Networking problem

[JD]

On 05/14/11 19:41, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
> On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote:
>> On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote:
>>> On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote:
>>>> On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote:
>>>>> On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote:
>>>>>> I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora
>>>>>> from Powerbook. No go!!
>>>>> That means that it's not a firewall issue.  Check your router config to
>>>>> see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN.
>>>> Thanx!
>>>> I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program)
>>>> to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net).
>>>> The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc.
>>>> no problems there.
>>>> The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine
>>>> connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses
>>>> on the public net.
>>>> They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other!
>>>> Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode.
>>>> And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the
>>>> fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume).
>>>> Still these two machines refuse to talk.
>>>>
>>> Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them?
>>>
>>> James McKenzie
>>>
>> Tried it.
>> Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries.
>> All it shows is asterisks.
> Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go "direct" between machines....
>
> Can you add a "special" static route between the 2 specifying the router
> as the gateway?
>
> As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local
> interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by
> just sending it.  I'm not sure why the router doesn't "route" those
> packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over
> the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be
> redundant.
>
> Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing
> that the route the packets take will get there.  something like:
>
> On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at
> w.x.y.1 as the intermediary:
>
> # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0
>
> I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it
> may still fail.  But its worth a try.
>
No that would not do anything because already the default route is 
192.168.1.254
which is the gateway/router.