1 |
Richard Fish: |
2 |
> Ok, two things to try. First, remove the 192.168.2.1 nameserver |
3 |
> from resolve.conf. That "nameserver" may be broken and unable to |
4 |
> resolve names on the internet. This should help the "ping |
5 |
> www.google.com" case. |
6 |
|
7 |
Yes, I've already said that, but.... you are great! ;-) |
8 |
I read your message this morning quickly, when I was going to work, |
9 |
and didn'understand it. |
10 |
Then I've spoken to a colleague of mine, a true network guru, a very |
11 |
capable ethical hacker, and I've understood! (I suppose....) |
12 |
My wireless router: |
13 |
a) runs a (WAN) DHCP client to get its IP address and the IP addresses |
14 |
of my provider's nameservers; |
15 |
b) it get those IP addresses to send them to me when I run a DHCP |
16 |
client; my wireless router runs a (LAN) DHCP server too, but it is |
17 |
*not* a nameserver; |
18 |
c) my DHCP client was configured as usual, i.e. "replace |
19 |
my /etc/resolv.conf"; I've added |
20 |
|
21 |
dhcpcd_toynet="-R -h sergio" |
22 |
^^ |
23 |
|
24 |
to /etc/conf.d/wireless and restarted /etc/init.d/net.wlan0. |
25 |
Now... there is no line "nameserver 192.168.2.1" in |
26 |
my /etc/resolv.conf and ping www.google.com is fast ;-) |
27 |
|
28 |
BTW: This evening I've started running Windows at first. ipconfig /all |
29 |
showed three nameservers, and 192.168.2.1 was the first one. |
30 |
However, when I ran nslookup, the message was clear: 192.168.2.1 is |
31 |
not a nameserver. Why the difference between fast (Windows) and slow |
32 |
(my previous Gentoo box) Internet pings? Perhaps because the Windows |
33 |
timeout is short: 2 seconds. I do not know how to eventually set such |
34 |
a timeout in Linux.... |
35 |
|
36 |
> Second, does "ping -I wlan0 192.168.2.1" work better? |
37 |
|
38 |
Nope. ping <-I wlan0 or -n> 192.168.2.1 is still blocked. |
39 |
Well, it's just a nuisance, but I'll keep looking for a solution. |
40 |
Any hints would be greately appreciated ;-) |
41 |
That's not strange, because: |
42 |
|
43 |
sergio ~ # nmap -sS -O -PI -PT 192.168.2.1 |
44 |
|
45 |
Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2006-11-28 |
46 |
22:21 CET |
47 |
Interesting ports on 192.168.2.1: |
48 |
Not shown: 1678 closed ports |
49 |
PORT STATE SERVICE |
50 |
80/tcp open http |
51 |
4662/tcp filtered edonkey |
52 |
MAC Address: 00:17:3F:0C:19:12 (Belkin) |
53 |
Device type: broadband router |
54 |
Running: Netgear embedded |
55 |
OS details: Netgear Wireless router or Netgear FM114P/REPOTEC IP515H |
56 |
Router & Print Server |
57 |
|
58 |
Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 4.834 seconds |
59 |
|
60 |
i.e., port 7 (Echo) looks closed. Does Windows' ping (which works) |
61 |
speak eDonkey? (very OT question ;-) |
62 |
|
63 |
> Oh, one last thing....you don't have any firewall rules enabled, |
64 |
> right? (iptables --list) |
65 |
|
66 |
Right. I wish to configure my real (wire and wireless connection to my |
67 |
ISP) and virtual (VMWare) networks, and then enable iptables. |
68 |
|
69 |
Thanks a lot, as usual ;-) |
70 |
Sergio |
71 |
|
72 |
PS: I wish to thank Thomas Sjolshagen (private message) and Hans de |
73 |
Hartog too. If one doesn't feel lonely when he tries to solve a |
74 |
problem, well.... that helps a lot! My English is poor, but I hope |
75 |
that you understand what I mean ;-) |
76 |
-- |
77 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |