I am facing an problem that is i have 2 nic in same machine named NIC-1 and NIC-2.
Both to them have static IP like 192.168.10.12 (NIC-1) and 172.16.10.12(NIC-2).
Both of them are on same machine and they are not connected by any wire.
I want to send packets between the two but the mail problem is i am not able to ping them.
Will the "brctrl" command help me in sending packets between them?
IPv4 addresses starting with 10.x.x.x, 172.x.x.x, and 192.168.x.x are private IP addresses. They are for private networks and not publicly routable.
To be able to ping between those two NICs, you would have to have IP addresses that are on the same subnet (they can be on the same private network), or that have routing masks that enable them to see each other on the net, and be connected via some physical medium.
There are 2 things in your Problem :
Both network should be in same subnet to ping .
there should be some cable mechanism to transfer packets or use loopback address for particular NIC .
Related
Is it possible to ping mininet ip? I found mininet's ip starts with 10.0.2.15 . I can ping from mininet to others. However, I failed to ping other place to mininet. How can I setup this?
10.0.0.0/8, which is 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 are IP addresses used only locally, they are not accessed from the internet (other networks). Here is some info from IANA:
These addresses are in use by many millions of independently operated networks, which might be as small as a single computer connected to a home gateway, and are automatically configured in hundreds of millions of devices. They are only intended for use within a private context and traffic that needs to cross the Internet will need to use a different, unique address.
These addresses can be used by anyone without any need to coordinate with IANA or an Internet registry. The traffic from these addresses does not come from ICANN or IANA. We are not the source of activity you may see on logs or in e-mail records.
For the sake of simplicity, I will refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_sockets and the UDP server and client source code there.
I am trying to send a packet using UDP protocol to a linux VirtualMachine server program. Both my host and VM ping well; all packets sent are received in both directions. However my server program is either not receiving any packets, or it is simply not printing. Either way, it isn't printing the confirmation or contents of any packets I send to it from the host.
I do not have another PC handy, but both programs communicate well enough if I stage them on the same computer and Wireshark reports that the packets are being sent.
Mine is a three part question: first, how can I fix this. Second, why would the host and VM receive each others ping messages, but not pass these on to the open sockets of both ends of my UDP system? Finally, do you have any suggestions about the form or intent of this question?
EDIT: I've tried running my VM with the NAT and bridged adapter network setups. However, I can't conceptualize the relationship between those setups and my problems right now.
With NAT networking, the VM gets a private IP address (usually 192.168.x.y) and the host does NAT translation of outgoing packets, and translates reply packets back to the VM. In this mode, all communication must be initiated by the VM -- outside machines can only send packets to the VM in reply to packets the VM sent to them. On the network, the packets will look like they're coming from/going to the host on some unrelated port.
With bridged networking, the VM gets a device that connects directly to the host's network device. In this mode, the VM appears as a separate machine on the same network LAN as the host, with its own IP address. You need to allocate an IP address for it, the same as the host get allocated an IP address (usually via DHCP).
In either case, to debug what is going on, use tcpdump/wireshark on the host to monitor the host's network device. Send packets from the VM, and you should see them in the trace -- they'll appear to come from the host and a different port in the NAT case, and will appear to come from the VM's IP address (and unchanged ports) in the bridged case.
Once you see that, you should be able to send packets back to the VM, though in the NAT case, they must come FROM the address/port the original packet(s) were sent to.
There are known issues with VirtualBox bridged networking not working properly on wifi devices; in general you can only use bridged networking with wired networks.
Oracles VB manual page clear all the terminology used in settings.
I've had similar problem, where my VB program didn't receive any packets, which I solved by setting "Bridged Networking" and setting up proper source/destination IP address in my program by analyzing WLAN interface with wireshark and using ifconfig (or ipconfig) in terminal.
I have a dual port ethernet NIC and let's say I have connected 2 ports in a loop and assigned the following IPs to the 2 ethernet interfaces:
eth2 -> 192.168.2.1
eth3 -> 192.168.3.1
I want to send traffic from 1 port to another over the physical network, e.g. ping 192.168.3.1 from 192.168.2.1. However, the TCP/IP stack in the Linux kernel recognizes that these two addresses are local and instead sends the traffic to the loopback adapter, so the traffic never hits the physical network.
