Can't connect to internet through ADSL

[Bataa]

After researching forum for my problem, it seems there is no particular
answer to it. I wanted to get work Knoppix 4.0.02 on my Sharp NoteBook
(AMD Sempron processor)
I am using ROUTETECH (i think it is router, it is connected to phone line and
it is connected to my PC though cable) which is produced in Korea,
I get nice internet connection in MS Windows environment.
Here is the IPCONFIGURATION in MS Windows:

IP address : 172.17.0.100
Subnet mask: 255.255.0.0
Default Gateway: 172.17.0.1
DHCP Server: 172.17.0.1
DNS Server 172.17.0.1

At start up line in Knoppix
About networking it says DHCP broadcasting for IP (backgrounding)
But after all, it didn't connect to internet. When I type some URL in Mozilla,
it says looking for www.* .

When I run a command ifconfig, it says

knoppix@2[knoppix]$ ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:400:75:41:1E
inet addr: 172.17.0.100 Bcast: 172.17.255.255
Mask : 255.255.0.0
UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:11 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:2 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:2
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:1516 (1.4 kb) TX bytes:0 (0.0 KiB)

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:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes: 500 ( KiB) TX bytes: 500 ( KiB)

I don't know I have my network card is detected or not.
Please help me to solve this problem. I am quite a newbie to Linux and networking.
But I know some basics.

With Best Regards
Bataa

[Harry Kuhman]

Youi do have a router. The IP address that you are showing is a private IP address. There are sets of ddresses set aside for this, the 10.xxx.xxx.xxx group (used by large organizations and some home routers) the 192.168/xxx.xxx group (used by most home routers) and the group 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 which your router is using.

Why you are having problems isn't clear. Try accessing the 172.17.0.1 asddress and see if you see setup information. Try to ping knoppix.net and then try to ping 216.32.81.146 (if you can ping by IP address but not by the URL then it's a DNS issue, as both go to the same system). Also, if your router has any features that would limit traffic by MAC address or any similar rule, turn these off and try again. And some times people report that just cycling power on a router will correct a problem like this.

At first glance I can't see what's wrong; the information you printed out seems to show that Knoppix likes yiour network card and that the NIC did do a DHCP handshake with the router.

[Bataa]

Thanks Harry

I tried what you said. I pinged both 172.17.0.1 and 216.32.81.146. There is no reply at all.
Even I truncate the process by Ctrl+c, it says 100% net loss.
But when I ping 172.17.255.255, the response comes from 172.17.0.100 which is
my actual IP address. So the response time is zero.
Furthermore, when I look at my ROUTETECH, the light doesn't flash at all. I remember
it often does so, when I use internet.
In my ROUTETECH, I don't see any button or hook to change somethings, so I suspect
that I can't turn on or off something.
I tried to switch off the power of ROUTETECH to change the cycling power on a router.
( Hopefully, I guess this is the only thing to do so. )
No use.

I used netcardconfig and replying Yes, I get reply "eth0 Operation failed".
if I reply No to DHCP broadcasting, it asks bunch of IP addresses. I don't know it.

These are what I tried. Please inform me, if I have to supply other infos.

Regards
Bataa

[Bataa]

One more thing to mention is I used my Knoppix CD in friends Note PC, whose internet line is
same with me and IP addresses are 172.19.* . The net works fine.

My notebook has modem inside (Smart Link 56k voice modem).
And when I investigate network adapters in MS Windows control panel,
there are 2 adapters named "1394 net adapter" and "ULi PCI Fast Ethernet Controller".
I don't know which one is used for internet.
Is it possible there is some conflicts between those hardwares?

Thanks in advance.

Bataa

[Harry Kuhman]

But when I ping 172.17.255.255, the response comes from 172.17.0.100 which is
my actual IP address.

You should never ping a broadcast address.

In my ROUTETECH, I don't see any button or hook to change somethings, so I suspect
that I can't turn on or off something.

With most routers there is a web setup page at it's IP address. I can't say if this is the case for your router or not. If you can't get to it from Knoppix then try after rebooting Windows. I'm assuming that you also run windows and that you have set up the router from windows, as a router on DSL needs to have DSL acount information put in before it can connect. Seems strange that the router does not respond to a ping though, almost all will to a local ping, although there is a configuration option that will disable ping (this usually only applies to Internet side (WAN) pings, but perhaps your router disables the ability to respond to any ping).

I used netcardconfig and replying Yes, I get reply "eth0 Operation failed".
if I reply No to DHCP broadcasting, it asks bunch of IP addresses. I don't know it.

That seems strange that netcardconfig would fail because from what you already posted it looked like it worked from Knoppix already. But if you say NO and want to fill in the settings manually you should be able to use the values that you posted above.

[Harry Kuhman]

"1394 net adapter" and "ULi PCI Fast Ethernet Controller".
I don't know which one is used for internet.

1394 is a firewire controler, or something that the Knoppix detection logic thinks is a firewire controler. Knoppix sometimes thinks there is a firewire controler when there is not. It thinks this on several of my systems but it has never caused me a problem. Since your original post seems to show that Knoppix did a good DHCP configuration I don't think it is an issue for you either. The PCI Ethernet Controler is the NIC we are talking about and hope to get working.

[dino195]

Since nobody else has said it I would like to advise you to never, ever under any circumstances post you MAC address "HWaddr 00:400:75:41:1E" on the internet. That's like giving your home address out.

