Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Same address, two different hosts 9
- Thread starter jsimo
- Start date
-
4
- #2
-
2
- #3
- Thread starter
- #4
No the machines are not clustered. These devices are 10/100 hubs and print servers (Intel). Interestingly enough if I ping 10.10.3.03 I get a reply from 10.10.3.11. Pinging 10.10.3.3 gets a reply from the expected address (10.10.3.3).
This is strange and I have not encountered this before. I am in the process of replacing a ton of equipment here and found these issues when reconciling the IP address list the previous admin handed me.
This is strange and I have not encountered this before. I am in the process of replacing a ton of equipment here and found these issues when reconciling the IP address list the previous admin handed me.
LawnBoy
MIS
- Mar 12, 2003
- 2,881
That's a new one on me...
I'd check the config of that .11 device and look for some kind of special address remapping function.
"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
I'd check the config of that .11 device and look for some kind of special address remapping function.
"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
LawnBoy
MIS
- Mar 12, 2003
- 2,881
Just did some quick checking... On NT, 2k, XP, 2k3, linux, and Netware the results I get pinging 10.10.3.03 always starts with something along the lines of "pinging 10.10.3.3 ..." Note the lack of a preceeding 0 in the results...
Just what OS are you pinging from??? Will you paste the exact results of your ping here?
"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
Just what OS are you pinging from??? Will you paste the exact results of your ping here?
"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
- Thread starter
- #8
The ping is being done from an XP SP2 workstation. I get the same results with CentOS. I have another subnet that this is happening with as well. Pasted are the results.
C:\WINDOWS\system32>ping 198.187.5.011
Pinging 198.187.5.9 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Ping statistics for 198.187.5.9:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 1ms
I expect the behavior below:
C:\WINDOWS\system32>ping 198.187.5.09
Pinging 198.187.5.09 [198.187.5.9] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Ping statistics for 198.187.5.9:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 1ms
This is some wierd stuff. I have cerified that WINS and DNS do not have any odd entries. I have not seen this before.
C:\WINDOWS\system32>ping 198.187.5.011
Pinging 198.187.5.9 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Ping statistics for 198.187.5.9:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 1ms
I expect the behavior below:
C:\WINDOWS\system32>ping 198.187.5.09
Pinging 198.187.5.09 [198.187.5.9] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Reply from 198.187.5.9: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=30
Ping statistics for 198.187.5.9:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 1ms, Average = 1ms
This is some wierd stuff. I have cerified that WINS and DNS do not have any odd entries. I have not seen this before.
That's because "ping xxx.xxx.xxx.011", or 011 in ANY octet, gets translated into 9 in DOS. I cannot give you an explanation, but try it...
ping 011.011.011.011
translating 9.9.9.9
I know it's not hex, grey code or octal...they are all 3 (011).
Now I would think that 01=10 backwards, but when typed this way, it means subtract the next number, but that is not true. I can work on this to crack the code, like 021=17 in DOS...but in the future, I would just use the correct format when typing IP addresses.
I was asking you what reported an IP address as being 10.10.3.03???
Burt
ping 011.011.011.011
translating 9.9.9.9
I know it's not hex, grey code or octal...they are all 3 (011).
Now I would think that 01=10 backwards, but when typed this way, it means subtract the next number, but that is not true. I can work on this to crack the code, like 021=17 in DOS...but in the future, I would just use the correct format when typing IP addresses.
I was asking you what reported an IP address as being 10.10.3.03???
Burt
- Thread starter
- #10
Thank you for the explanation. I am going through a list of IP addresses from the prior systems administrator which is old and out dated. In the process I am doing ping sweeps to determine live hosts according to the list I have. Some of the IP addresses are documents just as I pasted (198.187.5.011 - No Kidding!) Being new here and having to replace all hubs and routers and re-ip all devices to private IP, I wanted to make certain I have a good list to work from. These anomalies were/are getting me worried! Getting the same wierd results from Linux as well as Windows lead me to believe the hosts actually had the ip address coded incorrectly in their configuration. Alas, these devices look good.
- Thread starter
- #11
LawnBoy
MIS
- Mar 12, 2003
- 2,881
That would be octal. 8dec=10oct, 9dec=11oct.
I had no idea you could use anything other than decimal numbers. So the ex-sysadmin has intentionally obscured his work.
That's a trick worth remembering. It doesn't solve this:
There is no number base who's 3 would equal 11 decimal.
"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
I had no idea you could use anything other than decimal numbers. So the ex-sysadmin has intentionally obscured his work.
That's a trick worth remembering. It doesn't solve this:
There is no number base who's 3 would equal 11 decimal.
"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
-
3
- #13
jimbopalmer
Programmer
it is a good read, but the part you want is titled Octal IP Addresses
I tried to remain child-like, all I acheived was childish.
- Thread starter
- #15
I did forget to add, since jimbo and lawnboy are also Cisco guys, that there is a command that will display the subnet mask of an IP address in bitcount, decimal or hexadecimal format (bitcount meaning the "/", like 255.255.240.0 would be /20). The command is "ip netmask-format dec/hex/bit", whichever you want. This is configured on the line con 0, line vty 0 4 (or 0 15 on switches), and/or line aux. Example...
router>en
router#conf t
router(config)#line con 0
router(config-line)#ip netmask-format bit
router(config-line)#end
router#sh int (whatever)
and it will show, for example, 192.168.1.1/24
Burt
router>en
router#conf t
router(config)#line con 0
router(config-line)#ip netmask-format bit
router(config-line)#end
router#sh int (whatever)
and it will show, for example, 192.168.1.1/24
Burt
LawnBoy
MIS
- Mar 12, 2003
- 2,881
I don't know squat about Cisco, except by inference. I use HP for switches and linux for routing.
"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
"We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question