ADSL debian internet woes

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by brendon ryniker, Jan 6, 2006.

  1. dear all

    I run debian [unstable] GNU/Linux and recently upgraded my kernel (via
    synaptic) to 2.6.12. This left me unable to use the internet as
    explained below - or let's say that it was at this time that my internet
    connxn turned bad.

    Down here in Kakanui, just south of Oamaru, I'm currently obliged to use
    xtra as an ISP, ie: ADSL. I am supplied with a D-Link DSL-302G ADSL
    modem. Essentially, it seems I'm on a private subnet; I'm dynamically
    assigned an IP address in the 10.*.*.* range. My immediate gateway lives
    at the xtra exchange, with the address 10.1.1.1. I'm also assigned name
    servers when I connect. By logging into the modem config application on
    the 10.1.1.1 box I can see various technical settings pertaining to my
    connection, including the *external* gateway through which I access the
    internet proper; currently this gateway is 222.153.169.179.

    Since I did the kernel upgrade, I seem unable to get past this external
    gateway. I can ping 10.1.1.1 and 222.153.169.179, but *not* the DNS
    servers assigned to me or - for that matter - anything else.

    And I should note that, for all my aspersions directed against my new
    kernel, I'm now getting the same result using either of my remaining
    'old' ones: 2.6.8-2-686 and 2.4.26-1-386. Err...and I upgraded a whole
    bunch of other stuff around the same time, too.

    He added helpfully.

    brendon@der:~$ uname -a
    Linux der.z.gen.nz 2.6.12-1-686 #1 Tue Sep 27 12:52:50 JST 2005 i686
    GNU/Linux

    brendon@der:~$ ifconfig
    eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddrXX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX
    inet addr:10.1.1.151 Bcast:10.255.255.255 Mask:255.0.0.0
    inet6 addr: fe80::250:baff:fe55:7f90/64 Scope:Link
    UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
    RX packets:469 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
    TX packets:390 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    RX bytes:359260 (350.8 KiB) TX bytes:42533 (41.5 KiB)
    Interrupt:185 Base address 0xd800

    lo Link encap:Local Loopback
    inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
    inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
    UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
    RX packets:70 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
    TX packets:70 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    RX bytes:6304 (6.1 KiB) TX bytes:6304 (6.1 KiB)

    brendon@der:~$ route
    Kernel IP routing table
    Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
    10.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
    default 10.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0

    # pinging "internal" gateway:

    brendon@der:~$ ping 10.1.1.1
    PING 10.1.1.1 (10.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 10.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.404 ms
    [etc]

    # pinging external gateway:

    brendon@der:~$ ping 222.153.169.179
    PING 222.153.169.179 (222.153.169.179) 56(84) bytes of data.
    64 bytes from 222.153.169.179: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.424 ms
    [etc]

    brendon@der:~$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
    # Dynamic resolv.conf(5) file for glibc resolver(3) generated by
    resolvconf(8)
    # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE BY HAND -- YOUR CHANGES WILL BE OVERWRITTEN
    nameserver 202.27.158.40
    nameserver 202.27.156.72

    # pinging nameserver:

    brendon@der:~$ ping 202.27.158.40
    PING 202.27.158.40 (202.27.158.40) 56(84) bytes of data.

    ....nope.

    =====================================================

    So, I'm at my wits end, hoping this will ring some bells somewhere out
    there. Help?

    Thanks for yr time,
    Brendon Ryniker.
    brendon ryniker, Jan 6, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. brendon ryniker

    Shane Guest

    On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:21:26 +1300, brendon ryniker wrote:

    > # pinging "internal" gateway:


    > brendon@der:~$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
    > # Dynamic resolv.conf(5) file for glibc resolver(3) generated by
    > resolvconf(8)
    > # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE BY HAND -- YOUR CHANGES WILL BE OVERWRITTEN
    > nameserver 202.27.158.40
    > nameserver 202.27.156.72
    >
    > # pinging nameserver:
    >
    > brendon@der:~$ ping 202.27.158.40
    > PING 202.27.158.40 (202.27.158.40) 56(84) bytes of data.
    >
    > ...nope.
    >
    > =====================================================
    >
    > So, I'm at my wits end, hoping this will ring some bells somewhere out
    > there. Help?
    >
    > Thanks for yr time,
    > Brendon Ryniker.


