Ubuntu Linux server on network but can't see anything

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












0















I'm running an Ubuntu server and I have plugged it into my local network. I've modified the /etc/network/interfaces file to look like this:



auto eth3
iface eth3 inet static
address 192.168.1.15
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.1
dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8


The interface comes up and shows the correct info. The network cards at hardware level are blinking and showing traffic. I can ping localhost.



I have run tcpdump on the interface and I'm seeing network traffic coming off card. By all accounts the network is up and running and I don't see any errors.



However, When I try to ping any computers on the network or try to ping back to this computer from other computers it is like it doesn't exist. I've been working with linux servers for 10+ years and never seen anything like this. Anyone have any ideas of what I might check?



ip a output:



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: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:25:90:0a:eb:08 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
3: eth3: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:25:90:0a:eb:09 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.1.10/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth3
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::225:90ff:fe0a:eb09/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
4: tun0: <POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN group default qlen 100
link/none
inet 10.9.8.1 peer 10.9.8.2/32 scope global tun0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever


ifconfig output:



eth3 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:25:90:0a:eb:09 
inet addr:192.168.1.10 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::225:90ff:fe0a:eb09/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:1433 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:1115 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:179713 (179.7 KB) TX bytes:128624 (128.6 KB)
Interrupt:17 Memory:feae0000-feb00000

lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
RX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:590 (590.0 B) TX bytes:590 (590.0 B)

tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
inet addr:10.9.8.1 P-t-P:10.9.8.2 Mask:255.255.255.255
UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)









share|improve this question
























  • tcpdump seeing traffic going out means little. You must see expected traffic going in.

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:00












  • I don't see traffic going out, I see dns requests from router looking for computers on the network.

    – user70494
    Feb 27 at 21:01











  • a router normally does not do DNS requests...

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:02












  • Please add the output of iptables -L -n, ping tests, relevant tcpdump traces, and the output of ip a, ifconfig -a, ethtool eth3

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:04












  • what is your default gateway? What is the output of ip route? Can you ping the default gateway? Are your interfaces up? What is the output of ip a?

    – Timothy Pulliam
    Feb 27 at 21:05















0















I'm running an Ubuntu server and I have plugged it into my local network. I've modified the /etc/network/interfaces file to look like this:



auto eth3
iface eth3 inet static
address 192.168.1.15
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.1
dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8


The interface comes up and shows the correct info. The network cards at hardware level are blinking and showing traffic. I can ping localhost.



I have run tcpdump on the interface and I'm seeing network traffic coming off card. By all accounts the network is up and running and I don't see any errors.



However, When I try to ping any computers on the network or try to ping back to this computer from other computers it is like it doesn't exist. I've been working with linux servers for 10+ years and never seen anything like this. Anyone have any ideas of what I might check?



ip a output:



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: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:25:90:0a:eb:08 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
3: eth3: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:25:90:0a:eb:09 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.1.10/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth3
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::225:90ff:fe0a:eb09/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
4: tun0: <POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN group default qlen 100
link/none
inet 10.9.8.1 peer 10.9.8.2/32 scope global tun0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever


ifconfig output:



eth3 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:25:90:0a:eb:09 
inet addr:192.168.1.10 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::225:90ff:fe0a:eb09/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:1433 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:1115 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:179713 (179.7 KB) TX bytes:128624 (128.6 KB)
Interrupt:17 Memory:feae0000-feb00000

lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
RX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:590 (590.0 B) TX bytes:590 (590.0 B)

tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
inet addr:10.9.8.1 P-t-P:10.9.8.2 Mask:255.255.255.255
UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)









share|improve this question
























  • tcpdump seeing traffic going out means little. You must see expected traffic going in.

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:00












  • I don't see traffic going out, I see dns requests from router looking for computers on the network.

    – user70494
    Feb 27 at 21:01











  • a router normally does not do DNS requests...

