I have two DELL servers with two Ethernet ports in it. Bith servers have CENTOS 4.5 installed. First Ethernet port connect to public Ethernet line and work correctly. Second Ethernet port I connect point-to-point as private Ethernet (cable direct connect without router or switch). Private Ethernet use IP asddress 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2.
I check "ifconfig -a" and both eth0 and eth1 are up and active. when I tried to ping another server use second port (private) and no response. Does anything I configure wrong?
Thanks.
======== info ===
%ifconfig -a eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:08:74:EA:54:64 inet addr:172.29.86.15 Bcast:172.29.85.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::208:74ff:feea:5464/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:471 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:91 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:65669 (64.1 KiB) TX bytes:11847 (11.5 KiB)
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0E:2E:C8:B9:80 inet addr:1.1.1.1 Bcast:1.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:18 Base address:0x4c00
%ping 1.1.1.2 PING 1.1.1.2 (1.1.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
--- 1.1.1.2 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 3015ms , pipe 3
%telnet 1.1.1.2 Trying 1.1.1.2... telnet: connect to address 1.1.1.2: No route to host
____________________________________________________________________________________ 杜絕網路駭客，保障帳號安全 - 馬上設定 Yahoo!奇摩安全圖章http://tw.info.yahoo.com/seal/index.html
mcclnx mcc wrote:
I have two DELL servers with two Ethernet ports in it. Bith servers have CENTOS 4.5 installed. First Ethernet port connect to public Ethernet line and work correctly. Second Ethernet port I connect point-to-point as private Ethernet (cable direct connect without router or switch). Private Ethernet use IP asddress 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2.
I check "ifconfig -a" and both eth0 and eth1 are up and active. when I tried to ping another server use second port (private) and no response. Does anything I configure wrong?
Thanks.
======== info ===
%ifconfig -a eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:08:74:EA:54:64 inet addr:172.29.86.15 Bcast:172.29.85.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::208:74ff:feea:5464/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:471 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:91 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:65669 (64.1 KiB) TX bytes:11847 (11.5 KiB)
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0E:2E:C8:B9:80 inet addr:1.1.1.1 Bcast:1.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:18 Base address:0x4c00
%ping 1.1.1.2 PING 1.1.1.2 (1.1.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
--- 1.1.1.2 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 3015ms , pipe 3
%telnet 1.1.1.2 Trying 1.1.1.2... telnet: connect to address 1.1.1.2: No route to host
Try a private network IP 192.168.xxx.xxx? Right ether cable, straight?
setup IP address as "192.168.xxx.xxx" does NOT work. Someone say I need use "crossover" type of cable, but I don't have. I put a switch and coneect cable from each PC and it work fine.
Thanks.
--- gnulinux gnulinux@comcast.net 說：
mcclnx mcc wrote:
I have two DELL servers with two Ethernet ports in
it.
Bith servers have CENTOS 4.5 installed. First Ethernet port connect to public Ethernet line and
work
correctly. Second Ethernet port I connect point-to-point as private Ethernet (cable direct connect without router or switch). Private
Ethernet
use IP asddress 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2.
I check "ifconfig -a" and both eth0 and eth1 are
up
and active. when I tried to ping another server
use
second port (private) and no response. Does
anything
I configure wrong?
Thanks.
======== info ===
%ifconfig -a eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:08:74:EA:54:64 inet addr:172.29.86.15
Bcast:172.29.85.255
Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::208:74ff:feea:5464/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500
Metric:1 RX packets:471 errors:0 dropped:0
overruns:0
frame:0 TX packets:91 errors:0 dropped:0
overruns:0
carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:65669 (64.1 KiB) TX
bytes:11847
(11.5 KiB)
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0E:2E:C8:B9:80 inet addr:1.1.1.1 Bcast:1.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500
Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0overruns:0
frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0
overruns:0
carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:18 Base address:0x4c00
%ping 1.1.1.2 PING 1.1.1.2 (1.1.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host
Unreachable
From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host
Unreachable
From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host
Unreachable
--- 1.1.1.2 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 3015ms , pipe 3
%telnet 1.1.1.2 Trying 1.1.1.2... telnet: connect to address 1.1.1.2: No route to
host
Try a private network IP 192.168.xxx.xxx? Right ether cable, straight? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
____________________________________________________________________________________ 設定安全圖章，保護您的 Yahoo!奇摩帳號不被駭客盜用！ http://tw.info.yahoo.com/seal/index.html
mcclnx mcc wrote:
setup IP address as "192.168.xxx.xxx" does NOT work. Someone say I need use "crossover" type of cable, but I don't have. I put a switch and coneect cable from each PC and it work fine.
