Can't ping 2 machines through a switch
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
2 machines are connected through a switch. I have configured static IPs for both of them.
Machine 1 is 192.168.0.3, whereas machine 2 is 192.168.0.5. Both have 255.255.255.0 for netmask address.
I can't figure out why I can't ping them. I might have misunderstanding something about switch, but it should work directly to my mind, shouldn't it?
ip a s gives on
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eno1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fd_code1 master br0 state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:1f:c6:9c:7b:2f brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.3/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eno1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
Machine 2
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether b8:27:eb:d9:fc:7b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.5/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::f994:a8c8:c936:1b60/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
networking ping
asked May 18 at 14:28
pl-94
1205
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
2 machines are connected through a switch. I have configured static IPs for both of them.
Machine 1 is 192.168.0.3, whereas machine 2 is 192.168.0.5. Both have 255.255.255.0 for netmask address.
I can't figure out why I can't ping them. I might have misunderstanding something about switch, but it should work directly to my mind, shouldn't it?
ip a s gives on
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eno1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fd_code1 master br0 state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:1f:c6:9c:7b:2f brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.3/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eno1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
Machine 2
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether b8:27:eb:d9:fc:7b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.5/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::f994:a8c8:c936:1b60/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
networking ping
asked May 18 at 14:28
pl-94
1205
after ping (sucessfull or not), what is the result of ` /sbin/arp -an` ?
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:29
From 1, it is? (192.168.0.5) at <incomplete> on eno1
– pl-94
May 18 at 14:33
2
please edit your post with result of ` ip a s` on both host.
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:35
2
Test to narrow down if it's a problem with the switch, or configuration of the hosts: Connect the two hosts directly with a single ethernet cable, see if they can ping each other.
– dirkt
May 18 at 14:41
3
If both NIC's are gigabit, you do not need a crossover cable. The gigabit spec includes autocrossover as a requirement. Many modern 100 mbit chipsets include autocrossover, too. So just give it a try. You won't hurt anything.
– longneck
May 18 at 14:54
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
2 machines are connected through a switch. I have configured static IPs for both of them.
Machine 1 is 192.168.0.3, whereas machine 2 is 192.168.0.5. Both have 255.255.255.0 for netmask address.
I can't figure out why I can't ping them. I might have misunderstanding something about switch, but it should work directly to my mind, shouldn't it?
ip a s gives on
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eno1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fd_code1 master br0 state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:1f:c6:9c:7b:2f brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.3/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eno1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
Machine 2
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether b8:27:eb:d9:fc:7b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.5/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::f994:a8c8:c936:1b60/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
networking ping
asked May 18 at 14:28
pl-94
1205
2 machines are connected through a switch. I have configured static IPs for both of them.
Machine 1 is 192.168.0.3, whereas machine 2 is 192.168.0.5. Both have 255.255.255.0 for netmask address.
I can't figure out why I can't ping them. I might have misunderstanding something about switch, but it should work directly to my mind, shouldn't it?
ip a s gives on
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eno1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fd_code1 master br0 state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:1f:c6:9c:7b:2f brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.3/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eno1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
Machine 2
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether b8:27:eb:d9:fc:7b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.5/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::f994:a8c8:c936:1b60/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
networking ping
asked May 18 at 14:28
pl-94
1205
edited May 18 at 14:48
asked May 18 at 14:28
pl-94
1205
asked May 18 at 14:28
pl-94
1205
asked May 18 at 14:28
pl-94
1205
1205
after ping (sucessfull or not), what is the result of ` /sbin/arp -an` ?
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:29
From 1, it is? (192.168.0.5) at <incomplete> on eno1
– pl-94
May 18 at 14:33
2
please edit your post with result of ` ip a s` on both host.
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:35
2
Test to narrow down if it's a problem with the switch, or configuration of the hosts: Connect the two hosts directly with a single ethernet cable, see if they can ping each other.
– dirkt
May 18 at 14:41
3
If both NIC's are gigabit, you do not need a crossover cable. The gigabit spec includes autocrossover as a requirement. Many modern 100 mbit chipsets include autocrossover, too. So just give it a try. You won't hurt anything.
