Be Excellent To Each Other

I think this is impossible

someone has just rung me and says they have 3 computers and a router on a lan

pc1 - 192.168.0.1 subnet of 255.255.0.0
pc2 - 192.168.0.2 subnet of 255.255.0.0
pc3 - 192.168.0.10 subnet of 255.255.0.0

router - 192.168.0.254 subnet of 255.255.0.0

all the computers have the default gateway set to the router ip (not that that matters in the case)

pc3 can ping pc1 and pc2 via ip and name
pc1 and pc2 can ping each other by ip and name
pc1 and pc2 can ping pc3 only by name, not ip!!!!!!!

if they do ping -a 192.168.0.10 that works, but ping 192.168.0.10 doesn't work!

WTF?

any ideas (apparently there are no firewalls, and I'm currently trying to get a remote connection to the network...,

Malc

Also, any static routes on the router?

It's not impossible that PC 3 has a knacked-up configuration or something, is it.

They don't have access to the router, but how can anything be done on ip level and not be done on the name level?

I mean I got the guy to type in ping -a 192.168.0.10 and then press up arrow to delete the -a part to eliminate any chace of a typo!

There is nothing in the lmhost file either, pinging the computer name returns the correct ip, and pinging the ip (with the -a) returns the correct name.

I can't see how that can be possible...

Malc

just to add it's xp pro service pack 3 on all 3 computers.

Malc

If there's a static route on the router, telling it to use a specific gateway for that address, that could happen. I can't see that happening by accident though.

Suggestion - change the IP of that box, then see what happens.

I'm also assuming you've got the subnet masks wrong - shirley they should be 255.255.255.0?

Why?

We had something a bit like this at work once (but on a rather larger scale). Turned out our router was fucked (on some of the ports. Sometimes ).
Grab an eight-port switch and plug all the leads into that (including the one to the router) to see if that helps.

Almost certainly there is a seperate switch (probably a 4 port one) connecting the 4 things together, I do know he mentioned there is some patch paneling involved, could wiring really cause this?

Malc

He could use a class C subnet but, there is nothing wrong with using a class B (which I think 192.168 is actually a class B). It was the first thing I checked (that there wasn't a mix of B and C, which could explain the initial one way connectivity).

I'll speak to the guy in the morning to see if he sorted it on his own (he didn't call me back when he said he was going to, but that was to get me dialled in via modem! I know!)

Malc

Because I'm very tired and not thinking straight?

Apologies, ignore me.

I guess I could getting him to try unplugging everything and then try plugging them back in one at a time to see if one specific device has any effect on it

Malc

192.168.0 isn't a class B though. You're right that it makes no difference in this context, mind.

no, but 192.168 is (perhaps) (unless it's made up of 256 class Cs?)

Malc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_ne ... ess_spaces

Seems you are obsolete with your assertation..

Malc

Good Call Grim...

Apparently (and he did this off his own back) he swapped out the switch and then it all worked fine!)

Malc

But....what was wrong?!

I guess the previous switch was faulty somehow.

Malc

Reaver Packets, tearing up the 1s and 0s.