Mounting cifs

[JD]

On 05/24/11 22:07, Kevin J. Cummings wrote:
>
> You didn't explicitly list them.  Can I assume that they are:
>
> win7	192.168.1.1
> fedora	192.168.1.2
> xp1	192.168.1.3
> router	192.168.1.254
fedora 192.168.1.108
> ?
>
> Are these all DCHP assigned from the router?  or static?
> If dynamic, the router will also probably help set up your routing
> tables as well.... (and possibly your DNS stuff as well....)
Static
>> XP1 can ping win7 and can ping router, but cannot ping fedora.
> Strange!  Could be firewall related....
It must be.  But I have no idea what is preventing another
LAN host to ping fedora.
>> win7 cannot ping either win7 or fedora. It's firewall rules
> ???  xp1 can ping win7, but win7 cannot ping win7???
> And win7 cannot ping fedora?  I must confess, I don't know that much
> about win7, but that seems strange.
Na... My crapping typing ... sometimes my fingers get ahead of my 
thoughts :)
win7 cannot ping either xp1 or fedora - that's what I meant to say.

> Does traceroute tell you anything about the network routing?
>
> (BTW, Microsoft spells traceroute:  tracert)
Will have to try tracert tomorrow on win7. But on fedora:

$ traceroute xp1
traceroute to xp1 (192.168.1.3), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
  1  192.168.1.108 (192.168.1.108)  3006.508 ms !H  3006.495 ms !H  
3006.478 ms !H
And yet, I cannot ping it!!

$  traceroute win7
traceroute to win7 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
  1  * * *
  2  * * *
  3  * * *
  4  * * *
  5  * * *
  6  * * *
  7  * * *
  8  * * *
  9  * * *
10  * * *
11  * * *
12  * * *
13  * * *
14  * * *
15  * * *
16  * * *
17  * * *
18  * * *
19  * * *
20  * * *
21  * * *
22  * * *
23  * * *
24  * * *
25  * * *
26  * * *
27  * * *
28  * * *
29  * * *
30  * * *

What's this??? xp1 and win7 are on the same lan,
and I can ping win7 now. It is actually responding.
How come xp1, which fedora cannot ping is reached by traceroute,
and win7, which fedora can ping, is not reacheable by traceroute.
Could be that traceroute uses a protocol that win7 is blocking
and xp1 is not?

> 631 is the CUPS printing stuff.  The rest of those are Microsoft only
> services.  Maybe Samba (smbd/nmbd) will make use of them.
> Are you running samba on your fedora machine?
Yes
>> -A OUTPUT -d 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT
>> -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 8 -s 0/0 -d 0/0 -m state --state
>> NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
>>
>> Perhaps the 2nd output rule is redundant, but I had to make sure that
>> ping were  not blocked in or out.
> If you can ping the router without them, you don't need them.
OK. Thanx. I will remove them, because I could ping the router without 
them.wlan0??? You didn't mention this before (but its the same as I am using
> from my laptop).  I have 3 XP machines on my home network, and I have no
> problems pinging them (though they don't seem to respond to traceroute!)
>   Either way, and I have 2 linux servers (wired) that the XP machines can
> ping as well as my laptop.
Sorry! did not think of it.
> Have you tried the ping tests after turning off your fedora firewall
> (iptables)?
Indeed I have. Neither machine can ping fedora.
Router can ping fedora and vice versa with or without
iptables turned on. Router can also ping xp1 and win7.

> Are they any better or do they still fail?
They (xp1 and win7) fail to ping fedora.
> What about turning off your XP firewall, just to test the pinging?
Will try that in the morning.

Thanx Kevin for looking into this.
I am starting to think that the router must be taking an active role in 
this,
but I just cannot see any settings that would betray this.