>
>> I know its not optimal but I would think I can still get this done.
>> Do you think this is why it's not working?
>
> There are any number or reasons why "it" is not working.
> Frankly, and no offense here, I'm no longer sure I understand just
> what you're trying to get working. You told us at the beginning you
> wanted an internal machine to communicate to the outside world (by
> which I presumed you meant the Internet).
>
> But given what you've supplied here:
>
>> rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
>> lladdr 00:18:4d:ea:33:0a
>> groups: egress
>> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
>> status: active
>> inet6 fe80::218:4dff:feea:330a%rl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
>> inet 192.168.0.111 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
>> dc0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
>> lladdr 00:14:bf:53:1e:fe
>> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex)
>> status: active
>> inet6 fe80::214:bfff:fe53:1efe%dc0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2
>> inet 10.0.0.0 netmask 0xff000000 broadcast 255.255.255.0
>
> that doesn't appear to be what you're doing.
>
> I've already pointed out that your OpenBSD box's two NICs both have
> private IPs (192.168.0.111 and 10.0.0.0; cf.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network ).
>
> You said
>
>> rl0 is connected to the internet.
>
> but rl0 has the private IP 192.168.0.111, so you obviously aren't
> talking to the outside world (at least not without there being yet
> another box you haven't told us about doing NAT between the OpenBSD
> box and the public Internet).
>
> Others on this list were much more eagle-eyed than me and have already
> pointed out further problems with your setup:
>
> - John pointed out that your broadcast address on dc0 is set to
> '255.255.255.0', which looks more like a netmask.
>
> - Stuart observed that the 10.0.0.0 IP address, apart from being
> private, is not even valid:
>
>> 10.0.0.0 is not valid with a 255.0.0.0 netmask, it's reserved as the
>> network address and shouldn't be used by a host. You could use
>> 10.0.0.1.
>
> He also elaborated on the misconfigured broadcast address John
> spotted earlier:
>
>> 255.255.255.0 is not a sensible broadcast address for the configured
>> network. For 10.xxx with a 255.0.0.0 netmask, the normal broadcast
>> address is 10.255.255.255. For 10.0.0.x with a 255.255.255.0 netmask,
>> the normal broadcast address is 10.0.0.255.
>>
>> Try it with just 'inet 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0' in hostname.dc0,
>> adjust dhcpd.conf as necessary, and reboot. (you could do this on
>> a running box, but this way you'll know it will come back up
>> correctly next reboot).
>>
>> Note that the format of hostname.if(5) is different to that of the
>> ifconfig(8) command line.
>
> - And James told you at the start of this conversation:
>
>> Make sure the clients have gateways, make sure the bsd box has a
>> gateway and
>> all masks are correct.
>>
>> Try doing traceroute's and working your way up
>
> and IMHO that still applies.
> Anyway, you later wrote:
>
>> this is a small private I'm doing between [two] computers for
>> educational purposes. the server is also connected to a dhcp
>> network.
>
> This is obviously not the same thing as trying to get an internal
> machine to talk to the Internet.
> And I don't know what you mean by "the server is also connected to a
> dhcp network". Do you mean the OpenBSD box is getting one of its IP
> addresses (for rl0?) from another DHCP server? You also haven't
> supplied the contents of your /etc/hostname.if(5) files.
>
> Forgive me my skepticism, but are you sure you fully understand IPv4?
> I.e. have you read this part of the FAQ?
>
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#Intro
> and have you read this document
>
http://www.3com.com/other/pdfs/infra/corpinfo/en_US/501302.pdf
> as is recommended there?
>
> In conclusion: No, I can't tell you why "it" is not working, but if
> you address the multiple issues that have already been pointed out to
> you, do your homework, and ask precise questions, then there are
> excellent chances that you can get VERY competent answers on this
> list. Most people here are a lot more technical than me, and I have
> read the 3com PDF ;-)
>
> Bonne chance!
> ropers
