dear lazyweb

[perlmonger]

Has anyone out there any idea what could fsck routing in XP Pro such that it’ll see the LAN fine, but won’t route through its gateway? It’s running under VMware with bridged networking, but so are five other VMs (W2K, W2K/AS and XP pro, variously) all of which will happily route anywhere.

IP and routing settings look fine; it’s most odd. And irritating.

working XP Pro VM:

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ipconfig

Windows IP Configuration


Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : ramtops.org
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.22
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.254

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>netstat -r

Route Table
===========================================================================
Interface List
0x1 ........................... MS TCP Loopback interface
0x2 ...00 0c 29 a1 13 68 ...... AMD PCNET Family PCI Ethernet Adapter - Packet Scheduler Miniport
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
Active Routes:
Network Destination        Netmask          Gateway       Interface  Metric
          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0    192.168.0.254    192.168.0.22      10
        127.0.0.0        255.0.0.0        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       1
      192.168.0.0    255.255.255.0     192.168.0.22    192.168.0.22      10
     192.168.0.22  255.255.255.255        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1      10
    192.168.0.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.0.22    192.168.0.22      10
        224.0.0.0        240.0.0.0     192.168.0.22    192.168.0.22      10
  255.255.255.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.0.22    192.168.0.22       1
Default Gateway:     192.168.0.254
===========================================================================
Persistent Routes:
  None

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 10.0.0.1

Pinging 10.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=11ms TTL=254
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=254
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=254
Reply from 10.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=254

Ping statistics for 10.0.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 11ms, Average = 5ms

broken XP Pro VM:

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ipconfig

Windows IP Configuration


Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : ramtops.org
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.23
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.254

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>netstat -r

Route Table
===========================================================================
Interface List
0x1 ........................... MS TCP Loopback interface
0x10003 ...00 0c 29 e4 39 a5 ...... AMD PCNET Family PCI Ethernet Adapter - Packet Scheduler Miniport
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
Active Routes:
Network Destination        Netmask          Gateway       Interface  Metric
          0.0.0.0          0.0.0.0    192.168.0.254    192.168.0.23      10
        127.0.0.0        255.0.0.0        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1       1
      192.168.0.0    255.255.255.0     192.168.0.23    192.168.0.23      10
     192.168.0.23  255.255.255.255        127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1      10
    192.168.0.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.0.23    192.168.0.23      10
        224.0.0.0        240.0.0.0     192.168.0.23    192.168.0.23      10
  255.255.255.255  255.255.255.255     192.168.0.23    192.168.0.23       1
Default Gateway:     192.168.0.254
===========================================================================
Persistent Routes:
  None

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping 10.0.0.1

Pinging 10.0.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 10.0.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

The only difference there that I can see (apart from the IP address) is that the virtual ethernet device is 0x2 on the working box, 0x10003 on the broken one. I don’t have any idea how the interface numbers are assigned (by XP? by VMware?), let alone if they make any difference.

(10.0.0.1 is our dual WAN router, sitting outside the Sonicwall, if anyone is curious)

Comments

[thunderbox.livejournal.com]

Have you checked to see if the Sonicwall's run out of LAN licence count?

[perlmonger.livejournal.com]

>THUD!<

Thanks! I should have thought of that, but it's so long since we've seen the problem that I'd forgotten all about it.

That's exactly what it is. Time for a reset, I think - I wish the bloody thing worked on concurrent rather than cumulative connecting boxen...

[purple-peril.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...
Sounds like your user-centric channels are overplayed. Have you checked the iso-linear tagging? You could try streamlining the leading-edge metrionic particle rectifiers, but if that doesn't work you'll probably have to enable the vertical storage virtualisations :(

[perlmonger.livejournal.com]

the leading-edge metrionic particle rectifier

it's currently slumped on the shelf outside the study window, basking, and incidentally preventing any other beasts from easily getting in or out.

[elimloth.livejournal.com]

See, that's what happens when you run warez.

Your config exceeded the licensed limits.

[perlmonger.livejournal.com]

warez

That'll be IE/Win then :)

It was the XP VM for IE 7 testing that finally pushed the Sonicwall over the edge, after just coming up to 274 days uptime.

Maybe I should finally retire that IE 5.01 test VM...

[elimloth.livejournal.com]

Yup, that VM warez stuff.

Maybe I should finally retire that IE 5.01 test VM...

Most certainly dump IE5 since it is riddled with vulnerabilities. IE7 is much better, though only time will tell how well.

[perlmonger.livejournal.com]

dump IE5 since it is riddled with vulnerabilities

...and the rest :)

We take our cross-browser testing seriously hereabouts and, amazingly, hits still come in from IE5. Not many now, though, so I'm inclined to let 'em suffer for their Luddism.