Crossover cables or crossover connectors (those little white connectors that can be used to connect two RJ45 cables together) can be had at any 'serious' PC store. Also online from many many sites.
I always carry a crossover cable in my travel bag.
Thanks.
--- gnulinux gnulinux@comcast.net 說：
mcclnx mcc wrote:
I have two DELL servers with two Ethernet ports in
it.
Bith servers have CENTOS 4.5 installed. First Ethernet port connect to public Ethernet line and
work
correctly. Second Ethernet port I connect point-to-point as private Ethernet (cable direct connect without router or switch). Private
Ethernet
use IP asddress 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2.
I check "ifconfig -a" and both eth0 and eth1 are
up
and active. when I tried to ping another server
use
second port (private) and no response. Does
anything
I configure wrong?
Thanks.
======== info ===
%ifconfig -a eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:08:74:EA:54:64 inet addr:172.29.86.15
Bcast:172.29.85.255
Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::208:74ff:feea:5464/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500
Metric:1 RX packets:471 errors:0 dropped:0
overruns:0
frame:0 TX packets:91 errors:0 dropped:0
overruns:0
carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:65669 (64.1 KiB) TX
bytes:11847
(11.5 KiB)
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0E:2E:C8:B9:80 inet addr:1.1.1.1 Bcast:1.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500
Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0overruns:0
frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0
overruns:0
carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:18 Base address:0x4c00
%ping 1.1.1.2 PING 1.1.1.2 (1.1.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host
Unreachable
From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host
Unreachable
From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host
Unreachable
--- 1.1.1.2 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 3015ms , pipe 3
%telnet 1.1.1.2 Trying 1.1.1.2... telnet: connect to address 1.1.1.2: No route to
host
Try a private network IP 192.168.xxx.xxx? Right ether cable, straight? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
____________________________________________________________________________________設定安全圖章，保護您的 Yahoo!奇摩帳號不被駭客盜用！ http://tw.info.yahoo.com/seal/index.html _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 23:21 +0800, mcclnx mcc wrote:
setup IP address as "192.168.xxx.xxx" does NOT work. Someone say I need use "crossover" type of cable, but I don't have. I put a switch and coneect cable from each PC and it work fine.
Crossover cables are easy. I make my own straight-through and crossovers when needed.
Regardless, the others were right: you *did* need a crossover *until* you put an auto-sensing switch into the mix. I have one of these on my home network (SMCGS8 unmanaged) and have sense not made up any custom cables.
As others have stated though, I do have both cross-over and straight patch cables on-hand JIC.
Anyway, if you make your own, when the RJ-45 connectors are held side- by-side clips down facing same direction:
straight = colors occur in same sequence in both cross-over = colors occur in "mirror" sequence.
For GB E'net, this is more important as two pairs are used. For 10Mb, only one pair is used, so the simple reverse TX/RX works.
Hmmm... I'm assuming USOC 568A wiring? Can't remember. Anyway, the pin assignments are the same. Only the color sequence is different.
Thanks.
--- gnulinux gnulinux@comcast.net 說：
mcclnx mcc wrote:
<snip>
-- Bill
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 13:40 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 23:21 +0800, mcclnx mcc wrote:
<snip>
Regardless, the others were right: you *did* need a crossover *until* you put an auto-sensing switch into the mix. I have one of these on my
s/auto-sensing/(possibly auto-sensing)/
Auto-sensing allows using either straight or cross-over cables to be used (among other functions) and automatically "corrects" TX/RX to match the cable used. A straight cable to a switch is the norm and doesn't need auto-sensing.
For *most* E'net cards w/o an intervening switch/hub, cross-over would be needed though, as others have said.
