Network problems

Boggess Rod rboggess at tenovacore.com
Tue Dec 28 15:23:09 UTC 2010



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Stanley [mailto:bstanle at wowway.com]
>Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 10:31 PM
>To: Boggess Rod
>Subject: Re: Network problems
>
>On 12/27/2010 02:33 PM, Boggess Rod wrote:
>>> By the way, it has been suggested that I do a reinstall on the
affected
>>> computer... I am getting to that point but not just yet.  You see, I
>>> learn the most when confronting a problem and I am certainly
learning a
>>> lot now.  When my frustration reaches a certain point, I will
>> reinstall.
>>>
>> Now that I'm caught up on the emails, a quick recap:
>>
>> 1) This is primarily a learning experience, as opposed to a
production
>> setup that you have to have running no later than yesterday.
>
>WS=> This is correct.  I did say that this was a home network.  A bit
of
>background about my situation.  I am presently retired (disability) but
>I do have an advanced degree in computer science.  I had to quit my PhD
>dissertation (I was just about to start) because of my illness which in
>no was affects my mental abilities.  I am presently working  with my
PhD
>committee chairman (but not for course credit).   As such I have no
real
>deadlines.  The problem is that computer networking is far from my
>specialty.  I have had the obligatory network courses but I have just
>scratched the surface on network.s (My specialty is testing, verifying
>and debugging software.)
>
>> 2) You have (at present) two computers running Linux.
>
>I actually have a third computer that I just today installed Unbuntu
>10.10 on.  It is very ancient and I am suprised that I was actually
>gotten Unbuntu to work on.  As a measure of what I mean by ancient.
The
>third computer has a Pentium II processor running at 300 Mz.  It has
384
>Mb of RAM and the linux partition is Ext4 and 6.5 Gbyte in size.  It is
>running very SLOW but it is running.  I have installed the WireShark
>network analyzer on it and I intend to use it to record the network
>communications of the other two computers.  It should be able to record
>their communications.   I might try to see if can share files with it
>but I am not holding my breath.

You might try Xubuntu instead of Ubuntu since it's more resource
friendly. Xubuntu uses the Xfce x-manager which has lower demands than
GNOME, but it's similar enough that you won't feel lost. Using Wireshark
is fun for a learning experience, but I'm not really sure what
troubleshooting value you'll find in it here. You should start off with
something that works first, so you can see how the network performs
normally. Then you can more readily spot changes.

Note that if you're using a switch in full-duplex that non-broadcast
traffic (most of what you want to see) is filtered out by the switch. In
full duplex, once the DNS resolves to IP and ARP resolves to MAC
address, all direct communications should take place between these two
ports on the switch. The third port, the one where your wireshark is
running, will not be "bothered" with this traffic. To change this, you
can either use a really cheap (unintelligent) router (hard to find); you
can (usually) configure your switch to capture all traffic on one port
and connect the wireshark computer to that port; or you can run
wireshark from one of the two machines participating in the
conversation. (I have always done the last part, so I can't help much
with the setting up promiscuous ports on a router or switch. Simplex
mode on the switch might also produce this behavior on all ports, but I
don't know.)

There are web sites and lists dedicated to wireshark, and you'll find
them very friendly. I have to mention, though, that wireshark also runs
on Windows, so you needn't have installed linux at all on the other box
for this. The windows version is harder to run the Ethernet card in
promiscuous mode, requiring an update to a system DLL, but it also has
features in the Windows version that are not available in the linux
distribution.

>
>> 3) Ping works for name and IP for one, but only IP for the other. For
>> the one that does work, IP by host name is more than a hundred times
>> slower and does not resolve to the correct, desired IP.
>
>Your question about ping.  I can successfully ping the ancient computer
>and vice versa when I specify their ip numbers but not when I specify
>their host-names.  Maybe that is because I am not running name server
>software?  At least this test shows that it is not the router or the
>network per sat.  As such, it has to be something with the second
>computer.  If necessary, I can transfer files via CD rOM but this is
>both costly and time consuming.  Most of my important files are still
on
>the second computer.

Converting a hostname to an IP address is performed by the Domain Name
Server (DNS). So, yes, that's your first mystery solved. I'm guessing
you have a DNS specified in the configuration, but that the DNS server
is external. However, if you're running DHCP, sometimes the DNS is built
into the DHCP server for those addresses it assigns. If you're using
fixed IP addressing, this doesn't apply, but if not, you might try to
determine the IP address of your Domain Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) server and add that IP address to the list of DNS servers on both
machines, then try pinging by host name again. In this case, you'll want
the local DNS to be first in the list. Thus, if there's a name
resolution conflict, it'll get your local machine first; but this is
also quicker on average (on the assumption that most traffic will be
local).

Agreed, sneakernet sucks. If it comes to that, though (and it
shouldn't), don't you have a usb stick? Quicker than CD ROM. Still, if
the fix lacks urgency, you'll eventually figure it out. Worst case, you
should be able to create -- I believe it's called a crossover cable --
to connect the two computers directly. (For that matter, it might be
quicker to open the case and pull the drive to do a direct copy.)

>
>> 4) You have double-checked cabling, but not the router.
>
>My successful ping test with the ancient computer indicates that it
>isn't a router or cabling problem.  I have not yet tried to share fles
>between these computers.
>
>> 5) You're adding a third (windows) computer.
>
>The third computer can dual boot to Win 2000.  I have today installed
>Unbuntu 10.10 on it and am presently using it as a Linux computer.  By
>the way, I can dual boot to windows on all three computers.
>
>> Is that about right? Or am I off on that third or fourth bit? Are you
>> using fixed IP or are you running DHCP in the router or one of these
>> machines? Can we assume that the firewall has no filtering enabled,
>> neither ports nor SNMP replies?
>
>I am running DCHP in the router.  From my discussion with you all, I
>gather that I do not have any rules.  ( I might be wrong although I
have
>been playing around with the firewall on computer two.  Where can I
look
>to see what, if any, rules are written?   As for Samba replies, that is
>what the WireShark network analyzer will do.
>
>It is getting late so I will continue this battle tomorrow.  Right now,
>one has to see the mess of cables around my desk with 3 computers
>running.  It's quite confusing to be sure I am using the right keyboard
>and mouse.  Anything you might say might set me on the right track to
>resolving this problem.   My saga will continue tomorrow.  Thanks again
>for any help you might offer,

I'm pretty sure of a few things: 1) you don't have SAMBA server running.
If you did, the port would have been listed as open in your scan. You
should get samba server running on all of the machines. (Strictly
speaking, this might be overkill, but we can return to this issue
later.) 2) the firewall likely isn't the obstruction.

You mentioned above that you're using a router -- is the router
assigning IP addresses? Can you give a better picture of the network
layout?




More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list