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:02












  • Please add the output of iptables -L -n, ping tests, relevant tcpdump traces, and the output of ip a, ifconfig -a, ethtool eth3

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:04












  • what is your default gateway? What is the output of ip route? Can you ping the default gateway? Are your interfaces up? What is the output of ip a?

    – Timothy Pulliam
    Feb 27 at 21:05













0












0








0








I'm running an Ubuntu server and I have plugged it into my local network. I've modified the /etc/network/interfaces file to look like this:



auto eth3
iface eth3 inet static
address 192.168.1.15
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.1
dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8


The interface comes up and shows the correct info. The network cards at hardware level are blinking and showing traffic. I can ping localhost.



I have run tcpdump on the interface and I'm seeing network traffic coming off card. By all accounts the network is up and running and I don't see any errors.



However, When I try to ping any computers on the network or try to ping back to this computer from other computers it is like it doesn't exist. I've been working with linux servers for 10+ years and never seen anything like this. Anyone have any ideas of what I might check?



ip a output:



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: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:25:90:0a:eb:08 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
3: eth3: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:25:90:0a:eb:09 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.1.10/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth3
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::225:90ff:fe0a:eb09/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
4: tun0: <POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN group default qlen 100
link/none
inet 10.9.8.1 peer 10.9.8.2/32 scope global tun0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever


ifconfig output:



eth3 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:25:90:0a:eb:09 
inet addr:192.168.1.10 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::225:90ff:fe0a:eb09/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:1433 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:1115 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:179713 (179.7 KB) TX bytes:128624 (128.6 KB)
Interrupt:17 Memory:feae0000-feb00000

lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
RX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:590 (590.0 B) TX bytes:590 (590.0 B)

tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
inet addr:10.9.8.1 P-t-P:10.9.8.2 Mask:255.255.255.255
UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)









share|improve this question
















I'm running an Ubuntu server and I have plugged it into my local network. I've modified the /etc/network/interfaces file to look like this:



auto eth3
iface eth3 inet static
address 192.168.1.15
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.1
dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8


The interface comes up and shows the correct info. The network cards at hardware level are blinking and showing traffic. I can ping localhost.



I have run tcpdump on the interface and I'm seeing network traffic coming off card. By all accounts the network is up and running and I don't see any errors.



However, When I try to ping any computers on the network or try to ping back to this computer from other computers it is like it doesn't exist. I've been working with linux servers for 10+ years and never seen anything like this. Anyone have any ideas of what I might check?



ip a output:



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: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:25:90:0a:eb:08 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
3: eth3: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:25:90:0a:eb:09 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.1.10/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth3
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::225:90ff:fe0a:eb09/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
4: tun0: <POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UNKNOWN group default qlen 100
link/none
inet 10.9.8.1 peer 10.9.8.2/32 scope global tun0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever


ifconfig output:



eth3 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:25:90:0a:eb:09 
inet addr:192.168.1.10 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::225:90ff:fe0a:eb09/64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:1433 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:1115 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:179713 (179.7 KB) TX bytes:128624 (128.6 KB)
Interrupt:17 Memory:feae0000-feb00000

lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1
RX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:590 (590.0 B) TX bytes:590 (590.0 B)

tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
inet addr:10.9.8.1 P-t-P:10.9.8.2 Mask:255.255.255.255
UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)






ubuntu networking






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Feb 27 at 21:46









garethTheRed

24.8k36482




24.8k36482










asked Feb 27 at 20:51









user70494user70494

33




33












  • tcpdump seeing traffic going out means little. You must see expected traffic going in.

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:00












  • I don't see traffic going out, I see dns requests from router looking for computers on the network.

    – user70494
    Feb 27 at 21:01











  • a router normally does not do DNS requests...

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:02












  • Please add the output of iptables -L -n, ping tests, relevant tcpdump traces, and the output of ip a, ifconfig -a, ethtool eth3

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:04












  • what is your default gateway? What is the output of ip route? Can you ping the default gateway? Are your interfaces up? What is the output of ip a?

    – Timothy Pulliam
    Feb 27 at 21:05

















  • tcpdump seeing traffic going out means little. You must see expected traffic going in.