– longneck
May 18 at 14:54
 |Â
show 5 more comments
after ping (sucessfull or not), what is the result of ` /sbin/arp -an` ?
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:29
From 1, it is? (192.168.0.5) at <incomplete> on eno1
– pl-94
May 18 at 14:33
2
please edit your post with result of ` ip a s` on both host.
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:35
2
Test to narrow down if it's a problem with the switch, or configuration of the hosts: Connect the two hosts directly with a single ethernet cable, see if they can ping each other.
– dirkt
May 18 at 14:41
3
If both NIC's are gigabit, you do not need a crossover cable. The gigabit spec includes autocrossover as a requirement. Many modern 100 mbit chipsets include autocrossover, too. So just give it a try. You won't hurt anything.
– longneck
May 18 at 14:54
after ping (sucessfull or not), what is the result of ` /sbin/arp -an` ?
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:29
after ping (sucessfull or not), what is the result of ` /sbin/arp -an` ?
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:29
From 1, it is
? (192.168.0.5) at <incomplete> on eno1– pl-94
May 18 at 14:33
From 1, it is
? (192.168.0.5) at <incomplete> on eno1– pl-94
May 18 at 14:33
2
2
please edit your post with result of ` ip a s` on both host.
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:35
please edit your post with result of ` ip a s` on both host.
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:35
2
2
Test to narrow down if it's a problem with the switch, or configuration of the hosts: Connect the two hosts directly with a single ethernet cable, see if they can ping each other.
– dirkt
May 18 at 14:41
Test to narrow down if it's a problem with the switch, or configuration of the hosts: Connect the two hosts directly with a single ethernet cable, see if they can ping each other.
– dirkt
May 18 at 14:41
3
3
If both NIC's are gigabit, you do not need a crossover cable. The gigabit spec includes autocrossover as a requirement. Many modern 100 mbit chipsets include autocrossover, too. So just give it a try. You won't hurt anything.
– longneck
May 18 at 14:54
If both NIC's are gigabit, you do not need a crossover cable. The gigabit spec includes autocrossover as a requirement. Many modern 100 mbit chipsets include autocrossover, too. So just give it a try. You won't hurt anything.
– longneck
May 18 at 14:54
 |Â
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Are you sure cables, etc are OK? Plugged in right?
Do the "idiot lights" (if available) of the cards show activity? The lights on the switch?
Check the switch configuration, perhaps you plugged the machines into separate VLANs? Or this is a "smart" switch which believes it lives in some different IPv4 network?
Check the local firewall setups, they might be blocking ICMP (ping(1) does an ICMP ECHO-REQUEST).
Check packet counters on the interfaces to check nothing is blocking output.
answered May 18 at 15:00
vonbrand
13.9k22443
1
Thanks @vonbrand. It appears it was related to a bad configuration on netplan on machine 1.
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:02
@pl-94 please answer your own question to close the matter (and give later readers something to check).
– vonbrand
May 18 at 15:03
1
Alright, I am just waiting to understand what exactly is wrong in the netplan configuration
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:18
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Are you sure cables, etc are OK? Plugged in right?
Do the "idiot lights" (if available) of the cards show activity? The lights on the switch?
Check the switch configuration, perhaps you plugged the machines into separate VLANs? Or this is a "smart" switch which believes it lives in some different IPv4 network?
Check the local firewall setups, they might be blocking ICMP (ping(1) does an ICMP ECHO-REQUEST).
Check packet counters on the interfaces to check nothing is blocking output.
answered May 18 at 15:00
vonbrand
13.9k22443
1
Thanks @vonbrand. It appears it was related to a bad configuration on netplan on machine 1.
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:02
@pl-94 please answer your own question to close the matter (and give later readers something to check).
– vonbrand
May 18 at 15:03
1
Alright, I am just waiting to understand what exactly is wrong in the netplan configuration
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:18
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Are you sure cables, etc are OK? Plugged in right?
