![]() Yes, I agree this isn't very intuitive taken your expectation (and probable the expectation of most other users), but it makes more or less sense if you take into account how it works underneath (ARP resolution, routing etc.). This is, again in layman's terms, because after clearing the ARP table there will be no more MAC address associated with the IP address so the ping "can not be sent out". ![]() If you clear your ARP table ( arp -d * in Windows) and ping the device again you should get the Destination host unreachable message. You can test it by pinging a connected device on your LAN and unplugging the destination device while pinging is in progress. The output Request timed out will count as lost. This is the second misinterpretation, Reply from *.*.*.*: Destination host unreachable is not counted as lost but as received (after all it says " Reply from."). 18 since that device is unreachable therefore it couldn't give a reply. If you think about it, it can't be a reply from. if the destination devices is on the same subnet as the device doing the pinging) or from a router "responsible" for the destination's IP/subnet (if the destination device is on a different subnet and has to be routed). In layman's terms: The response ("from 192.168.1.199") comes either from the device doing the pinging (this occurs if no router is involved, e.g. Nothing gets "redirected", you are just misinterpreting the output of the ping command. OS: Windows 10 (other computers at home are running Windows 10 & 11).I put it here just in case it gives a hint. Also, I don't see the same problem from other computers at home. The problem appears to be irrelevant of which wireless AP I connect to. Reply from 192.168.1.199: Destination host unreachable. Minimum = 2ms, Maximum = 4ms, Average = 2ms ![]() Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),Īpproximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Later on I found that pinging from that computer resulted in weird results: C:\>ping 192.168.1.8 One day, one of the computers failed to connect to the printer. I have a network printer at home, a NAS, and three computers. And a switch operating at layer 3 will ignore the configured default-gateway and will need a default route.In short, what are the possible reasons that ping 192.168.1.18 will be redirected to 192.168.1.199 (or some other random IP addresses in 192.168.1.x)? But when a switch is configured with ip routing enabled then it begins to operate like a router. One way to understand this is that a layer 2 only switch is operating like a host device in the IP network. default-gateway is used only by switches operating as layer 2 only. And default-gateway provides that.Ī switch that is configured to operate at layer 3 could have configured a default-gateway, but it is not used. But what if the destination address was in a different subnet? For that the switch would need a gateway. The switch would be able to communicate with any other device that was in the same subnet (same vlan) as the management IP by using arp to find the destination address. This IP address is used for management purposes on the switch (to allow SSH or telnet, to be able to send syslog messages to a collector, to respond to SNMP, and things like that). A layer 2 switch may be configured with an IP address on one of its vlans. default-gateway is used on layer 2 switches. ![]() In one of your posts you asked about default-gateway and default route. But any routing of traffic between vlans will need to be done on the 3750. It will forward traffic within its vlans. If you do no ip routing on the 4506 then it will operate as layer 2 switch only. I was hoping that I would be able to use the link local IPv6 addresses of the port channel between the routers to route the loopback address information, however, this does not seem to be working in Cisco IOS. The key to this is whether ip routing is enabled or not enabled. The issue I am having now is attempting to get the loopback addresses to route between routers. So we need to be careful to understand correctly whether these switches are operating only as layer 2 or as both layer 2 and layer 3. Most switches (such as your 37) are capable of both layer 2 and layer 3. Some switches are capable of only layer 2 switching. A layer 3 switch forwards traffic based on both layer 2 and layer 3 (IP) addressing. A layer 2 switch forwards traffic based only on layer 2 addressing (mac address for an Ethernet frame). Sometimes there is confusion about switches being layer 2 or layer 3. There are several points I would like to make about it. I am glad that we are making progress on understanding this issue.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |