non-DC 2003 boxes have no problem receiving an IP and DNS settings with auto settings) or get online. Even when defining a static IP on the CentOS box, there is no Internet access, unlike to the other clients. My question is, what could be restricting the DHCP and DNS information to the CentOS host, and why can't I access the internet/NAT forward a web server?
To summarize, I have four machines involved, all located on the same network:
* Machine 1 - Windows Server 2003 Enterprise - Domain Controller, DHCP server, DNS server, NAT server. * Machine 2 - Windows Server 2003 Enterprise - Domain member, Exchange server. o Receives DHCP and DNS information with automatic network settings. o Has internet access through NAT. o NAT forwards ports to this host. * Machine 3 - Windows Server 2003 Enterprise - Domain member, Sharepoint Server. o Receives DHCP and DNS information with automatic network settings. o Has internet access through NAT. o NAT forwards ports to this host. * *Machine 4* - CentOS 5.4 - On same network as other clients, hosts web server. o Does *NOT *receive DHCP address or DNS information. o Has *no *internet access o NAT does *NOT *forward correctly.I am looking for a solution to get the CentOS server on the network like the other clients.
Centos works normally with standard DHCP servers and obviously would know nothing about upstream NAT handling. There must be some sort of restriction imposed by the Windows server in this scenario.
On 4/8/2010 1:57 PM, David Lemcoe wrote:
Hello all. I'm in the process of making a small server farm based mostly on Windows Server 2003. For simplicity's sake, the only non-2003 server will be a CentOS 5.4 server running only vsftpd, httpd, and mysqld. My plan is to have this server in a 2003 Server's network receiving a DHCP address from the Domain Controller.
<snip>
* *Machine 4* - CentOS 5.4 - On same network as other clients, hosts web server. o Does *NOT *receive DHCP address or DNS information. o Has *no *internet access o NAT does *NOT *forward correctly.I am looking for a solution to get the CentOS server on the network like the other clients.
Centos works normally with standard DHCP servers and obviously would know nothing about upstream NAT handling. There must be some sort of restriction imposed by the Windows server in this scenario.
The only thing I can think of on the Linux side are firewall rules.
mark
Checked the firewall, and set the static IP.
Anyone have an idea what the limitations put forth by 2003 would be?
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 3:12 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
On 4/8/2010 1:57 PM, David Lemcoe wrote:
Hello all. I'm in the process of making a small server farm based mostly on Windows Server 2003. For simplicity's sake, the only non-2003 server will be a CentOS 5.4 server running only vsftpd, httpd, and mysqld. My plan is to have this server in a 2003 Server's network receiving a DHCP address from the Domain Controller.
<snip> >> * *Machine 4* - CentOS 5.4 - On same network as other clients, hosts >> web server. >> o Does *NOT *receive DHCP address or DNS information. >> o Has *no *internet access >> o NAT does *NOT *forward correctly. >> >> I am looking for a solution to get the CentOS server on the network like >> the other clients. > > Centos works normally with standard DHCP servers and obviously would > know nothing about upstream NAT handling. There must be some sort of > restriction imposed by the Windows server in this scenario.
The only thing I can think of on the Linux side are firewall rules.
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 4/8/10 1:26 PM, "David Lemcoe" forum@lemcoe.com wrote:
Checked the firewall, and set the static IP.
Anyone have an idea what the limitations put forth by 2003 would be?
First, please stop top posting. This list has rules about that....
Second, can you ping _from the managed switch handling the NAT_ to the CentOS box? Additionally, is it only DNS resolution that has an issue? (Try testing this by attempting to ping 4.2.2.2 or another well known server via IP only...).
Please verify the network cable from centos or switch port(broken or vlan).
João Rodrigues
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Gary Greene ggreene@minervanetworks.comwrote:
On 4/8/10 1:26 PM, "David Lemcoe" forum@lemcoe.com wrote:
Checked the firewall, and set the static IP.
Anyone have an idea what the limitations put forth by 2003 would be?
First, please stop top posting. This list has rules about that....
Second, can you ping _from the managed switch handling the NAT_ to the CentOS box? Additionally, is it only DNS resolution that has an issue? (Try testing this by attempting to ping 4.2.2.2 or another well known server via IP only...).
-- Gary L. Greene, Jr. IT Operations Minerva Networks, Inc. Cell: (650) 704-6633 Phone: (408) 240-1239
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 23:50 +0100, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
Please verify the network cable from centos or switch port(broken or vlan).