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:00












  • I don't see traffic going out, I see dns requests from router looking for computers on the network.

    – user70494
    Feb 27 at 21:01











  • a router normally does not do DNS requests...

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:02












  • Please add the output of iptables -L -n, ping tests, relevant tcpdump traces, and the output of ip a, ifconfig -a, ethtool eth3

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 27 at 21:04












  • what is your default gateway? What is the output of ip route? Can you ping the default gateway? Are your interfaces up? What is the output of ip a?

    – Timothy Pulliam
    Feb 27 at 21:05
















tcpdump seeing traffic going out means little. You must see expected traffic going in.

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 27 at 21:00






tcpdump seeing traffic going out means little. You must see expected traffic going in.

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 27 at 21:00














I don't see traffic going out, I see dns requests from router looking for computers on the network.

– user70494
Feb 27 at 21:01





I don't see traffic going out, I see dns requests from router looking for computers on the network.

– user70494
Feb 27 at 21:01













a router normally does not do DNS requests...

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 27 at 21:02






a router normally does not do DNS requests...

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 27 at 21:02














Please add the output of iptables -L -n, ping tests, relevant tcpdump traces, and the output of ip a, ifconfig -a, ethtool eth3

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 27 at 21:04






Please add the output of iptables -L -n, ping tests, relevant tcpdump traces, and the output of ip a, ifconfig -a, ethtool eth3

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 27 at 21:04














what is your default gateway? What is the output of ip route? Can you ping the default gateway? Are your interfaces up? What is the output of ip a?

– Timothy Pulliam
Feb 27 at 21:05





what is your default gateway? What is the output of ip route? Can you ping the default gateway? Are your interfaces up? What is the output of ip a?

– Timothy Pulliam
Feb 27 at 21:05










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















0














You have an active point-to-point VPN as can be seen by tun0; the VPN might be messing with local connectivity.



Many VPNs use what is know as full tunnel and mess with local connectivity for security reasons e.g. the "problems" you are describing are there by design, they are part of the intended security policy.



If you want to have local traffic, you have to turn off the VPN, but then you lose connectivity from whatever the other side that VPN is talking to.



Also the tun and dropped message packets on diagnostic data is a clue something fishy is going on. Seems that something/some software/a kernel module is dropped packets by design.






share|improve this answer

























  • Good catch, however, I have removed the openvpn service completely with apt remove openvpn and rebooted the system and still do not have network connections. In fact, I'm getting the exact same responses as before. Just don't have the tun0 network device listed.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 13:49











  • It is however a strong clue something is amiss /maybe intencionally configured, and that we do not have enough data on this question to work with

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 13:53











  • Ok, will continue to research the VPN angle and see if maybe there is some configuration somewhere messing with me. I'll post back if I find something there. Thanks

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 14:38











  • Turns out this server had shorewall setup for the firewall. Someone else set it up and I didn't realize they had the VPN there. ufw wasn't being used so started looking for something else and found shorewall. I turned it off and everything started working instantly. So now need to figure out what is going on there and should be good. Thanks again for pointing out the VPN as it was definitely the issue.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 15:13











  • It was the tun and that dropped message in tcpdump to be more precise that were the clues. It had to be firewalling/a kernel module. Added to the answer to illustrate my reasoning.

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 17:08










Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f503419%2fubuntu-linux-server-on-network-but-cant-see-anything%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









0














You have an active point-to-point VPN as can be seen by tun0; the VPN might be messing with local connectivity.



Many VPNs use what is know as full tunnel and mess with local connectivity for security reasons e.g. the "problems" you are describing are there by design, they are part of the intended security policy.



If you want to have local traffic, you have to turn off the VPN, but then you lose connectivity from whatever the other side that VPN is talking to.



