Fedora Networking :: Ping: Record Route: No Message Of Desired Type
Feb 17, 2009
I try to boot Fedora 10 without initrd. System boots normally if I make in some nodes in /dev such as /dev/console. Almost everything works fine, but when I try ping with record route option -R I get this error
Quote:
ping: record route: No message of desired type
If I boot with initrd ping -R works without this error. Iptables not running.
Also this error appear when I try to boot from LiveCD F11-Alpha-i686-Live-KDE.iso or other Fedora 10 LiveCDs.
I have a server that I can ping, and I can connect remotely with ssh to it. But when I try to connect to apache (port 80) I get "no route to host". But I can connect to localhost It's not just my client system that is having this problem but also systems that are on the same subnet There is no firewall running on the server route on the server
I use my computer as a gateway to the internet for the rest of the house which is split into two LANs. I also have VPN's linking the office side of the LAN to a remote site. All of the PC's other than mine that should have access to the VPN works, but my PC doesnt and I firmly believe this is because I need to add a static route. ping 192.168.10.1 doesnt work but ping -I eth2 192.168.10.1 does. 192.168.10.1 is the remote router on the other side of the VPN. I've tried this route:
Code: route add -net 192.168.10.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.1 dev eth2 192.168.1.1 is my computer... the gateway for the rest of the house/office. My computer has a quad NIC, only 3 ports are used. WAN, LAN1 and LAN2. Aside from this routing issue, I have everything working perfectly.
My issue is with linux routing tables using iproute2, coupled with the iptables MARK target. When I create a rule to lookup a table with iproute2, and the routing table routes an address as type unreachable (or blackhole, or prohibit), if a higher priority rule does a lookup to another table that routes the address as type unicast but that higher priority rule also matches on a fwmark, the packet to that address is never generated locally to even go through iptables packet filtering/mangling in order to mark it, because the lower priority rule that doesn't match on a fwmark says it's unreachable. For example, I have 2 rules installed with ip:
Code:
10: from all fwmark 0x1000 lookup routeit 20: from all lookup unreach ip route list table routeit
[code]....
Now, in the packet filter, I have an iptables rule to mark packets to destination 10.0.0.5 with 0x1000 in the mangle table and OUTPUT chain. When I generate a packet locally to 10.0.0.5, all programs get ENETUNREACH (tested with strace). However, if I take out the route entry that 10.0.0.0/8 is unreachable, it all works fine and the routes in the routeit table get applied to marked packets (I know because my default gateway would not be 1.2.3.4, but wireshark shows packets being sent to the MAC address of 1.2.3.4).
The best I can surmise is that when generating a packet locally, the kernel tests the routing tables in priority order but without any mark to see if it is unreachable/blackhole/prohibit, and doesn't even bother generating the packet and traversing iptables rules to see if it would eventually be marked and thus routed somewhere. Then I assume after that step, it traverses iptables rules, then traverses the routing tables again to find a route. So is there any way around this behavior besides adding fake routes to the routing table (e.g. routing 10.0.0.5 to dev lo in the unreach table in this example)?
I am using an virtual machine. where I need to ping from one machine to another. earlier I was able to ping. But after going to google.com once, I cannot ping back to this machine.
But if I gave ping -I eth1 <IP> then I can ping.
I cannot install any package, so tell me solution which includes not installing any package.
I install and configure the vncserver following and reading 1000papers, but all of this present the same problem; when i try to connect to my vncserver,recive this mesage: unable connect to socket: No route to host (113) The OS version is Fedora Core 14 and tigervnc-server i try different solutions including:Allow TCP connection modifing files /etc/gdm/custom.conf and /usr/share/gdm/gdm.chemas Disable SELinux removing iptables Here follow the vncserver configuration:
[code].....
The ip address of the vncserver is correct because i can do ssh on it. Where or what can i do?
br0 - 192.168.0.1 - Internet eth2 - 192.168.1.1 - LAN tun0 - 10.0.0.2 - VPN (via br0)
What I'd like to do is to route all TCP packets coming from eth2 to tun0 where a VPN client is running on 10.0.0.2. If I delete all default routes and if I add a new route to tun0 like :
Code:
route del default route add default gw 10.0.0.2
Everything is fine, and everyone on eth2 can reach the Internet using the VPN access. Now the problem is that my VPN client does not allow any other protocols other than TCP. And I also want to allow VPN access only to eth2, no other LAN nor the router itself. use iptables to filter any TCP packets and mark them, so they can be sent to tun0, while any other packets can reach the Internet via br0 (192.168.0.1). I found on the Internet that we can mark packets before they get routed. Using the following commands :
Code:
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j MARK --set-mark 85 -i eth2 -p tcp --dport 80 ip route add table 300 default via 10.0.0.2 dev tun0 ip rule add fwmark 0x55 table 300
First of all, --dport 80 never work... :/ I wanted to filter TCP 80 packets coming from eth2, but none of them seems to be HTTP packets... oO (very strange...). Nevermind, I decided to forget about the --dport option. I use the "iptables -L -v -t mangle" command to see how many packets are marked, and it is working fine, all TCP packets coming from eth2 are marked. Now the problem is that none of them are routed to tun0 they are all respecting the "route -n" rules... and not the "table 300" rule I have created.
