Net unreachable

[Harry Kuhman]

and no success when I ping either knoppix.net or www.google.com

Last time I'm going to ask, what happens when you ping 72.232.180.133 ?

[Harry Kuhman]

Edit: I forgot to say that I couldn't as well ping 72.232.180.133

OK, now we're finally starting to learn something. As I say, you may or may not have a DNS issue, but since this ping should be able to get a response from knoppix.net without doing any DNS lookup, something else is going wrong here.

Which takes us back to the request to post the output of ifconfig, there is a fair chance that will tell us something.

If that isn't helpful, have you used ethereal/wireshark? It could be very handy to run ethereal (I think it's still call that in knoppix) and watch the packets. I'm at a loss to know why you can't ping this site by IP address.

As to other Linux versions not giving you this problem, it might be a kernel version issue. I know there are changes in the kernels that deal with the IPv4 / IPv6 issues that are different in different versions of the kernel, but I think I've only ever seen reports of that affecting DNS, not simple pings. It might also have something to do with your hardware (could be as simple as there being two ethernet interfaces in the computer and you're trying to talk to the one not connected to the modem). But you haven't given us any informantion about your computer and very little about your local network, so there is little we can do to help.

By the way, it's bad form to keep going back and editing old posts rather than making a new post. I wrote my response before you did your last edit. If I had not just happened to look back at the first page of the thread and see that you edited in an answer, I would not have known that you had responded or updated anything. A new post marks the thread as having new information to be read in it, an edit to an old post does not, and you may find yourself waiting a very long time before someone notices that you put the requested information in as an edit rather than a new post, if they catch it at all.

[sauravbhaumik]

Edit: I forgot to say that I couldn't as well ping 72.232.180.133

OK, now we're finally starting to learn something. As I say, you may or may not have a DNS issue, but since this ping should be able to get a response from knoppix.net without doing any DNS lookup, something else is going wrong here.

Okay, then could you please explain where the nameserver is necessary, and where it is not? It would enhance my knowledge.

Which takes us back to the request to post the output of ifconfig, there is a fair chance that will tell us something.

There is a problem doing that; as I said, from the cd, even the root is not able to write up anything on the hard disc. And as I don't have the net connexion from Knoppix, I can't understand how I'd manage to tell you the output - may be I have to write it up in a paper and then tell you - but that would increase the possibility of erroneous information.

If that isn't helpful, have you used ethereal/wireshark? It could be very handy to run ethereal (I think it's still call that in knoppix) and watch the packets. I'm at a loss to know why you can't ping this site by IP address.

Exactly I didn't use any protocol analyzer I believe; I just open up the "Konsole" and write "ping ....".
I can't actually understand why the Knoppix site is preferred for this ping (forgive me, you may find my knowledge too slender to bear with me).

As to other Linux versions not giving you this problem, it might be a kernel version issue.

The kernel of the Knoppix is 2.6.19
The release (what is it?) is 2.86.
The version is 5.1.1

I know there are changes in the kernels that deal with the IPv4 / IPv6 issues that are different in different versions of the kernel, but I think I've only ever seen reports of that affecting DNS, not simple pings. It might also have something to do with your hardware (could be as simple as there being two ethernet interfaces in the computer and you're trying to talk to the one not connected to the modem). But you haven't given us any informantion about your computer and very little about your local network, so there is little we can do to help.

I should tell you about my system. I've 2.4GHz P4 processor; 640 MB ram; my modem is MT882 sterlite, at which you may have a look here : http://calcuttatelephones.com/dataoneinstall/menu.html
I have only one ethernet interface. I connect the jack via lan port and use pppoe as the wan type (in modem configuration).
As to the netwrok and the service provider, you may have some information here http://calcuttatelephones.com/bbandservice.shtml

By the way, it's bad form to keep going back and editing old posts rather than making a new post. I wrote my response before you did your last edit. If I had not just happened to look back at the first page of the thread and see that you edited in an answer, I would not have known that you had responded or updated anything. A new post marks the thread as having new information to be read in it, an edit to an old post does not, and you may find yourself waiting a very long time before someone notices that you put the requested information in as an edit rather than a new post, if they catch it at all.

I am very sorry for that. But I did the last edit because I had not seen any response to the unedited post; and even after doing the edit, there was no response. It is only this morning that I'm seeing any kind of reply here.
However, I am very sorry if I've caused any inconvenience.

[JohnnyH]

...

Which takes us back to the request to post the output of ifconfig, there is a fair chance that will tell us something.

There is a problem doing that; as I said, from the cd, even the root is not able to write up anything on the hard disc. And as I don't have the net connexion from Knoppix, I can't understand how I'd manage to tell you the output - may be I have to write it up in a paper and then tell you - but that would increase the possibility of erroneous information....

I recommend that you write the output of

ifconfig eth0

(or with whatever your NIC is if not eth0) to paper and then tell us anyway.
(Does your machine have a floppy drive ? If so you could copy+paste the output from the screen into a text file, mount the floppy, save the file to the floppy, unmount the floppy, then load the file from the floppy into your internet-enabled system .)

[Harry Kuhman]

Okay, then could you please explain where the nameserver is necessary, and where it is not? It would enhance my knowledge.