Also the tun and dropped message packets on diagnostic data is a clue something fishy is going on. Seems that something/some software/a kernel module is dropped packets by design.






share|improve this answer

























  • Good catch, however, I have removed the openvpn service completely with apt remove openvpn and rebooted the system and still do not have network connections. In fact, I'm getting the exact same responses as before. Just don't have the tun0 network device listed.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 13:49











  • It is however a strong clue something is amiss /maybe intencionally configured, and that we do not have enough data on this question to work with

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 13:53











  • Ok, will continue to research the VPN angle and see if maybe there is some configuration somewhere messing with me. I'll post back if I find something there. Thanks

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 14:38











  • Turns out this server had shorewall setup for the firewall. Someone else set it up and I didn't realize they had the VPN there. ufw wasn't being used so started looking for something else and found shorewall. I turned it off and everything started working instantly. So now need to figure out what is going on there and should be good. Thanks again for pointing out the VPN as it was definitely the issue.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 15:13











  • It was the tun and that dropped message in tcpdump to be more precise that were the clues. It had to be firewalling/a kernel module. Added to the answer to illustrate my reasoning.

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 17:08















0














You have an active point-to-point VPN as can be seen by tun0; the VPN might be messing with local connectivity.



Many VPNs use what is know as full tunnel and mess with local connectivity for security reasons e.g. the "problems" you are describing are there by design, they are part of the intended security policy.



If you want to have local traffic, you have to turn off the VPN, but then you lose connectivity from whatever the other side that VPN is talking to.



Also the tun and dropped message packets on diagnostic data is a clue something fishy is going on. Seems that something/some software/a kernel module is dropped packets by design.






share|improve this answer

























  • Good catch, however, I have removed the openvpn service completely with apt remove openvpn and rebooted the system and still do not have network connections. In fact, I'm getting the exact same responses as before. Just don't have the tun0 network device listed.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 13:49











  • It is however a strong clue something is amiss /maybe intencionally configured, and that we do not have enough data on this question to work with

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 13:53











  • Ok, will continue to research the VPN angle and see if maybe there is some configuration somewhere messing with me. I'll post back if I find something there. Thanks

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 14:38











  • Turns out this server had shorewall setup for the firewall. Someone else set it up and I didn't realize they had the VPN there. ufw wasn't being used so started looking for something else and found shorewall. I turned it off and everything started working instantly. So now need to figure out what is going on there and should be good. Thanks again for pointing out the VPN as it was definitely the issue.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 15:13











  • It was the tun and that dropped message in tcpdump to be more precise that were the clues. It had to be firewalling/a kernel module. Added to the answer to illustrate my reasoning.

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 17:08













0












0








0







You have an active point-to-point VPN as can be seen by tun0; the VPN might be messing with local connectivity.



Many VPNs use what is know as full tunnel and mess with local connectivity for security reasons e.g. the "problems" you are describing are there by design, they are part of the intended security policy.



If you want to have local traffic, you have to turn off the VPN, but then you lose connectivity from whatever the other side that VPN is talking to.



Also the tun and dropped message packets on diagnostic data is a clue something fishy is going on. Seems that something/some software/a kernel module is dropped packets by design.






share|improve this answer















You have an active point-to-point VPN as can be seen by tun0; the VPN might be messing with local connectivity.



Many VPNs use what is know as full tunnel and mess with local connectivity for security reasons e.g. the "problems" you are describing are there by design, they are part of the intended security policy.



If you want to have local traffic, you have to turn off the VPN, but then you lose connectivity from whatever the other side that VPN is talking to.



Also the tun and dropped message packets on diagnostic data is a clue something fishy is going on. Seems that something/some software/a kernel module is dropped packets by design.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Feb 28 at 17:06

























answered Feb 27 at 22:59









Rui F RibeiroRui F Ribeiro

41.7k1483142




41.7k1483142












  • Good catch, however, I have removed the openvpn service completely with apt remove openvpn and rebooted the system and still do not have network connections. In fact, I'm getting the exact same responses as before. Just don't have the tun0 network device listed.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 13:49











  • It is however a strong clue something is amiss /maybe intencionally configured, and that we do not have enough data on this question to work with

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 13:53











  • Ok, will continue to research the VPN angle and see if maybe there is some configuration somewhere messing with me. I'll post back if I find something there. Thanks

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 14:38











  • Turns out this server had shorewall setup for the firewall. Someone else set it up and I didn't realize they had the VPN there. ufw wasn't being used so started looking for something else and found shorewall. I turned it off and everything started working instantly. So now need to figure out what is going on there and should be good. Thanks again for pointing out the VPN as it was definitely the issue.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 15:13











  • It was the tun and that dropped message in tcpdump to be more precise that were the clues. It had to be firewalling/a kernel module. Added to the answer to illustrate my reasoning.

