dhcpd -> no activity...

I'm trying to get a dhcp server up and running. I've installed the
debian package for dhcpd, and edited the config so that it runs on eth1.

Then, using my laptop that can successfully connect to my best buy
router (the laptop also runs debian, and uses pump to get its dhcp
address), i try to get a dhcp address from my server.

However, this does not work. Running dhcpd in debugging mode, I see
nothing.

When I try to ping my server (eth1's IP is 192.168.1.1), i get a network
unreachable, obviously, since the laptop's nic doesn't have an ip.

When I statically set the ip for the laptop, the ping hangs on the 56
data bytes, getting no responses.

My dhcpd.conf:

option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
default-lease-time 600;
max-lease-time 7200;

subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 192.168.1.100 192.168.1.254;
option routers 192.168.1.1;
}


And I've checked, the server's eth1 nic does have ip of 192.168.1.1

The laptop, using the same configuration and cord and nic can connect to
any other dhcp server that i tried.

Maybe most helpful: the pcmcia card that the laptop uses has two lights,
for activity and 100M mode... neither one comes on at any time when
connected to my server's nic.

Also, on the server side, broadcast is enabled for the NIC.

Finally, the dhcpd server yields the same results on my desktop machine
-> no connection.

The other NIC for my server is IP 192.168.0.2, but I don't see how that
would affect things.

DHCPD starts with no errors, and listens/sends on eth1 (according to the
STDOUT). DHCPD is indeed running, by the way. I've tried stopping and
starting manually as well.

Thanks, and if there's any info in addition that's needed...

--
Luke StClair
run_faster@hotmail.com
PGP key: http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~clairst

On 2004-01-10, Luke <clairst@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to get a dhcp server up and running. I've installed the
> debian package for dhcpd, and edited the config so that it runs on eth1.
>

Also, when running tcp dump on the dhcp client machine, i see the
following:

20:21:28.329957 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps:
xid:somehexnumber secs:7680 file ""[|bootp] [tos 0x10]
tcpdump: pcap_loop: recvfrom: Network is down

Let me know, this is driving me nuts, since i thought I followed the
dhcp howto pretty well...


--
Luke StClair
run_faster@hotmail.com
PGP key: http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~clairst

Luke <clairst@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On 2004-01-10, Luke <clairst@uiuc.edu> wrote:

> Also, when running tcp dump on the dhcp client machine, i see the
> following:
>
> 20:21:28.329957 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps:
> xid:somehexnumber secs:7680 file ""[|bootp] [tos 0x10]
> tcpdump: pcap_loop: recvfrom: Network is down

Yeah, its just complaining that the interface isn't up, so it can't read
packets from the network (the one you see is going from the machine).

--
Cameron Kerr
cameron.kerr@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 02:28:22 +0000, Luke wrote:

> On 2004-01-10, Luke <clairst@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to get a dhcp server up and running. I've installed the
>> debian package for dhcpd, and edited the config so that it runs on eth1.
>>
>
> Also, when running tcp dump on the dhcp client machine, i see the
> following:
>
> 20:21:28.329957 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps:
> xid:somehexnumber secs:7680 file ""[|bootp] [tos 0x10]
> tcpdump: pcap_loop: recvfrom: Network is down
>
> Let me know, this is driving me nuts, since i thought I followed the
> dhcp howto pretty well...

The problem appears to be the network link not DHCP. Your DHCP
configuration is probably OK.

Have you perhaps connected the two NICs directly together and not used a
crossover cable?

Regards, Ian

On 2004-01-11, Ian Northeast <ian@house-from-hell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The problem appears to be the network link not DHCP. Your DHCP
> configuration is probably OK.
>
> Have you perhaps connected the two NICs directly together and not used a
> crossover cable?
>

Actually, all I did was use a cat 5 cable to connect the two nics... was
that wrong? If so, what do I need to be able to use cat 5 cabling
between the two nics just like I would do with a store-bought router?


--
Luke StClair
run_faster@hotmail.com
PGP key: http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~clairst

On 2004-01-11, Cameron Kerr <cameron.kerr@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Luke <clairst@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> On 2004-01-10, Luke <clairst@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>> Also, when running tcp dump on the dhcp client machine, i see the
>> following:
>>
>> 20:21:28.329957 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps:
>> xid:somehexnumber secs:7680 file ""[|bootp] [tos 0x10]
>> tcpdump: pcap_loop: recvfrom: Network is down
>
> Yeah, its just complaining that the interface isn't up, so it can't read
> packets from the network (the one you see is going from the machine).
>

Well, the interface isn't up because it can't get an ip from dhcp,
correct?

I can bring it up using static ip info, but then it can't ping the dhcp
server either...


--
Luke StClair
run_faster@hotmail.com
PGP key: http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~clairst

On 2004-01-11, Ian Northeast <ian@house-from-hell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The problem appears to be the network link not DHCP. Your DHCP
> configuration is probably OK.
>
> Have you perhaps connected the two NICs directly together and not used a
> crossover cable?

Oh, and I meant to reiterate that I used the same cat 5 cable, the same
nic, the same client setup successfully just moments ago and after
testing with a linksys router as well...


--
Luke StClair
run_faster@hotmail.com
PGP key: http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~clairst

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:06:25 GMT, Luke wrote:
> On 2004-01-11, Ian Northeast <ian@house-from-hell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The problem appears to be the network link not DHCP. Your DHCP
>> configuration is probably OK.
>>
>> Have you perhaps connected the two NICs directly together and not used a
>> crossover cable?
>>
>
> Actually, all I did was use a cat 5 cable to connect the two nics... was
> that wrong? If so, what do I need to be able to use cat 5 cabling
> between the two nics just like I would do with a store-bought router?

As a rule, you use a crossover cable to connect nic to nic and a
regular cable to connect nic to router, hub, switch, cable modem, ...

On 2004-01-12, Bit Twister <BitTwister@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> As a rule, you use a crossover cable to connect nic to nic and a
> regular cable to connect nic to router, hub, switch, cable modem, ...
>

Out of curiousity, what is the difference in the standard (realtek8139)
nic that i'm using and the nics used in store-bought routers that
require different cabling?

I'd like to make my linux router a drop-in replacement for my linksys,
is this possible? Its not if I have to change the cabling, but is there
a way around it?


--
Luke StClair
run_faster@hotmail.com
PGP key: http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~clairst

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 01:06:22 GMT, Luke wrote:
> On 2004-01-12, Bit Twister <BitTwister@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>> As a rule, you use a crossover cable to connect nic to nic and a
>> regular cable to connect nic to router, hub, switch, cable modem, ...
>>
>
> Out of curiousity, what is the difference in the standard (realtek8139)
> nic that i'm using and the nics used in store-bought routers that
> require different cabling?

As I misunderstand it the nic's tx pins signal wind up at the router's rx pins
and the router's tx pins signal goes to the nic's rx pins. The plug on each
device does the actual routing to the chips. That is why you need a
crossover cable to route the tx nic to rx nic.

The router, hub, switch, cable modem plug does the crossover for
you. That is why a regular cable is used between nic to router and
is a pin for pin connection. No wires are crossed in the cable.