    you are using
    202.27.158.40 <<-- dnsc1.xtra.co.nz
    I couldnt make contact (at all) with
    202.27.156.72
    I use
    202.27.184.3 <<-- alien.xtra.co.nz
    202.27.184.5 <<-- terminator.xtra.co.nz

    I cant ping any of them, but I am using them as my dns servers ( I
    ran tcpdump port 53)

    As a test try
    nc -vvv 202.27.158.40 53

    Apart from that I dont see any issues, your machine *should* be on a
    private network, and it clearly is able to access 2 other networks
    (10.1.1.1 and 222.153.169.179)
    Test if you are able to ping www.google.com by name, if not test if you
    are able to ping google by ip (72.14.207.104)
    If these arent possible, reboot your crap (tm) router


    --
    One man's constant is another man's variable.
    -- A.J. Perlis
    Shane, Jan 6, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. brendon ryniker

    Enkidu Guest

    brendon ryniker wrote:
    > dear all
    >
    > I run debian [unstable] GNU/Linux and recently upgraded my kernel (via
    > synaptic) to 2.6.12. This left me unable to use the internet as
    > explained below - or let's say that it was at this time that my internet
    > connxn turned bad.
    >
    > Down here in Kakanui, just south of Oamaru, I'm currently obliged to use
    > xtra as an ISP, ie: ADSL. I am supplied with a D-Link DSL-302G ADSL
    > modem. Essentially, it seems I'm on a private subnet; I'm dynamically
    > assigned an IP address in the 10.*.*.* range. My immediate gateway lives
    > at the xtra exchange, with the address 10.1.1.1. I'm also assigned name
    > servers when I connect. By logging into the modem config application on
    > the 10.1.1.1 box I can see various technical settings pertaining to my
    > connection, including the *external* gateway through which I access the
    > internet proper; currently this gateway is 222.153.169.179.
    >
    > Since I did the kernel upgrade, I seem unable to get past this external
    > gateway. I can ping 10.1.1.1 and 222.153.169.179, but *not* the DNS
    > servers assigned to me or - for that matter - anything else.
    >
    > And I should note that, for all my aspersions directed against my new
    > kernel, I'm now getting the same result using either of my remaining
    > 'old' ones: 2.6.8-2-686 and 2.4.26-1-386. Err...and I upgraded a whole
    > bunch of other stuff around the same time, too.
    >
    > He added helpfully.
    >
    > brendon@der:~$ uname -a
    > Linux der.z.gen.nz 2.6.12-1-686 #1 Tue Sep 27 12:52:50 JST 2005 i686
    > GNU/Linux
    >
    > brendon@der:~$ ifconfig
    > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddrXX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX
    > inet addr:10.1.1.151 Bcast:10.255.255.255 Mask:255.0.0.0
    > inet6 addr: fe80::250:baff:fe55:7f90/64 Scope:Link
    > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
    > RX packets:469 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
    > TX packets:390 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    > RX bytes:359260 (350.8 KiB) TX bytes:42533 (41.5 KiB)
    > Interrupt:185 Base address 0xd800
    >
    > lo Link encap:Local Loopback
    > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
    > inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
    > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
    > RX packets:70 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
    > TX packets:70 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
    > RX bytes:6304 (6.1 KiB) TX bytes:6304 (6.1 KiB)
    >
    > brendon@der:~$ route
    > Kernel IP routing table
    > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
    > 10.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
    > default 10.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
    >
    > # pinging "internal" gateway:
    >
    > brendon@der:~$ ping 10.1.1.1
    > PING 10.1.1.1 (10.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
    > 64 bytes from 10.1.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.404 ms
    > [etc]
    >
    > # pinging external gateway:
    >
    > brendon@der:~$ ping 222.153.169.179
    > PING 222.153.169.179 (222.153.169.179) 56(84) bytes of data.
    > 64 bytes from 222.153.169.179: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.424 ms
    > [etc]
    >
    > brendon@der:~$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
    > # Dynamic resolv.conf(5) file for glibc resolver(3) generated by
    > resolvconf(8)
    > # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE BY HAND -- YOUR CHANGES WILL BE OVERWRITTEN
    > nameserver 202.27.158.40
    > nameserver 202.27.156.72
    >
    > # pinging nameserver:
    >
    > brendon@der:~$ ping 202.27.158.40
    > PING 202.27.158.40 (202.27.158.40) 56(84) bytes of data.
    >
    > ...nope.
    >
    > =====================================================
    >
    > So, I'm at my wits end, hoping this will ring some bells somewhere out
    > there. Help?
    >