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 17:08

















  • Good catch, however, I have removed the openvpn service completely with apt remove openvpn and rebooted the system and still do not have network connections. In fact, I'm getting the exact same responses as before. Just don't have the tun0 network device listed.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 13:49











  • It is however a strong clue something is amiss /maybe intencionally configured, and that we do not have enough data on this question to work with

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 13:53











  • Ok, will continue to research the VPN angle and see if maybe there is some configuration somewhere messing with me. I'll post back if I find something there. Thanks

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 14:38











  • Turns out this server had shorewall setup for the firewall. Someone else set it up and I didn't realize they had the VPN there. ufw wasn't being used so started looking for something else and found shorewall. I turned it off and everything started working instantly. So now need to figure out what is going on there and should be good. Thanks again for pointing out the VPN as it was definitely the issue.

    – user70494
    Feb 28 at 15:13











  • It was the tun and that dropped message in tcpdump to be more precise that were the clues. It had to be firewalling/a kernel module. Added to the answer to illustrate my reasoning.

    – Rui F Ribeiro
    Feb 28 at 17:08
















Good catch, however, I have removed the openvpn service completely with apt remove openvpn and rebooted the system and still do not have network connections. In fact, I'm getting the exact same responses as before. Just don't have the tun0 network device listed.

– user70494
Feb 28 at 13:49





Good catch, however, I have removed the openvpn service completely with apt remove openvpn and rebooted the system and still do not have network connections. In fact, I'm getting the exact same responses as before. Just don't have the tun0 network device listed.

– user70494
Feb 28 at 13:49













It is however a strong clue something is amiss /maybe intencionally configured, and that we do not have enough data on this question to work with

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 28 at 13:53





It is however a strong clue something is amiss /maybe intencionally configured, and that we do not have enough data on this question to work with

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 28 at 13:53













Ok, will continue to research the VPN angle and see if maybe there is some configuration somewhere messing with me. I'll post back if I find something there. Thanks

– user70494
Feb 28 at 14:38





Ok, will continue to research the VPN angle and see if maybe there is some configuration somewhere messing with me. I'll post back if I find something there. Thanks

– user70494
Feb 28 at 14:38













Turns out this server had shorewall setup for the firewall. Someone else set it up and I didn't realize they had the VPN there. ufw wasn't being used so started looking for something else and found shorewall. I turned it off and everything started working instantly. So now need to figure out what is going on there and should be good. Thanks again for pointing out the VPN as it was definitely the issue.

– user70494
Feb 28 at 15:13





Turns out this server had shorewall setup for the firewall. Someone else set it up and I didn't realize they had the VPN there. ufw wasn't being used so started looking for something else and found shorewall. I turned it off and everything started working instantly. So now need to figure out what is going on there and should be good. Thanks again for pointing out the VPN as it was definitely the issue.

– user70494
Feb 28 at 15:13













It was the tun and that dropped message in tcpdump to be more precise that were the clues. It had to be firewalling/a kernel module. Added to the answer to illustrate my reasoning.

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 28 at 17:08





It was the tun and that dropped message in tcpdump to be more precise that were the clues. It had to be firewalling/a kernel module. Added to the answer to illustrate my reasoning.

– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 28 at 17:08

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f503419%2fubuntu-linux-server-on-network-but-cant-see-anything%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown






Popular posts from this blog

Peggy Mitchell

Palaiologos

The Forum (Inglewood, California)