Re: odd sub net behaviour

In message <DDE977C5-7952-43DE-80B6-8E824A365169@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, HS <HS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
It sounds like you already know what you're doing but maybe don't see the
difference.
The 0.0.0.0 is a default route added by a routing protocol telling the
machine the way to get to 192.168.157 is via 192.168.1.1. RIP can do this.

Thanks for the reply, whilst I'm not familiar with RIP, I think I understand what you're saying.

Based on your comments I tried another test, set up the .157 machine with a .128 mask, as expected no route to 0.0.0.0 through 192.168.1.1.

Disconnecting and reconnecting the Ethernet cable to the NIC caused the 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.157 20
route to appear in XP's routing table.

Monitoring the traffic immediately after reconnecting Ethernet to the ..157 machine, using Ethereal, there was no RIP traffic, there were SSDP and IGMP messages for multicast addresses.

The only oddity was the second packet from the host 192.168.1.157 255.255.255.128 (the first packet was a gratuitous ARP to itself), which was an ARP for 'who has 192.168.1.1? Reply to 192.168.1.157', which I wouldn't have expected to see as 192.168.1.1 is on another subnet.





Anyone know of a fix for the following subnet behaviour in Windows XP
Pro?

I have a gateway router on 192.168.1.1 and a PC on 192.168.1.157 with a
subnet mask of 255.255.255.128.

Initially when I configure the .128 subnet mask I cannot ping to
external addresses, which is as I'd expect.

If I subsequently reboot the PC, or if I disable and re-enable the NIC I
can now ping external IP addresses through the router, which I don't
expect to be able to do, and seems wrong that I can access the router on
192.168.1.1 when it's on a different subnet.

The issue seems to be that following a reboot or enable/disable of the
NIC a route is added to the routing table (see below).

So in summary; initially after changing to a .128 subnet routing is as
expected, after a PC reboot routing appears to behave incorrectly. The
behaviour is the same on two independent installs of XP Pro, on
different hardware platforms with two different NICs.


Following is the route print /immediately after/ changing the net mask
to .128, when I can't ping external IPs as expected:


Active Routes:
Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface
Metric
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.1.128 255.255.255.128 192.168.1.157 192.168.1.157 20
192.168.1.157 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 20
192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.157 192.168.1.157 20
224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.1.157 192.168.1.157 20
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.157 192.168.1.157 1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.157 3 1
=========================================================================
==
Persistent Routes:
None





Following is the route print /after/ disabling and then re-enabling the
NIC (no other change), when I can ping external IPs, where the PC
appears happy to route via .157 / .1 :


Active Routes:
Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface
Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.157 20
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.1.128 255.255.255.128 192.168.1.157 192.168.1.157 20
192.168.1.157 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 20
192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.157 192.168.1.157 20
224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.1.157 192.168.1.157 20
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.157 192.168.1.157 1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.157 3 1
Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1
=========================================================================
==
Persistent Routes:
None





Apologies if you've already seem this in the .general newsgroup, I'd not
spotted this group when I initially posted.




--
bof at bof dot me dot uk


--
bof at bof dot me dot uk
.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: More help needed please
    ... Each interface is isolated from the other for security reasons. ... If so the use a client machine and set it's route to the f/w ... > routing table leading me to claim that it may be a bug. ... Both nics are set to come up at ...
    (RedHat)
  • Re: Event ID 1000 (Userenv) Error and Event ID 8021 (BROWSER) Error
    ... > destination route entry with the 192.168.0.1 GWY was higher priority, ... > the external network), and from there to the open Internet. ... > An additional item is that it appears that if any of the NICs in the ... > with destination addresses on the 192.168.1 subnet to get to the ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.dns)
  • Re: Event ID 1000 (Userenv) Error and Event ID 8021 (BROWSER) Error
    ... > destination route entry with the 192.168.0.1 GWY was higher priority, ... > the external network), and from there to the open Internet. ... > An additional item is that it appears that if any of the NICs in the ... > with destination addresses on the 192.168.1 subnet to get to the ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.networking)
  • Re: Network Puzzle with 2 NICs
    ... Is that Your routing table? ... into that 192.168.0/24 subnet will be sent via eth1. ... So if one route matches the target, ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Win2k3 LAN Routing Questions
    ... all you need to do is enable IP routing on the router. ... If there was no other network involved, you simply make the router the ... pretty straight forward as long as you can add a route to your NAT router. ... This is important because this router needs to know where your new subnet is ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
Loading