    Hi Brendan,

    It will be your DSL302G that is handing out the IP addresses, not
    something at the exchange. I believe that Xtra/telecom uses PPPoA so the
    external address on the DSL302G is one end of a PPP link to some device
    somewhere in Xtra which could be anywhere. It's a bit like the old modem
    days when gets an external IP addresses and uses a PPP (not TCP/IP) link
    to the modem at the ISP.

    Second thing is, if the Name Servers are set up not to return pings,
    they won't respond to pings, so you cannot use that method to tell if
    they are contactable.

    As someone else said, 202.27.184.3 (alien.xtra.co.nz) and 202.27.184.5
    (terminator.xtra.co.nz) are the usual Xtra DNS server. Neither of them
    return pings.

    However I can get a response from them with telnet:

    cliffp@honeybee:~$ telnet 202.27.184.3 53
    Trying 202.27.184.3...
    Connected to 202.27.184.3.
    Escape character is '^]'.
    ^]

    telnet>

    So I can see them OK (using Actrix!)

    'dig' tells me that your 'dns servers' are:
    40.158.27.202.in-addr.arpa. 66140 IN PTR dnsc1.xtra.co.nz.
    72.156.27.202.in-addr.arpa. 74163 IN PTR dnsc2.xtra.co.nz.

    I don't know what those two are. I'd try using alien and terminator.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, Jan 7, 2006
    #3
  4. brendon ryniker

    Enkidu Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:21:26 +1300, brendon ryniker wrote:
    >
    >
    >># pinging "internal" gateway:

    >
    >
    >>brendon@der:~$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
    >># Dynamic resolv.conf(5) file for glibc resolver(3) generated by
    >>resolvconf(8)
    >># DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE BY HAND -- YOUR CHANGES WILL BE OVERWRITTEN
    >>nameserver 202.27.158.40
    >>nameserver 202.27.156.72
    >>
    >># pinging nameserver:
    >>
    >>brendon@der:~$ ping 202.27.158.40
    >>PING 202.27.158.40 (202.27.158.40) 56(84) bytes of data.
    >>
    >>...nope.
    >>
    >>=====================================================
    >>
    >>So, I'm at my wits end, hoping this will ring some bells somewhere out
    >>there. Help?
    >>
    >>Thanks for yr time,
    >>Brendon Ryniker.

    >
    >
    > you are using
    > 202.27.158.40 <<-- dnsc1.xtra.co.nz
    > I couldnt make contact (at all) with
    > 202.27.156.72
    >

    Both of those responded to me on port 53.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, Jan 7, 2006
    #4
  5. Shane wrote:
    >
    > I cant ping any of them, but I am using them as my dns servers ( I
    > ran tcpdump port 53)
    >
    > As a test try
    > nc -vvv 202.27.158.40 53
    >
    > Apart from that I dont see any issues, your machine *should* be on a
    > private network, and it clearly is able to access 2 other networks
    > (10.1.1.1 and 222.153.169.179)
    > Test if you are able to ping www.google.com by name, if not test if you
    > are able to ping google by ip (72.14.207.104)
    > If these arent possible, reboot your crap (tm) router
    >


    thanks shane (& cliff - hello). The DNS ain't the problem per se -
    merely offered as a (potentially bogus, apparently) example of my
    inability to ping damn near anything apart from either end of my
    immediate connxn to the xtra net. I appreciate the modem's role in IP
    assignation etc, cliff and have rebooted the little fecker many times,
    shane. I can't ping google by name (obviously) but neither can I ping it
    by IP. The box considers the network reachable, but the ping never
    returns. This is the crux of my problem. The external xtra gateway is
    the farthest (furtherest?) I can successfully ping.

