From: Kevin Matthews (kbm23_at_drexel.edu)
Date: 2002-09-02 22:03:06 UTC
Ted Phelps wrote:
>"Xam R. Time" may have said:
>
>
>>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Ted Phelps wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Kevin Matthews may have said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>20:41:06.108198 arp reply 192.168.0.3 is-at 0:3:2f:0:c5:d9
>>>>20:41:16.109242 arp who-has 192.168.0.3 tell 192.168.0.4
>>>>20:41:16.109249 arp reply 192.168.0.3 is-at 0:3:2f:0:c5:d9
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That looks healthy. At least two computers are able to exchange
>>>information via your wireless link.
>>>
>>>
>>Heh, no, I can assure you that's not healthy. The issue is that he
>>should not see more than a WHO-HAS and a single, directed IS-AT
>>reply. Obviously there are >1 replies shown, so something is borked.
>>
>>
>
>Oops, you're absolutely right. Mea culpa.
>
>
>
>
>>>Possibly this is simply a routing problem? Could you tell us what
>>>netstat -r says? And which machines 192.168.0.3 and 192.168.0.4 are?
>>>
>>>
>>ARP is not routed, period.
>>
>>
>
>
>I have seen this behavior recently and I'm fairly certain it turned
>out to be a configuration issue. Perhaps it was the 802.1d bridge...
>Hmmm...
>
>Cheers,
>-Ted
>
I took a closer look at my setup and have it working now. I had tried
bridging before, but it kept breaking my setup where I had a machine on
my internal lan forwarded out to the Internet. I stopped trying to use
a bridge and thought I could just focus on at least getting the host to
talk to the AP directly. I did not realise that I HAD to have a bridge
set up to get it to work even between the two machines. I though it was
only if I wanted wlan0 to talk to the outside. The solution was to
bridge my eth0 and wlan0 (both internal machines) on bridge "eth2" and
then setup the firewall to forward "eth2". Your reply made me take a
second look at bridging. Thanks.
>
>