using redhat on server machine and open suse on client machine.i have installed nfs server and and it is running properly but when i want to mount shares from my client machine it gives the following.
error. "mount.nfs: mount to NFS server '10.3.31.146:/share' failed: System Error: No route to host" both systems ping each other and firewall is also disabled. another problem is when i remotely access from my server machine to client machine it gives the following error ssh:connect to host 10.3.31.147 port 22:connection refused what can be the problem?
I have connected xp and fedora through crossover cable . xp has ip address 192.168.0.1/24 (manually assigned) fedora has 192.168.0.2/24 with default route equal to 192.168.0.1
I can ping fedora from xp computer but i can't able to ping xp from fedora computer.
I have manully edit the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 file with correct subnet mask and ip address because when i tried to give ip address manully in network manager the subnetmask is replaced with gateway address don't know why.
Now i want to share internet through crossover cable . xp is connected to internet through wireless usb adapeter.
I got this definition:"a process that replaces a series of related, specific routes in a route table with a more generic route." honestly I found it not so clear.. I want to know if this definition is correct and also more details about this subject..
Having trouble getting my Netgear WNA1000 working thru wireless router. Have tried lots of suggestions from other threads to no avail. Someone suggested that th routing table isn't set correctly, so have been trying to use the follwing to make the proper entry in the routing table: sudo route add -net 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev wlan0
Result: error message stating with: "route: netmask does not match route address"
followed by "Usage" instructions which tell me to do what I just did. Any ideas on how I can populate my routing table with correct entry for my wireless card? Not to complicate matters, but I temporarily turned off encryption on my router to eliminate that as a possibility until I get connected. So maybe it'still trying to connect via encrypted mode - do I need to turn off encryption on my (client) end?
I have two system, an Intel Core2 Duo system running the 32-bit version of Fedora 12, and a MacBook Pro running the 64-bit version of Fedora 12. I'm using the Gnome desktop on each system. I have enabled all the services I believe are necessary to support NFS including nfs, rpcbind, rpcgssd, rpcidmapd, and rpcsvcgssd on each system. I have added an entry to my /etc/exports file to export my home on each system, and if I type this command:
$ showmount -e localhost
I get a result like this:
Export list for localhost:
/home/tron 192.168.200.101,192.168.200.100
However when I issue this type of command:
$ showmount -e <remote host name>
I get this kind of result: rpc mount export: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = No route to host Research on the Internet indicates this is usually due to a firewall problem. However, I use the Firewall Configuration application to the disable the firewall on both systems, and I continue to get the same result. What is needed so I can get this two machines to display their exported file shares remotely? It turns out I did not disable the firewall when I thought I had. Now that I'm certain the firewall is disabled on both systems, I'm able to get the showmount command to succeed.
I have two system, an Intel Core2 Duo system running the 32-bit version of Fedora 12, and a MacBook Pro running the 64-bit version of Fedora 12.
I'm using the Gnome desktop on each system. I have enabled all the services I believe are necessary to support NFS including nfs, rpcbind, rpcgssd, rpcidmapd, and rpcsvcgssd on each system.
I have added an entry to my /etc/exports file to export my home on each system, and if I type this command: $ showmount -e localhost
I get a result like this: Export list for localhost: /home/tron 192.168.200.101,192.168.200.100
However when I issue this type of command: $ showmount -e <remote host name>
I get this kind of result: rpc mount export: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = No route to host
Research on the Internet indicates this is usually due to a firewall problem. However, I use the Firewall Configuration application to the disable the firewall on both systems, and I continue to get the same result.
What is needed so I can get this two machines to display their exported file shares remotely?
I have the following network/server configuration:
[Code]....
How do I prevent eth1 from being able to overwrite the default gateway that eth0 has already set?!? I read that one can create route-* files in the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ directory to setup static default routes.But those seems to require one to know the IP address of the gateway, but in my case the ISP's gateway is served via DHCP and so it could vary from day to day. Here are the contents of some of the relevant files:
When ever I restart the machine, both interfaces pull a IP, but the it randomly chooses eth0 or eth1 to have the gateway. I want the gateway to be eth0 always.
[Code]...
Is there some file or setting I can modify in Fedora10 that will always choose 192.168.1.1 on eth0 as the default gateway?
I am trying to share directories between two F12 machines on a local network with a router box doing DHCP because not all machines on all the time. Web access is fine and local ping and ssh works but telnet doesn't. I have never succeeded doing mounts. So I have been searching for things to fix the above and have just tried rpcinfo. If I do this :
rpcinfo -p 192.168.2.2 it gives rpcinfo: can't contact portmapper: RPC: Remote system error - No route to host. Does that suggest that actually there is an installation problem? So I tried "yum provides portmapper" and that gives "No Matches found".