<snip>
-- Bill
mcclnx mcc wrote:
I have two DELL servers with two Ethernet ports in it. Bith servers have CENTOS 4.5 installed. First Ethernet port connect to public Ethernet line and work correctly. Second Ethernet port I connect point-to-point as private Ethernet (cable direct connect without router or switch). Private Ethernet use IP asddress 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2.
are you using a 'crossover' cable for this? you can't patch two NIC' directly together with a regular patch cable, it has to be a crossover cable that has Tx wired to Rx and visa versa. Also, I've had mixed results using crossover cabling with 1000baseT gig ethernet
John R Pierce wrote:
mcclnx mcc wrote:
I have two DELL servers with two Ethernet ports in it. Bith servers have CENTOS 4.5 installed. First Ethernet port connect to public Ethernet line and work correctly. Second Ethernet port I connect point-to-point as private Ethernet (cable direct connect without router or switch). Private Ethernet use IP asddress 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2.
are you using a 'crossover' cable for this? you can't patch two NIC' directly together with a regular patch cable, it has to be a crossover cable that has Tx wired to Rx and visa versa. Also, I've had mixed results using crossover cabling with 1000baseT gig ethernet
A John rightly points out, you need a 'crossover' cable when not using a hub or switch. It's likely a good idea to have a few crossover's in house. On the chance you're not familiar, this link may prove helpful
http://yoda.uvi.edu/InfoTech/rj45.htm
Regards, ~Ray
John R Pierce wrote:
mcclnx mcc wrote:
I have two DELL servers with two Ethernet ports in it. Bith servers have CENTOS 4.5 installed. First Ethernet port connect to public Ethernet line and work correctly. Second Ethernet port I connect point-to-point as private Ethernet (cable direct connect without router or switch). Private Ethernet use IP asddress 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2.
are you using a 'crossover' cable for this? you can't patch two NIC' directly together with a regular patch cable, it has to be a crossover cable that has Tx wired to Rx and visa versa. Also, I've had mixed results using crossover cabling with 1000baseT gig ethernet
A large number of NICs are autosensing. They do not need a crossover cable. I can hook any of my three notebooks together point to point with a regular cable. They figure it out. Many of my switches do not have the MTI/MTO switch; they autosense if they are 'down stream'. I forget which standard. For some reason I am thinking IEEE 802.1ab, but it is probably a different one.
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
A large number of NICs are autosensing. They do not need a crossover
And rx/tx autosensing is part of the gigabit ethernet standard afaik. Modern gigabit cards should be able to autosense speed, duplex and direction.
mcclnx mcc wrote:
I have two DELL servers with two Ethernet ports in it. Bith servers have CENTOS 4.5 installed. First Ethernet port connect to public Ethernet line and work correctly. Second Ethernet port I connect point-to-point as private Ethernet (cable direct connect without router or switch). Private Ethernet use IP asddress 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2.
Take a quick look at RFC 1918 for priviate addresses to use (I am a co-author of that RFC).
Advice:
If you use addresses from the 192.168 range, avoid the nets: 192.168.0.0, 192.168.1.0, 192.168.2.0, and 192.168.100.0 These are commonly used by various 'appliances'. Choose something 'wierd' like 192.168.49.0 (or some other prime number less than 255). Though I tend to use 192.168.64.0, 192.168.96.0, or 192.168.128.0
Also avoid the 172.16 and 10. ranges. These are commonly used in Company internal private networks, and if you want to 'VPN' to them, it can cause unwanted results (like it won't work).
This is general advice to anyone using private addresses for small usages (from a person that has taken more flak on private addresses and NAT than you probably care to deal with; I 'caused it').
I check "ifconfig -a" and both eth0 and eth1 are up and active. when I tried to ping another server use second port (private) and no response. Does anything I configure wrong?
Thanks.
======== info ===
%ifconfig -a eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:08:74:EA:54:64 inet addr:172.29.86.15 Bcast:172.29.85.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::208:74ff:feea:5464/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:471 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:91 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:65669 (64.1 KiB) TX bytes:11847 (11.5 KiB)
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0E:2E:C8:B9:80 inet addr:1.1.1.1 Bcast:1.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b) Interrupt:18 Base address:0x4c00
%ping 1.1.1.2 PING 1.1.1.2 (1.1.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 1.1.1.1 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
--- 1.1.1.2 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 3015ms , pipe 3
%telnet 1.1.1.2 Trying 1.1.1.2... telnet: connect to address 1.1.1.2: No route to host
____________________________________________________________________________________杜絕網路駭客，保障帳號安全 - 馬上設定 Yahoo!奇摩安全圖章http://tw.info.yahoo.com/seal/index.html _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
gnulinux -
John R Pierce -
mcclnx mcc -
Morten Torstensen -
Ray Leventhal -
Robert Moskowitz -
William L. Maltby