João Rodrigues
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Gary Greene ggreene@minervanetworks.com wrote:
On 4/8/10 1:26 PM, "David Lemcoe" <forum@lemcoe.com> wrote: > Checked the firewall, and set the static IP. > > Anyone have an idea what the limitations put forth by 2003 would be? First, please stop top posting. This list has rules about that.... Second, can you ping _from the managed switch handling the NAT_ to the CentOS box? Additionally, is it only DNS resolution that has an issue? (Try testing this by attempting to ping 4.2.2.2 or another well known server via IP only...). -- Gary L. Greene, Jr. IT Operations Minerva Networks, Inc. Cell: (650) 704-6633 Phone: (408) 240-1239 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
He just said 'please stop top posting' in the post you replied. :)
Calin
Key fingerprint = 37B8 0DA5 9B2A 8554 FB2B 4145 5DC1 15DD A3EF E857
================================================= alexsh: Be /VERY/ cairful, you could, if your unlucky, fry your motherboards.. Mercury - sounds like fun
On 9 Apr 2010, at 15:29, kalinix calin.kalinix.cosma@gmail.com wrote:
He just said 'please stop top posting' in the post you replied. :)
What about please trim your replies too? No need to quote an entire thread when you reply.
Ben
On 4/9/2010 10:29, kalinix wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 23:50 +0100, Joao Rodrigues wrote:
Please verify the network cable from centos or switch port(broken or vlan).
João Rodrigues
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Gary Greene <ggreene@minervanetworks.com mailto:ggreene@minervanetworks.com> wrote:
On 4/8/10 1:26 PM, "David Lemcoe" <forum@lemcoe.com <mailto:forum@lemcoe.com>> wrote: > Checked the firewall, and set the static IP. > > Anyone have an idea what the limitations put forth by 2003 would be? First, please stop top posting. This list has rules about that.... Second, can you ping _from the managed switch handling the NAT_ to the CentOS box? Additionally, is it only DNS resolution that has an issue? (Try testing this by attempting to ping 4.2.2.2 or another well known server via IP only...). -- Gary L. Greene, Jr. IT Operations Minerva Networks, Inc. Cell: (650) 704-6633 Phone: (408) 240-1239 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org <mailto:CentOS@centos.org> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org mailto:CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
He just said 'please stop top posting' in the post you replied. :)
Calin
Key fingerprint = 37B8 0DA5 9B2A 8554 FB2B 4145 5DC1 15DD A3EF E857
================================================= alexsh: Be /VERY/ cairful, you could, if your unlucky, fry your motherboards.. Mercury - sounds like fun
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I apologize for the top posting, I forgot what client I was in!
The wires are, in fact, plugged in, as I am using a VMWare Workstation VMNet.
Some interesting things happened when I turned on all the VMs today.
The CentOS box now has internet, which is better than what it did have. Now, the only problem is, the Windows DHCP server does not show the IP address the CentOS box is reflecting in its leases window. I find this very odd, because not only is the IP address being assigned (albeit static), but it now has its packets being routed. Of course, with the 2003 server not showing it as a client, I cannot forward ports, etc.
For the record, I am refreshing the DHCP server leases, and only the two Windows clients are being shown.
I appreciate all the responses, and will make sure not to top post anymore.
David
Let me get this straight: all this servers are VMs?
Calin
Key fingerprint = 37B8 0DA5 9B2A 8554 FB2B 4145 5DC1 15DD A3EF E857
================================================= I thought YOU silenced the guard!
I would try to launch a tcpdump/wireshark session on centos server to see whether there's dhcp traffic on it. Alternatively, when in static configuration, to see whether the icmp packets reach for NAT server (my feeling is they are not).
AFAIK, there is no limitation (or there should be none) on the 2k3 server. But of course, I could be wrong.
As a side note: I assume you also set the default gateway (as your nat server) and/or default route (through it) when in static configuration, not only the static ip.
Calin
Key fingerprint = 37B8 0DA5 9B2A 8554 FB2B 4145 5DC1 15DD A3EF E857
================================================= I will follow the good side right to the fire, but not into it if I can help it. -- Michel Eyquem de Montaigne
-
Benjamin Donnachie -
David Lemcoe -
David M Lemcoe Jr.
-
Gary Greene -
Joao Rodrigues -
kalinix -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us