DNS or name servers is what translates human readable names (URLs) like Knoppix.net to the numeric IP addresses that are in the address fields of packets as they are routed across the Internet. Rather than asking this and waiting for a response, you could have received plenty of information about it by doing a simple Google search, and it would have been much faster.

There is a problem doing that; as I said, from the cd, even the root is not able to write up anything on the hard disc. And as I don't have the net connexion from Knoppix, I can't understand how I'd manage to tell you the output - may be I have to write it up in a paper and then tell you - but that would increase the possibility of erroneous information.

You have been pointing out this "problem" for a couple of days now, but in the meantime we make no progress at all. I still suggest copying down the information and typing it back in. I guess that I could add the suggestion to preview your typing and proofread for errors.

Exactly I didn't use any protocol analyzer I believe; I just open up the "Konsole" and write "ping ....".
I can't actually understand why the Knoppix site is preferred for this ping (forgive me, you may find my knowledge too slender to bear with me).

The Knoppix site isn't preferred. The first time that I suggested this I simply suggested that you check any site by URL and IP address. You ignored that. So the second time I tried to give very detailed steps. I picked this site because it seemed like an obvious choice, and since I knew it responded to pings (most but not all sites do). And google.com would not have been a good example, since Google translates that one URL to many different IP addresses depending on the location of the user. You might not be able to get to my Google IP address, or it might not respond to a ping. Just better to use a system that I know should work.

Sounds like you don't have any experience with ethereal. I just didn't know what tools you were comfortable with. You did know enough to try the ping; many users with issues like yours don't. So it was worth asking.

I should tell you about my system. I've 2.4GHz P4 processor; 640 MB ram; my modem is MT882 sterlite, at which you may have a look here : http://calcuttatelephones.com/dataoneinstall/menu.html
I have only one ethernet interface. I connect the jack via lan port and use pppoe as the wan type (in modem configuration).
As to the netwrok and the service provider, you may have some information here http://calcuttatelephones.com/bbandservice.shtml

Its good to know your system. I have not yet taken the time to read the links that you provided. You mentioned pppoe. I din't quite follow what you were trying to tell me there. What I'm expecting is that your modem uses pppoe to talk to your ISP (likely over DSL rather than a cable system, although we have seen some non-DSL systems do use pppoe). I'm expecting that you are not running any pppoe software on your computer, when trying to use Knoppix or running any other OS, that the modem is taking care of pppoe for you. If I'm wrong about this please point that out, otherwise you are working similar to many of us (my router takes care of pppoe for me, as my router and my DSL modem are separate devices, but more modern equipment combines these two functions into one box).

[sauravbhaumik]

The output of ifconfig:

eth0     Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:C0:26:21:34:7C
         inet addr:192.168.1.2 Bcast:192.168.1.255  Mask:255.255
.255.0
         inet6 addr:fe80::2c0:26ff:fe21:647c/64 Scope:Link
         UP BROADCAST RUNNING MTU : 1500 Metric : 1
         RX packets:1 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
         TX packets:20 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
         collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
         RX bytes:60(60.0b) TX bytes:3672(3.5KiB)
         Interrupt:21 Base address:0x6c00

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:14 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
         TX packets:14 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
         collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
         RX bytes:700(700.0b) TX bytes:700(700.0b)

[sauravbhaumik]

Its good to know your system. I have not yet taken the time to read the links that you provided. You mentioned pppoe. I din't quite follow what you were trying to tell me there. What I'm expecting is that your modem uses pppoe to talk to your ISP (likely over DSL rather than a cable system, although we have seen some non-DSL systems do use pppoe). I'm expecting that you are not running any pppoe software on your computer, when trying to use Knoppix or running any other OS, that the modem is taking care of pppoe for you.

Yes; I am not running any pppoe software, my router takes care of the protocol.

[Harry Kuhman]

The output of ifconfig:.....

Overall this seems OK. It shows that you are sending packets and have received a packet (I'm guessing you did this right after booting into Knoppix and if you had waited a little there would have been even more packets). I don't know anything about the inet6 settings, I'm hoping that someone who does might join in. The MTU of 1500 might end up being a little high and as a pppoe user you may have to drop it (to around 1460), but that certainly isn't what is keeping you from pinging this website so lets ignore that for now.

Anyone else have any insight to offer?

One thing that you might want to try is shut down your computer, cycle power on the modem/router and then after the modem has come back up, boot Knoppix fresh (without starting any other operating system). There have been a few cases where cycling power or even resetting a router were needed to get things working and after the router was reset the problem was not seen again.

[Harry Kuhman]

One additional thought: since you are assigning your network parameters manually rather than by DHCP, next time you set them up use a different IP address in the same range. For example, assuming that it is not in use anywhere else in your local network, assign the IP address of 192.168.1.9 rather than 192.168.1.2. Keep the mask and the broadcast address the same as they are. This would help if there were some sort of strange IP lease problem with the 192.168.1.2 address. This shouldn't be needed, as the router should see the MAC address and understand what is happening, but there is no need to use the 192.168.1.2 address and since it doesn't seem to be working for outside traffic, change it.

If you were using DHCP then I don't think this would have been an issue.