    Don't appear to have the nc utility, shane.

    /b/
    brendon ryniker, Jan 7, 2006
    #5
  6. brendon ryniker

    Enkidu Guest

    brendon ryniker wrote:
    > Shane wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I cant ping any of them, but I am using them as my dns servers ( I
    >> ran tcpdump port 53)
    >>
    >> As a test try
    >> nc -vvv 202.27.158.40 53
    >>
    >> Apart from that I dont see any issues, your machine *should* be on a
    >> private network, and it clearly is able to access 2 other networks
    >> (10.1.1.1 and 222.153.169.179)
    >> Test if you are able to ping www.google.com by name, if not test if you
    >> are able to ping google by ip (72.14.207.104)
    >> If these arent possible, reboot your crap (tm) router
    >>

    >
    > thanks shane (& cliff - hello). The DNS ain't the problem per se -
    > merely offered as a (potentially bogus, apparently) example of my
    > inability to ping damn near anything apart from either end of my
    > immediate connxn to the xtra net. I appreciate the modem's role in IP
    > assignation etc, cliff and have rebooted the little fecker many times,
    > shane. I can't ping google by name (obviously) but neither can I ping it
    > by IP. The box considers the network reachable, but the ping never
    > returns. This is the crux of my problem. The external xtra gateway is
    > the farthest (furtherest?) I can successfully ping.
    >
    > Don't appear to have the nc utility, shane.
    >

    I can ping that IP address that you gave as an external gateway,
    Brendon, so the networking seems OK. What happens when you pick an
    address out there and you traceroute it, rather than ping it? Do you get
    any further out?

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, Jan 7, 2006
    #6
  7. brendon ryniker

    Shane Guest

    On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:19:54 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

    > brendon ryniker wrote:
    >> Shane wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> I cant ping any of them, but I am using them as my dns servers ( I ran
    >>> tcpdump port 53)
    >>>
    >>> As a test try
    >>> nc -vvv 202.27.158.40 53
    >>>
    >>> Apart from that I dont see any issues, your machine *should* be on a
    >>> private network, and it clearly is able to access 2 other networks
    >>> (10.1.1.1 and 222.153.169.179)
    >>> Test if you are able to ping www.google.com by name, if not test if you
    >>> are able to ping google by ip (72.14.207.104) If these arent possible,
    >>> reboot your crap (tm) router
    >>>
    >>>

    >> thanks shane (& cliff - hello). The DNS ain't the problem per se -
    >> merely offered as a (potentially bogus, apparently) example of my
    >> inability to ping damn near anything apart from either end of my
    >> immediate connxn to the xtra net. I appreciate the modem's role in IP
    >> assignation etc, cliff and have rebooted the little fecker many times,
    >> shane. I can't ping google by name (obviously) but neither can I ping it
    >> by IP. The box considers the network reachable, but the ping never
    >> returns. This is the crux of my problem. The external xtra gateway is
    >> the farthest (furtherest?) I can successfully ping.
    >>
    >> Don't appear to have the nc utility, shane.
    >>

    > I can ping that IP address that you gave as an external gateway, Brendon,
    > so the networking seems OK. What happens when you pick an address out
    > there and you traceroute it, rather than ping it? Do you get any further
    > out?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff


    The network *must* be OK (hes here on windows)
    The only other thing I can think of is firewall issues

    --
    I've run DOOM more in the last few days than I have the last few
    months. I just love debugging ;-)
    (Linus Torvalds)
    Shane, Jan 7, 2006
    #7
  8. Enkidu wrote:

    > I can ping that IP address that you gave as an external gateway,
    > Brendon, so the networking seems OK. What happens when you pick an
    > address out there and you traceroute it, rather than ping it? Do you get
    > any further out?
    >

    traceroute to 72.14.207.104 (72.14.207.104), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
    1 * * *
    2 * * *
    3 * * *
    4 * * *
    5 * * *
    6 * * *
    7 * * *

    etc...

    nope.

    And yeah, guess I shoulda mentioned that if I use this laptop here with
    win2K on it, everything is fine & dandy.