[Harry Kuhman]

Since nobody else has said it I would like to advise you to never, ever under any circumstances post you MAC address "HWaddr 00:400:75:41:1E" on the internet. That's like giving your home address out.

Perhaps nobody has ever said it because it is complete nonsense. MAC addresses can't be routed across the Internet. TCP/IP deals in terms of IP addresses (and there is no simple way to hide your IP address and still get responses from the websites that you visit, since they need it to know where to respond).

If you wish to prove me wrong, my MAC address is 00-A0-CC-E8-48-D3. You have my permission and blessing to do anything that you would like to that MAC address from across the internet, as long as your attack is MAC address related and not IP related (you may not, for example, do a DNS flood on my IP address unless you can show how you obtained it by knowing my MAC address).

MAC addresses are the basic low level addressing scheme of ethernet. But they will not get past the first router or firewall. And anyone else on that side of the router can easily learn all of the MAC addresses attached to it by "sniffing the link" and watching local packets. Ethereal, which is included with Knoppix, is one of many programs that will let you do this. So you can't hide your MAC address from other users on your local LAN, and it's of no use to people on the other side of the world.

[Bataa]

Dear Harry

After finishing hard time to set up RedHat on my laptop, I face a problem again.
Because I thought RedHat will fix the problem. Unfortunately, it didn't.
Now I connected my laptop to my laboratory network. We configure IP addresses
manually. Here I post the output after "ifconfig". Please be noted, i made some
mild changes to addresses for privacy as you suggested.

[root@localhost ~]# ifconfig
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:6020 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:6020 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:9154718 (8.7 MiB) TX bytes:9154718 (8.7 MiB)

[root@localhost ~]# ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:400:78:26:1D
inet addr:133.2.25.220 Bcast:133.2.25.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: ae80::240:c0ff:fe75:411e/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:168 (168.0 b)
Interrupt:5 Base address:0x6300

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:6025 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:6025 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:9155165 (8.7 MiB) TX bytes:9155165 (8.7 MiB)

As you mention, there seems no problem at all. But I still can't connect internet.
I can't ping to any address. For example www.google.com (66.102.7.147)
After a while the response is :
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=5 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=6 Destination Host Unreachable

And when I enter address in Mozilla browser. It says Looking up www.yahoo.com.
No response.

Please help me how to solve this problem.

Sorry for any inconvinence

Bataa

[Harry Kuhman]

Please be noted, i made some mild changes to addresses for privacy as you suggested.

I think you'll find if you look over what I wrote that I did not suggest making any changes. I took exception with bad information that said to change or hide a MAC address in a post as that is completely bogus advice. Without knowing what is changed I'm handicapped in my ability to give you good advice. So if you feel that you must hide an IP address, do it by putting xxx's in the number, not by using other numbers. But you can't hide your IP address from any website that you visit. Unless you have some extreme security issue or your post makes you particularly attractive to hackers (as in "I work for BankAmerica and our IP address is 5.19.23.87"), I think it's needless paranoia. And in you case you do seem to have public routable IP addresses. If you have a web server or any other public server on any of these systems and a URL that can be translated by all of the Domain Name Servers to your IP address, then it's pretty pointless to muck it up when you are asking for help.

.... We configure IP addresses
manually. Here I post the output after "ifconfig".

[root@localhost ~]# ifconfig
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:6020 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:6020 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:9154718 (8.7 MiB) TX bytes:9154718 (8.7 MiB)

[root@localhost ~]# ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:400:78:26:1D
inet addr:133.2.25.220 Bcast:133.2.25.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: ae80::240:c0ff:fe75:411e/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:168 (168.0 b)
Interrupt:5 Base address:0x6300

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:6025 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:6025 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:9155165 (8.7 MiB) TX bytes:9155165 (8.7 MiB)

As you mention, there seems no problem at all. But I still can't connect internet.
I can't ping to any address. For example www.google.com (66.102.7.147)
After a while the response is :
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=5 Destination Host Unreachable
From 133.2.25.220 icmp_seq=6 Destination Host Unreachable

And when I enter address in Mozilla browser. It says Looking up www.yahoo.com.
No response.

Without knowing what equipment you lab uses I'm hard pressed to know what you are doing wrong. The IP address, mask and broadcast all make sense, if they are really what you say, but I do see that they are all public addresses. That seems to imply that you are not behind a NAT router and the IP addresses of all of your systems can be reached from the Internet. You show a system with no more than 254 valid IP addresses. You say that you can'y ping the URL that you gave, but don't mention what happens if you try to ping the IP address that you also showed (if you can ping the IP address then you have a DNS issue, if you can't ping the IP address then you have some other problem (maybe in addition to a DNS issue). Beyond that without knowing what your network hardware is and what you are connecting to, there is not a lot I can tell you.

It is interesting and noteworthy that the actual NIC in use shows RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:168 (168.0 b). This would seem to indicate that the computer hasn't received any packets at al. But since you manually configure everything there might be no ARP packets floating around, and I have no knowledge of when you ran this ifconfig. If it happened after all of your tests then it's pretty telling, but if it was the first thing you did after booting then this isn't out of the question.

Just knowing the settings in one of the manually configured systems doesn't tell me much either. I would have to know how several systems are configured before I could have much chance of spotting any problems.