BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] Subject: Re: connection issue
- Subject: [Discuss] Subject: Re: connection issue
- From: dmildram at gmail.com (Doug Mildram)
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 11:06:14 -0500
dmildram> I'm admiring all the Q's and ideas on your networking problem. John Abreau's workaround idea using eg VONET $26 wireless bridge to put wired device(s) into wireless use was enlightening to me for general home use..., even though I got a bit confused on the overall setup he used and how that might help wireless clients see each other. Tangent/useless: If WIRED clients were ganged together on a mini switch, that would usually solve "clients not able to see each other" ! Obviously. dmildram> ANYWAYS, ie back to Dan Moylan's quest for WhatsGoingOn : Symptoms sound much like what a PVLAN does. From wikipedia: *Private VLAN*, also known as *port isolation*, is a technique in computer networking where a VLAN contains switch ports that are restricted such that they can only communicate with a given uplink. dmildram>I ran into this layer2 feature in (odd product, to me) EMC Centera: one cluster per rack w/many 4-disk 1U boxes AND 2 enetswitches. Weird storage. I worked at EMC many months maintaining a lab of Centeras, before realizing that within each rack, most nodes were purposefully isolated from each other, thus introducing me to the rarely-used Private/restricted-port PVLAN concept. After that strange world, I got a much-better-learning networking job. Pardon TMI. dmildram> back to Dan and home use/problem: Lord knows these all-in-one HOME "router" boxes ( AP + switch + router ) keep users less aware of internals, so I wonder how/if PVLAN could have come to life in a t-mobile router+switch....a possible security feature... since you said it worked fine up until a week or so ago! So while I doubt it, I still Hope This Helps mentally or better. Sure is hard to "try plugging all into this dumb switch together" for wifi ! p.s. also: I would be inspecting ARP tables though with *nix# arp -a ....if ports are isolated, only the client with the target IPaddr would reply to an ARP request ( request/re: the target ipaddr ) if I'm not mistaken. Finally, doublecheck that 192.168.0.x has a /24 (255.255.255.0) NETMASK ( various show-me cmds like "ifconfig -a" or "ip a", or windows "ipconfig /a" ) but offhand I'd wager anything using 192.168.0.x keeps the std /24 mask. original/early problem post w/o many ideas/replies: >* dan moylan wrote: * >>* the problems keep mounting and puzzling (moan). computers *>>* alphacent, aldeberan (both fc36) and rigel (fc27) all show *>>* as connected on the local t-mobile wireless app, and locally *>>* with ifconfig. route shows 192.168.12.0 gateway on all *>>* three. they can all ping blu.org <http://blu.org> successfully, but not each *>>* other, nor can they ssh into each other. iirc everything was *>>* fine a few days ago. what have i done? what's going on?*
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] connection issue
- Next by Date: [Discuss] connection issue
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] connection issue
- Index(es):