    /b/
    brendon ryniker, Jan 7, 2006
    #8
  9. brendon ryniker

    Steve Guest

    On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:21:26 +1300, brendon ryniker wrote:

    [snip]

    Upgrading your kernel will make absolutely no difference to your internet
    connection, which is handled by the router.

    This uses dhcp to deliver you an IP address. Test this manually using the
    command

    dhclient eth0

    If this returns a decent reply, and allocates 10.1.1.x then all is fine.

    Can you try adding the line
    nameserver 10.1.1.1
    at the top of /etc/resolv.conf?

    Also, is the definition for eth0 in /etc/network/interfaces sset to dhcp?

    Finally, there's been a load of problems lately with xtra connections
    which have been fixed by rebooting your router. This is the most likely
    problem.

    HTH,

    Steve
    BTW I'm on debian unstable with a 2.6.15 kernel, and even wireless
    networking is working, so IT WILL WORK :)
    Steve, Jan 7, 2006
    #9
  10. brendon ryniker

    Steve Guest

    On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:54:36 +1300, Steve wrote:

    > On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:21:26 +1300, brendon ryniker wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > Upgrading your kernel will make absolutely no difference to your internet
    > connection, which is handled by the router.
    >
    > This uses dhcp to deliver you an IP address. Test this manually using the
    > command
    >
    > dhclient eth0
    >
    > If this returns a decent reply, and allocates 10.1.1.x then all is fine.
    >
    > Can you try adding the line
    > nameserver 10.1.1.1
    > at the top of /etc/resolv.conf?
    >
    > Also, is the definition for eth0 in /etc/network/interfaces sset to dhcp?
    >
    > Finally, there's been a load of problems lately with xtra connections
    > which have been fixed by rebooting your router. This is the most likely
    > problem.
    >
    > HTH,
    >
    > Steve
    > BTW I'm on debian unstable with a 2.6.15 kernel, and even wireless
    > networking is working, so IT WILL WORK :)


    Sorry, I should have read your post more closely about the rebooting
    stuff. The best target to ping to see if things are working is
    www.google.com - it always responds and proves both dns and connectivity
    is ok. I would agree with the suggestion that it's a firewalling issue.
    Try switching it off ( /etc/init.d/iptables stop) and see if that helps
    things. You're pretty safe without it unless you're running web/mail
    servers from home... and we wouldn't be doing that 'cos it's against the
    rules (^:

    Steve.
    Steve, Jan 7, 2006
    #10
  11. Steve wrote:
    >
    > This uses dhcp to deliver you an IP address. Test this manually

    using the
    > command
    >
    > dhclient eth0
    >
    > If this returns a decent reply, and allocates 10.1.1.x then all is fine.
    >
    > Can you try adding the line
    > nameserver 10.1.1.1
    > at the top of /etc/resolv.conf?


    > Also, is the definition for eth0 in /etc/network/interfaces sset to dhcp?


    There's no problem with IP allocation - or DNS *particularly*. DNS just
    happens to be one of the many things I can't reach. And yes to the
    interfaces entry question; that's the weird thing - everything seems
    just fine at this end.

    > Finally, there's been a load of problems lately with xtra connections
    > which have been fixed by rebooting your router. This is the most likely
    > problem.


    And the first thing I try every morning ...

    > BTW I'm on debian unstable with a 2.6.15 kernel, and even wireless
    > networking is working, so IT WILL WORK :)


    Thanks for that - At the very least it disproves my wilder fantasies of
    linux-specific routing failures at xtra.

    cheers
    /b/
    brendon ryniker, Jan 7, 2006
    #11
  12. brendon ryniker

    Shane Guest

    On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:51:09 +1300, brendon ryniker wrote:

    > Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> I can ping that IP address that you gave as an external gateway,
    >> Brendon, so the networking seems OK. What happens when you pick an
    >> address out there and you traceroute it, rather than ping it? Do you get
    >> any further out?
    >>

    > traceroute to 72.14.207.104 (72.14.207.104), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
    > 1 * * *
    > 2 * * *
    > 3 * * *
    > 4 * * *
    > 5 * * *
    > 6 * * *
    > 7 * * *
    >
    > etc...
    >
    > nope.
    >
    > And yeah, guess I shoulda mentioned that if I use this laptop here with
    > win2K on it, everything is fine & dandy.
    >
    > /b/


