this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
34 points (97.2% liked)

Linux

48145 readers
872 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Probably should find a linux networking specific community for this one..

I have a strange issue that feels very familiar, like I've fixed it before, but I can't remember how.

I try to rtsp to security cam:

ffplay rtsp://user:password@192.168.19.137:554/h264Preview_01_main

And I get a no route:

Connection to tcp://192.168.19.137:554?timeout=0 failed: No route to host

rtsp://user:password@192.168.19.137:554/h264Preview_01_main: No route to host

Strange, I'm in the same subnet 192.168.19.129/24, and it worked a few days ago.

Check ping:

ping 192.168.19.137

PING 192.168.19.137 (192.168.19.137) 56(84) bytes of data.

64 bytes from 192.168.19.137: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=5.69 ms

Of course.. So I run the command again;

ffplay rtsp://user:password@192.168.19.137:554/h264Preview_01_main

And now it works.

I could bandaid by crontabbing a ping every hour or something, but I would really like to know why I'm getting a 'no route' until I ping.

My routing table is pretty basic:

default via 192.168.19.1 dev enp4s0 proto dhcp src 192.168.19.129 metric 100

default via 192.168.19.1 dev enp4s0 proto dhcp src 192.168.19.129 metric 1002

172.17.0.0/16 dev docker0 proto kernel scope link src 172.17.0.1 linkdown

172.18.0.0/16 dev br-68c1e0344e27 proto kernel scope link src 172.18.0.1 linkdown

192.168.19.0/24 dev enp4s0 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.19.129 metric 1002

192.168.19.1 dev enp4s0 proto dhcp scope link src 192.168.19.129 metric 1024

And I don't think I have any rules in firewall for LAN.

Any ideas?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Im rusty. So don't trust this.

It looks like you have a routing issue with your default route. The fact that a ping gets the IP to start working, tells me that you need a broadcast packet on the local network, that broadcast excites the other computer to send a message out, that updates the IP to Mac table, which then makes the machine routable because now there is a direct ethernet pathway.

So I think the magic here is the initial broadcast ping is doing.

Ideally this isn't necessary, ethernet should be sending out a broadcast packet for the Mac to IP table anyway for your TCP traffic. I don't know why that's not happening. I would do an TCP dump in both scenarios, and see if the broadcast is going out.

My intuition is that there's something fucky going on with your default route, that ping is not being affected by. I bet you don't send out a broadcast address discovery packet in the TCP scenario but you do in the ping scenario

[–] preciouspupp@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But any IP packet should trigger an arp “who has?”.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 1 year ago

Yes. It should. Hence the fucky mystery. Good to check with a network dump to rule it out.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

When this happened to me, the broadcast would trigger the ARP update; the camera would respond ever so slightly slower and since it was the last device to claim it was at the IP the ARP table would be updated with it. It would work until the conflicting device would send a packet which would update the ARP table again, back to the original device. The services I expected to respond would no longer receive the packets, they’d go to the wrong machine and it of course wouldn’t respond to requests for services it was not running.

That’s how you end up in this situation of “works for a bit then stops responding”

[–] atlasraven31@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Either this or a firewall issue.