I have recently set up two machines with F14 and on both, I am completely unable to make remote login via SSH work. openssh-server is installed and seems to work well:
I have already worked for hours on the problem now, using Google and trying numerous things, and still could not find any solution. On my other machine, which still uses F13, remote login works just fine. Is there any change in the default behaviour of the sshd I am not aware of? I would really appreciate your assistance!
I am trying to access a DVD mounted on a machine running Fedora12 (192.168.0.105). I thought this should be possible with NFS, but the above error message is what I keep getting, no matter what I try.
Here is my mount command: Code: mount 192.168.0.105:/mnt/dvd -t nfs /tmp/scaleo The Fedora 12 machine has the NFS server running, and the corresponding entry in /etc/exports is Code: /mnt/dvd *(ro)
I thought this might be a firewall problem, but it persists even if I turn firewalls off on both machines (client as well as server.) Also, doing Code: ssh 192.168.0.105 is OK, so what is wrong with the route?
I am trying to access a DVD mounted on a machine running Fedora12 (192.168.0.105). I thought this should be possible with NFS, but the above error message is what I keep getting, no matter what I try. Here is my mount command: Code: mount 192.168.0.105:/mnt/dvd -t nfs /tmp/scaleo
I now tried Code: mount 192.168.0.105:/mnt/dvd -t nfs4 /tmp/scaleo and it seems the mount succeeded. So, instead of nfs, one must write nfs4?
I have two machines on this network, one running Ubuntu and the other running Fedora.
When I'm using the Wireless network on the Ubuntu machine, I cannot ping the Fedora machine. Everything else works. I can browse the net fine.
If I switch over to the Wired Network then I can ping the other machine.
I don't understand why ping doesn't work only over the Wireless. I can ping the router so I'm guessing it's getting blocked by the router but I didn't block ICMP traffic.
I tried asking on IRC and they ran out of ideas too to find out where the problem is.
I use a secure connection to reach company network from outside. There's a client application "Juniper network", which creates the secured tunnel to a company network. However, the connection never survives more than 8 seconds, when it goes disconnected with the message "Route monitor alarm". From my recent search for a solution I've found that this error is caused by a change in a route table, which violates a connection policy.
"This disconnect is typically triggered by a change in the routing table of the client machine, the change is such that the split tunnel policies defined by the administrator will be violated" - from [URL]
This is how a routing table looks before, during and after the connection attempt:
I just installed my first EVER bind DNS server. I am running bind9 on Ubuntu 10.04. Everything seems to be working great except one thing: If I ping a host that I have set up in bind by its HOSTNAME the pings take 5-6 seconds to reply/print to the screen between each echo response. If I ping by the host's IP address, they echo back very quickly.
I have read that IPv6 can cause this, but I have disabled it in /etc/sysctl.conf and the problem still exists.
I know everyone says this can't be a DNS issue, but this never was an issue with dnsmasq (which i was using prior), and it doesn't make sense that the ping are ONLY slow when pinging by hostname and not IP.
Configs below:
Ping by hostname - there is a 5-6 second delay between each one of the responses:
Code:
Ping by IP - the responses come VERY quickly one after the other:
So, I have an Virtual Machine running CentOS 5.4. It sits behind a hardware firewall which also does NAT'ing. I've set up plenty of these, so I know for sure the firewall and NAT rules are set up correctly. From the host, I can ping anything in my subnet and the gateway. But I can't ping anything else beyond the gateway. I can perform DNS queries and when I try to ping, it finds the appropriate IP address.But from the outside, I can ping the PUBLIC address (It's a 1 public to 1 private address NAT, not 1 public to multiple private). I've tried it with IPTABLES on and off, with no change.
I have Mandriva One 2009.0 (192.168.1.100) on one box and Mandriva Free 2010.0 (192.168.1.118) on the other. I can ping router (192.168.1.1) from both of these boxes but I can't ping one box to the other and the other way around. What's going on?.
Do I have to change some settings in router?. Or is it firewall issue on those two machines?. Both of these boxes are connected by cable. Symbol of the router: TL-WR340G.
I was running an update on my computer (running Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid) and something must have been transferred incorrectly as every time I open synaptic, I get an error message that tells me to type a command into the terminal:
Code: sudo dpkg --configure -a After doing that, it displays this:
For some reason some command line commands are unable to resolve urls, whereas other commands work as they should. I have checked most setting but am unable to find out what is wrong and am no closer to figuring out what and why.
[root@subzero ~]# yum update Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit [URL]: [Errno 4] IOError: <urlopen error (-2, 'Name or service not known')> Trying other mirror. Error: Cannot retrieve repository metadata (repomd.xml) for repository: atrpms. Please verify its path and try again [root@subzero ~]# .....