The closest I have to a solution is Anastasov's send-to-self patch, which unfortunately, has been discontinued since kernel 3.6 so it won't work on Ubuntu 13.10 (kernel 3.11) for me. I've tried finding rewriting the patch for 3.11, but I can't seem to locate these in the Ubuntu distro:
include/linux/inetdevice.h
net/ipv4/devinet.c
net/ipv4/fib_frontend.c
net/ipv4/route.c
Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt
Is there a way I can get the send-to-self patch to work, or an alternative?
You can use network namespaces for this purpose.
As ip-netns's manpage says:
A network namespace is logically another copy of the network stack,
with its own routes, firewall rules, and network devices.
Following is just a copy of this answer:
Create a network namespace and move one of interfaces into it:
ip netns add test
ip link set eth1 netns test
Start a shell in the new namespace:
ip netns exec test bash
Then proceed as if you had two machines. When finished exit the shell and delete the namespace:
ip netns del test
you can try configuring route table, by running "ip" command:
ip route add to unicast 192.168.3.1 dev eth2
ip route add to unicast 192.168.2.1 dev eth3
new route would be added into route table, and it should be able to take effect before egress routing lookup hit the host-local route between "192.168.3.1" and "192.168.2.1", therefore, the traffic should be sent through physical interface "eth2" and "eth3", instead of loopback "lo"
Never tried myself, but should work.
Am using Cent OS 6.2 (64bit), I have 4 NIC interface, in that am trying to connect two NIC with different subnet,
em1 with 10.30.2.x series
em4 with 10.30.4.x series
Also I added route with /sbin/route add -net 10.30.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev em4
When I make the network device up "ifup em4" am not able to ping both the interfaces.
There is no IPtables running and selinux also disabled.
The same setup is working in one more DELL server, in that server reverse IP and IP forwarding is not enabled, even then its working.
Reverse IP & IP Forwarding
cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/em2/rp_filter
1
cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
0
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
If you are sure that ip addresses are actually setted on the interfaces, everything should work out, i would suggest to check network equipment on the way.
easiest way to test this is to use tcpdump -i any icmp and see if you actually receive the packets, this will also show you if your pong is going on the wrong interface.
hope that helps
I have two machines each with two valid network interfaces, an Ethernet interface eth0 and a tun/tap interface gr0. The goal is to start a TCP connection on machine A using interface gr0 but then have the responses (ACKs, etc) from machine B come back over the Ethernet interface, eth0. So, machine A sends out a SYN on gr0 and machine B receives the SYN on its own gr0 but then sends its SYN/ACK back through eth0. The tun/tap device is a GNU Radio wireless link and we just want the responses to come through the Ethernet.
What's the easiest way to accomplish this? I need to research more on TCP/IP, but I was initially thinking that source-spoofing outgoing packets would tell the receiver to respond to the spoofed address (which should get routed to eth0). This would involve routing the IPs from the tun/tap interfaces through gr0 and leave the other traffic to eth0.
We are using Linux and a Python solution would be preferable.
Thanks for looking!
You could add an additional address to the lo interface on each system and use these new addresses as the TCP connection endpoints. You can then use static routes to direct which path each machine takes to get to the other machine's lo address.
For example:
Machine A:
ip addr add 1.1.1.1/32 dev lo
ip route add 2.2.2.2/32 dev eth0 via <eth0 default gateway>
Machine B:
ip addr add 2.2.2.2/32 dev lo
ip route add 1.1.1.1/32 dev gr0
Then bind to 1.1.1.1 on machine A and connect to 2.2.2.2.
You may be interested in enabling logging of martian packets net.ipv4.conf.all.log_martians, and disable reverse path filtering net.ipv4.conf.<interface>.rp_filter on the affected interfaces.
This sysctl vars are accesible via the sysctl utility and/or the /proc filesystem.