THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH !!!!!
WOW, I can't believe it! This was beyond my comprehension. I could not image that the hosts in subnet 10.0.0.0/24 would be able to ping someone in another addressing scheme. So when spuluka told me to use the 1.1.1.1/24 above. I dismissed it and kept on going on with my questions. Thank you spuluka for giving me the answer up above.
I am so amazed at my lack of basic routing knowledge! I have set up multiple networks before, but somehow the basic comprehension still eludes me. I guess this time it will help me to wake up a little!
LOL, it was so beautiful when a windows 7 machine and Windows Server 2008 standard were able to ping 1.1.1.1!!!!
For some reason the two Linux boxes can't ping 1.1.1.1, i wonder if in linux I have to explicity put something in their routing table?
P.S. I tried route add -net 1.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 gw 10.0.0.26, and then I was able to ping from the Ubuntu machine. This also worked for the Debian machine. I wonder why windows machines automatically work without having to add anything into their local routing table.
I appologize spuluka.
And thanks for explaining about the arp and the routing distinction in a real practical world situation ddivins. I understood layer 2 arp resolution and layer 3 routing in theory, but obviously not in a very practical way. Thank you so much ddivins!
Yes spuluka, lo0 does show up in show interfaces terse. I feel that I need to give you both credit for the solution.
run show interfaces terse
Interface Admin Link Proto Local Remote
ge-0/0/0 up down
ge-0/0/0.0 up down eth-switch
ge-0/0/1 up down
ge-0/0/1.0 up down eth-switch
ge-0/0/2 up up
ge-0/0/2.0 up up eth-switch
ge-0/0/3 up up
ge-0/0/3.0 up up eth-switch
ge-0/0/4 up down
ge-0/0/4.0 up down eth-switch
ge-0/0/5 up down
ge-0/0/5.0 up down eth-switch
ge-0/0/6 up down
ge-0/0/6.0 up down inet 10.60.1.2/24
ge-0/0/7 up up
ge-0/0/7.0 up up eth-switch
ge-0/0/8 up down
ge-0/0/8.0 up down inet 10.80.1.2/24
ge-0/0/9 up down
ge-0/0/9.0 up down eth-switch
ge-0/0/10 up up
ge-0/0/10.0 up up eth-switch
ge-0/0/11 up up
ge-0/0/11.0 up up eth-switch
ge-0/1/0 up up
ge-0/1/0.0 up up eth-switch
ge-0/1/1 up down
ge-0/1/1.0 up down inet 10.30.0.2/24
bme0 up up
bme0.32768 up up inet 128.0.0.1/2
128.0.0.16/2
128.0.0.32/2
tnp 0x10
dsc up up
gre up up
ipip up up
lo0 up up
lo0.0 up up inet 1.1.1.1/24
lo0.16384 up up inet 127.0.0.1 --> 0/0
lsi up up
me0 up down
me0.0 up down inet 10.0.0.144/24
mtun up up
pimd up up
pime up up
So here my routing table now:
[edit routing-options]
robmin@ex2200c# show
static {
route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop 10.0.0.1;
route 240.0.0.8/32 discard;
route 240.0.0.9/32 reject;
route 7.7.7.7/32 next-hop 10.20.1.3;
route 18.18.18.18/32 next-hop 10.80.1.1;
route 6.6.6.6/32 next-hop 10.60.1.1;
route 10.60.31.0/24 next-hop 10.60.1.1;
how are the packets from a ping from 10.0.0.18 getting to the 1.1.1.1 lo0? I know the first step is to the vlan-400 address of 10.0.0.26, but what happens after that? Is it because the lo0 is directly connected within the switch and any layer 3 vlan can route to the layer 3 loopback?
Also, can the 1.1.1.1 be with any mask? such as /32? I think I remember that /32 has an advantage because it is a single specific address and it is good for the loopback to have a single address verses a range. Is this right?
BTW, it doesn't seem to make a difference now if I make the gateway the address of my Cable Modem (10.0.0.1) or the address of the switch layer-3 vlan-400(10.0.0.26) they both still get clients to the Internet and clients can ping the 1.1.1.1. So in the case when the gateway is the cable modem, it it relying upon it's routing table to get back to the 1.1.1.1? Does the gateway determine which device routes the traffic when it is in another subnet?
Thanks,
Robin Hood