Subject: Re: Network blues.
To: None <port-arm32@netbsd.org>
From: Ib-Michael Martinsen <imm@nethotel.dk>
List: port-arm32
Date: 10/19/1998 22:41:35
Hi Again.
I'm sorry to waste bandwith again, the last messages I sent were
sent from Lotus Notes in compressed format, I deeply regret that.
Here is the message once again, hopefully uncompressed.
Hi Stefan
you wrote:
>
> > The connection takes place through a black box labeled COM21,
> > modelno. CP1100D. I do not know what kind of device it is, my
> > ISP calls it a cable modem.
>
> And there's no configuration needed for this device? If it's running
Appearently not, at least not from Windows and I was given no further
instructions or documents on the modem. The only instructions was on
how to set up a Windows PC in the network control panel. I tried that,
and it works.
> e.g. PPP over some lower level protocol configuration might be
> neccessary for authentication and dialing (if there is some sort of
> dialing). There should also be some way of configuring the ethernet
> interface of the cable modem. I assume this cable modem works like a
> ISDN router. I.e. it has an ethernet interface and an interface to
> your provider. The interface to your provider can be set up
> dynamically but the ethernet side needs to be configured statically
> because it is your RiscPC's default gateway.
I guess your assumptions are right, but I really don't know.
> > I was given the following IP-information:
> > ip-address: 192.168.89.234
> > network-address: 192.168.89.0
> > gateway: 192.168.89.254
>
> No address for a name server?
Yes, but it should not be necessary in order to ping the gateway,
should it?
> > /etc/mygate:
> > gateway
>
> You could try using the ip address (192.168.89.254) instead of a name here.
I guess it is not necessary as I get the address when I ping gateway,
so my system knows the address of gateway.
> > /etc/ifconfig.em0:
> > inet riscpc.stofanet.dk
>
> Likewise. Try using an ip address.
I have tried. It does not make any difference :-(
> > Why is the gateway definition marked as unreachable (flag=R)?
>
> Your etherm card probably has no connection to the cable modem's
> interface. The cable modem's interface could e.g. be configured for a
> different ip address.
I think it does have a connection, at least tcpdump shows
14:28:51.569822 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:52.569822 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:53.569822 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:54.569822 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:54.616370 arp who-has 192.168.92.51 tell (0xcc06a) 192.168.80.254
14:28:55.569838 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:56.623456 arp who-has 192.168.80.103 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.80.254
14:28:56.896606 arp who-has 192.168.88.193 tell (0xcc07e) 192.168.80.254
etc.
> What output do you get when doing an
>
> arp -a
root@nethotel:/etc => arp -a
nethotel.dk (192.168.89.234) at 00:00:a4:11:57:d8 permanent
root@nethotel:/etc =>
The problem might be that the Arp-request from my NetBSD (for
gateway) does not get a valid result, if any at all. I guess my
problem boils down to find the Ethernet-address (MAC-address) of
the cable-modem.
If it is impossible to get when running NetBSD, is it then possible
to get it under Windows? If so, I could get it from there and
set it up for arp/rarpd on NetBSD?
I just did that. Getting the MAC-address of the CAble Modem with
Windows arp -a command was easy. It appears that IP-addresses
192.168.80.254 and 192.168.89.254 both refer to the Cable MOdem
MAC. I put the address 192.168.89.254 with the MAC-address into
/etc/ethers and started an rarpd, but there is still issued/broadcated
an arp-request when I ping 192.168.89.254. Why doesn't the rarpd
answer the request?
> > And why does it take so long to display a netstat -r by names?
>
> My guess is that the name lookup tries to contact your name server,
> runs on a timeout and then tries a name lookup by using /etc/hosts.
I guess you are right, but my /etc/resolv.conf file says
lookup file bind
so it ought to work the other way around with consequently lesser
delay. But it does not, why?
> Can you ping your own interface (192.168.89.234)?
Yep.
> From the output of the above commands I'd expect it to work. If your
> own interface actually works then the next step is to try to ping the
> gateway.
I did, as you noticed
> >
> > The ping gateway returns:
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:20 # ping gateway
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:20 PING gateway (192.168.89.254): 56 data bytes
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:27 ping: sendto: Host is down
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:28 ping: sendto: Host is down
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:29 ping: sendto: Host is down
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:30 ping: sendto: Host is down
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:31 ping: sendto: Host is down
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:31 ^C
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:32 ----gateway PING Statistics----
> > 1998-10-15 19:16:32 11 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
>
> So the name lookup works but it looks like your gateway is down.
> > Before anyone suggest my hardware may be faulty I can say that I tested
> > the cable modem with a PC, and it worked flawlessly. But during boot of
> > NetBSD/arm32 I have noticed, that when booting and the RiscPC is
> > connected to a PC the boot messages show:
> >
> > Oct 8 18:02:02 nethotel /netbsd: em0 at podulebus0 [ netslot 0 ]:
> > Oct 8 18:02:02 nethotel /netbsd: em0: Ethernet address 00:00:a4:11:57:d8
> > Oct 8 18:02:02 nethotel /netbsd: em0: 16KB buffer memory, UTP
> >
> > OK, the PC might have been turned off at time of NetBSD boot. But when
> > booting with the RiscPC connected to the cable modem, I get:
> >
> > Oct 17 13:31:32 riscpc /netbsd: em0 at podulebus0 [ netslot 0 ]:
> > Oct 17 13:31:32 riscpc /netbsd: em0: Ethernet address 00:00:a4:11:57:d8
> > Oct 17 13:31:32 riscpc /netbsd: em0: 16KB buffer memory, UTP reverse polarity, link OK, UTP
> >
> > Is the reverse polarity the cause of the troubles?
> > I am using an Atomwide RiscPC EtherM card.
>
> I don't think so. It seems that the arm32 driver is just a little
> more verbose that the i386 driver.
Hmm, odd. I have only seen the above boot message (UTP reverse
polarity) once. But then again it does not seem to matter.
The next is still valid:
> > If anybody cares to answer then please do so by email, as it is
> > currently impossibly for me to download news using my current
> > telephone-based ISP.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Ib-Michael
>
Thank you for your time. Regards
Ib-Michael
--
Ib-Michael Martinsen Email at work: dtpimm@dsg.dk
Fidomail: 2:234/181.9 Email at home: imm@nethotel.dk
Running NetBSD/arm32 v1.3a on an Acorn RiscPC with a 202MHz StrongArm.