Do the "idiot lights" (if available) of the cards show activity? The lights on the switch?
Check the switch configuration, perhaps you plugged the machines into separate VLANs? Or this is a "smart" switch which believes it lives in some different IPv4 network?
Check the local firewall setups, they might be blocking ICMP (ping(1) does an ICMP ECHO-REQUEST).
Check packet counters on the interfaces to check nothing is blocking output.
answered May 18 at 15:00
vonbrand
13.9k22443
1
Thanks @vonbrand. It appears it was related to a bad configuration on netplan on machine 1.
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:02
@pl-94 please answer your own question to close the matter (and give later readers something to check).
– vonbrand
May 18 at 15:03
1
Alright, I am just waiting to understand what exactly is wrong in the netplan configuration
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:18
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Are you sure cables, etc are OK? Plugged in right?
Do the "idiot lights" (if available) of the cards show activity? The lights on the switch?
Check the switch configuration, perhaps you plugged the machines into separate VLANs? Or this is a "smart" switch which believes it lives in some different IPv4 network?
Check the local firewall setups, they might be blocking ICMP (ping(1) does an ICMP ECHO-REQUEST).
Check packet counters on the interfaces to check nothing is blocking output.
answered May 18 at 15:00
vonbrand
13.9k22443
Are you sure cables, etc are OK? Plugged in right?
Do the "idiot lights" (if available) of the cards show activity? The lights on the switch?
Check the switch configuration, perhaps you plugged the machines into separate VLANs? Or this is a "smart" switch which believes it lives in some different IPv4 network?
Check the local firewall setups, they might be blocking ICMP (ping(1) does an ICMP ECHO-REQUEST).
Check packet counters on the interfaces to check nothing is blocking output.
answered May 18 at 15:00
vonbrand
13.9k22443
answered May 18 at 15:00
vonbrand
13.9k22443
answered May 18 at 15:00
vonbrand
13.9k22443
answered May 18 at 15:00
vonbrand
13.9k22443
13.9k22443
1
Thanks @vonbrand. It appears it was related to a bad configuration on netplan on machine 1.
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:02
@pl-94 please answer your own question to close the matter (and give later readers something to check).
– vonbrand
May 18 at 15:03
1
Alright, I am just waiting to understand what exactly is wrong in the netplan configuration
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:18
add a comment |Â
1
Thanks @vonbrand. It appears it was related to a bad configuration on netplan on machine 1.
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:02
@pl-94 please answer your own question to close the matter (and give later readers something to check).
– vonbrand
May 18 at 15:03
1
Alright, I am just waiting to understand what exactly is wrong in the netplan configuration
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:18
1
1
Thanks @vonbrand. It appears it was related to a bad configuration on netplan on machine 1.
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:02
Thanks @vonbrand. It appears it was related to a bad configuration on netplan on machine 1.
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:02
@pl-94 please answer your own question to close the matter (and give later readers something to check).
– vonbrand
May 18 at 15:03
@pl-94 please answer your own question to close the matter (and give later readers something to check).
– vonbrand
May 18 at 15:03
1
1
Alright, I am just waiting to understand what exactly is wrong in the netplan configuration
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:18
Alright, I am just waiting to understand what exactly is wrong in the netplan configuration
– pl-94
May 18 at 15:18
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f444623%2fcant-ping-2-machines-through-a-switch%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
after ping (sucessfull or not), what is the result of ` /sbin/arp -an` ?
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:29
From 1, it is
? (192.168.0.5) at <incomplete> on eno1– pl-94
May 18 at 14:33
2
please edit your post with result of ` ip a s` on both host.
– Archemar
May 18 at 14:35
2
Test to narrow down if it's a problem with the switch, or configuration of the hosts: Connect the two hosts directly with a single ethernet cable, see if they can ping each other.
– dirkt
May 18 at 14:41
3
If both NIC's are gigabit, you do not need a crossover cable. The gigabit spec includes autocrossover as a requirement. Many modern 100 mbit chipsets include autocrossover, too. So just give it a try. You won't hurt anything.
– longneck
May 18 at 14:54