    If you have 2 machines there.. run a packet sniffer and watch the traffic
    between the debian box and the intarweb
    A good windows packet sniffer (free) can be found at
    http://www.zone-h.org/download/file=4278/
    NetworkActivSnifferV1.4.exe (280 KB, downloads: 6450)
    NetworkActivSniffer v1.4.2.2 is a packet sniffer for Windows 2000/XP. Can
    filter on IP address, port, packet size, protocol, or sub-string
    searching of packet content. Also, you can search for a sub-string within
    the current list of packets, save the list of packets to a text file,
    view the contents of each packet, and more. Also can sniff and analyze
    HTTP. Homepage: http://www.networkactiv.com. By Mike J. Kowalski

    What were the other programs you updated?
    Did you use a generic kernel, or did you compile your own?

    <close to waving the Im stumped flag>

    --
    We are not a clone.
    Shane, Jan 7, 2006
    #12
  13. brendon ryniker

    Enkidu Guest

    brendon ryniker wrote:
    > Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >> I can ping that IP address that you gave as an external gateway,
    >> Brendon, so the networking seems OK. What happens when you pick an
    >> address out there and you traceroute it, rather than ping it? Do you
    >> get any further out?
    >>

    > traceroute to 72.14.207.104 (72.14.207.104), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
    > 1 * * *
    > 2 * * *
    > etc...
    >
    > nope.
    >
    > And yeah, guess I shoulda mentioned that if I use this laptop here with
    > win2K on it, everything is fine & dandy.
    >

    Mmmm, can you ping the one from the other?

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, Jan 7, 2006
    #13
  14. brendon ryniker

    Enkidu Guest

    Steve wrote:
    >
    > Can you try adding the line
    > nameserver 10.1.1.1
    > at the top of /etc/resolv.conf?
    >

    Good point.

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, Jan 7, 2006
    #14
  15. brendon ryniker

    Enkidu Guest

    Shane wrote:
    > On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 17:19:54 +1300, Enkidu wrote:
    >
    >
    >>brendon ryniker wrote:
    >>
    >>>Shane wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I cant ping any of them, but I am using them as my dns servers ( I ran
    >>>>tcpdump port 53)
    >>>>
    >>>>As a test try
    >>>>nc -vvv 202.27.158.40 53
    >>>>
    >>>>Apart from that I dont see any issues, your machine *should* be on a
    >>>>private network, and it clearly is able to access 2 other networks
    >>>>(10.1.1.1 and 222.153.169.179)
    >>>>Test if you are able to ping www.google.com by name, if not test if you
    >>>>are able to ping google by ip (72.14.207.104) If these arent possible,
    >>>>reboot your crap (tm) router
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>thanks shane (& cliff - hello). The DNS ain't the problem per se -
    >>>merely offered as a (potentially bogus, apparently) example of my
    >>>inability to ping damn near anything apart from either end of my
    >>>immediate connxn to the xtra net. I appreciate the modem's role in IP
    >>>assignation etc, cliff and have rebooted the little fecker many times,
    >>>shane. I can't ping google by name (obviously) but neither can I ping it
    >>>by IP. The box considers the network reachable, but the ping never
    >>>returns. This is the crux of my problem. The external xtra gateway is
    >>>the farthest (furtherest?) I can successfully ping.
    >>>
    >>>Don't appear to have the nc utility, shane.
    >>>

    >>
    >>I can ping that IP address that you gave as an external gateway, Brendon,
    >>so the networking seems OK. What happens when you pick an address out
    >>there and you traceroute it, rather than ping it? Do you get any further
    >>out?

    >
    > The network *must* be OK (hes here on windows)
    > The only other thing I can think of is firewall issues
    >

    Good point.

    Brendan, did you by any chance install SELinux or Bastille, or some
    other Linux 'hardener'?

    If you can post the results of

    iptables -L -n -x

    without giving too much away, it might help. Also this might help

    iptables -t nat -L -n -x

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    Enkidu, Jan 7, 2006
    #15
  16. Enkidu wrote:

    > Brendan, did you by any chance install SELinux or Bastille, or some
    > other Linux 'hardener'?


    nope.

    > If you can post the results of
    >
    > iptables -L -n -x


    Currently:

    der:/home/brendon# iptables -L -n -x
    Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
    target prot opt source destination

    Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
    target prot opt source destination

    Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
    target prot opt source destination

    > without giving too much away, it might help. Also this might help
    >
    > iptables -t nat -L -n -x
    >


    Nope. BTW, I notice that /etc/init.d/rc.firewall did not have execute
    bit set, and anyway, had no links to rc*.d directories. Presumably this
    file was installed during the upgrade of iptables concurrent with kernel
    upgrade? Anyway, to my largely ignorant eye it looks like iptables is
    doing no filtering at all to speak of?

    cheers,
    /b/
    brendon ryniker, Jan 8, 2006
    #16
  17. brendon ryniker wrote:
    > I run debian [unstable] GNU/Linux and recently upgraded my kernel (via
    > synaptic) to 2.6.12. This left me unable to use the internet as
    > explained below - or let's say that it was at this time that my internet
    > connxn turned bad.
    >
    > Down here in Kakanui, just south of Oamaru, I'm currently obliged to use
    > xtra as an ISP, ie: ADSL. I am supplied with a D-Link DSL-302G ADSL
    > modem.


    Contrary to other reports I suspect your kernel upgrade is at the heart of your
    problems.

    The change from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12 in Debian unstable sees a change in the USB
    subsystem from hotplug to udev. Sadly the developers responsible don't have any
    problem with using two incompatible systems with a single point change of
    kernel version, and they are intransigent in the face of requests and patches
    to add code to handle the problem intelligently.

    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=udev

    If you can't get your modem to work with udev (as I couldn't with various USB
    devices) i suggest you either downgrade the kernel (perhaps reinstating
    hotplug) or use the ethernet port on the modem rather than the USB one.
    Mark Robinson, Feb 3, 2006
    #17
  18. brendon ryniker

    thingy Guest

    Mark Robinson wrote:
    > brendon ryniker wrote:
    >
    >> I run debian [unstable] GNU/Linux and recently upgraded my kernel (via
    >> synaptic) to 2.6.12. This left me unable to use the internet as
    >> explained below - or let's say that it was at this time that my
    >> internet connxn turned bad.
    >>
    >> Down here in Kakanui, just south of Oamaru, I'm currently obliged to
    >> use xtra as an ISP, ie: ADSL. I am supplied with a D-Link DSL-302G
    >> ADSL modem.

    >
    >
    > Contrary to other reports I suspect your kernel upgrade is at the heart
    > of your problems.
    >
    > The change from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12 in Debian unstable sees a change in the
    > USB subsystem from hotplug to udev. Sadly the developers responsible
    > don't have any problem with using two incompatible systems with a single
    > point change of kernel version, and they are intransigent in the face of
    > requests and patches to add code to handle the problem intelligently.
    >
    > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=udev
    >
    > If you can't get your modem to work with udev (as I couldn't with
    > various USB devices) i suggest you either downgrade the kernel (perhaps
    > reinstating hotplug) or use the ethernet port on the modem rather than
    > the USB one.



    Your in Debian un-stable, expect such issues FFS. Bugs and problems get
    fixed in order of priority....

    You should not be running unstable....it is for bleeding edge people to
    debug future code, if you find an issue its expected you report it and
    fix it your self....

    [re]-install a 2.4 kernel.......

    Better go back to 3.1, from the post you are best advised not to run
    un-stable, it will have a lot of bugs and you are going to meet them...

    regards

    Thing
    thingy, Feb 4, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,208
    Vivek
    Nov 25, 2005
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    653
    Silverstrand
    Jan 20, 2006
  3. =?Utf-8?B?am9zaGNhbGk=?=

    Remote Desktop Connection woes... black screen with Earthlink ADSL

    =?Utf-8?B?am9zaGNhbGk=?=, Aug 8, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,152
    =?Utf-8?B?am9zaGNhbGk=?=
    Aug 8, 2006
  4. -pau.fr
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    699
    -pau.fr
    Oct 29, 2006
  5. DUser
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    373
    DUser
    Jan 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page