We help IT Professionals succeed at work.

We've partnered with Certified Experts, Carl Webster and Richard Faulkner, to bring you two Citrix podcasts. Learn about 2020 trends and get answers to your biggest Citrix questions!Listen Now


Netware 5.1 Routing/IP issue

lectos asked
Medium Priority
Last Modified: 2008-02-01
I have a Novell 5.1 box. I am currently having a routing problem.

My network used to be: –  MASK  and a Gateway of which is my frame relay router. Everything worked great, I could ping all of my remote sites just fine from the novell console. Under inetcfg in protocols and LAN static Routing Table I have  the following:

Default Route and a next hop of
Network next hop

My remote sites:

I ran out of hosts so I borrowed less bits and changed my subnet masks to at my main location which has the Novell server on it.  I didn’t have to change the IP of the Novell server just the subnet mask, because the usable network range is –

Everything on THIS network is fine, everyone can ping the Novell server and can authenticate via NDS over IP. The frame is working fine. I can ping all of the workstations at all of the remotes sites and they can ping all of the servers and printers at the main location from the remote sites just fine, except the Novell server.  My Frame is working great. They just can’t ping the Novell server. The route looks like it should still work with the settings I have currently in inetcfg.
Watch Question

NetWare 5.1 (Novell is the company that sells NetWare, among other OSes and products) is an excellent multiprotocol router, but its IP stack may not be as robust as modern NetWare, depending on what the patch level is.  I don't think that's the issue, but it never hurts to be current on your communications stack when you're having communications problems.  What NetWare 5.1 Support Pack level is installed, and have you installed any TCP/IP updates since the Support Pack was installed?

NetWare will respond to PING on any route it can see.  It's obviously not seeing the other networks, or it would respond to PING requests from the remote sites.  Can you PING the remote sites from the NetWare server?

I personally would not have the route to its own local network having a next hop of the frame router, since it already knows what its own network is and how to get to it.

Try removing that route to the 172.16.0 network from its routing table, and try adding static LAN routes to the 172.16.2, 3 and 4 networks with next hop of the frame router instead.  Since you're subnetting a class B network, using a static route as though it's a class B subnet mask won't work.  You're not bridging, you're routing.  Since you changed the local subnet to use as a single network, your WAN isn't a straight class B "zero" network any more.

Not the solution you were looking for? Getting a personalized solution is easy.

Ask the Experts


Thanks for pointing out my Netware 5.1 typo.  As it wasn't relevant to the issue, I will ignore it.  

Adding the static LAN routes to the remote networks fixed the issue.  The fact that we were routing not bridging slipped our minds in the rush to get it changed over.  It's been a while since we have touched the server.

"Thanks for pointing out my Netware 5.1 typo.  As it wasn't relevant to the issue, I will ignore it."

It doesn't look like it was a typo to me, so please don't ignore it.  It's very relevant in that if you didn't mean NetWare 5.1, the answer would be quite different.  

Yes, by inference, we can assume you mean NetWare 5.1, since that's what the Question title said, but it could've potentially been any Novell product that had a 5.1 version.  It's important to be as accurate and complete as possible in your Question for the best, fastest results.  For example I shouldn't have had to ask what SP level your NW5.1 server was at.  That level of detail may have been important because there may have been a bug in the IP stack of the SP you're on causing your problem, and we could've been chasing our tails looking at routing (which was the issue, but that's beside the point) instead of looking at a known-problem bugfix.  IIRC, there have been bugs in the NetWare IP stack in the distant past, around the time 5.1 was released, that involved subnetting issues, for example.

There's also the political issue, where the overuse of "Novell" when referring to NetWare results in the perception that Novell = NetWare, which makes it all the more difficult to divorce the company name from the OS when trying to get approval for platform-agnostic Novell products like eDirectory, Identity Manager, GroupWise and ZENworks.  When the PHB's and other TPTB-types constantly hear "the Novell server" over and over, all they think of when you say "Novell" is the old server, rather than directory services, email, management tools or identity management.  But that's just one of those things that irritate me personally.  The accuracy thing is what's germane to E-E and asking Questions about NetWare issues.


If you notice, my subject for the question is correct.  You knew what I was taking about so there was no need to elaborate on the subject nor run off on any form of product zealotry.   You could have also noted that I put the question in the Netware forums.   That should have been a big red sticker that it was Netware.  

We have SP 7.  I was going to mention that but your suggestion worked.  We are quite aware that a SP 1-4 could have been a major culprit.    I was going to ask if 8 had any fixes for IP over 7 if your solution did not work.  

The funny thing is that it turned out that it was a silly networking issue, not a Netware issue at all.  You fixed it by reminding us about an oversight on our part.  That's what I came here for.  Outside perspective is sometimes a good way to fix things.

As for politics, they are the least of my concern.  I would be proud to be known only for Netware if I was Novell.  It's the most rock solid file server that we have.  It's been years since we have even had to change a setting on it to make it fulfill it's job and we have became a bit rusty (or lazy) since it has been working so well.

Look at my registration date.   I fully know what E-E is about.  I am far from new to this site and I am quite grateful for it's existence.  

PS: There is a misnomer in your profile, you should be "E-E Page Editor: GNU/Linux" not  "E-E Page Editor: Linux"  We have to be accurate here you know.

To my knowledge, the topic areas for Linux do not have Gnu's Not Unix anywhere in the titles.  Maybe there will be eventually, but for accuracy's sake, I can't say "GNU/Linux" ;)

As I said in my explanation, "Yes, by inference, we can assume you mean NetWare 5.1, since that's what the Question title said, but it could've potentially been any Novell product that had a 5.1 version."

Also, please note that there are only two topic areas in all of E-E for Novell products, and the GroupWise TA only started last year.  The NetWare TA is where ALL commercial Novell product questions land, whether they're for NetWare or not.  I frequently have to move GroupWise questions from the NetWare TA to the GroupWise TA, as recently as this week, so although it says "Netware" on the TA, that doesn't put any red stickers on any Questions.

My statement about accuracy being germane was not a slam on you or meant to imply that you're an E-E newbie.  It was to explain WHY I put the blurb on NetWare in my comment, and wasn't just for your sake.  It's very frustrating to have to constantly drag version and patch revision information out of Askers, you see.  Sorry if it seemed personal - I assure you it wasn't.
Access more of Experts Exchange with a free account
Thanks for using Experts Exchange.

Create a free account to continue.

Limited access with a free account allows you to:

  • View three pieces of content (articles, solutions, posts, and videos)
  • Ask the experts questions (counted toward content limit)
  • Customize your dashboard and profile

*This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.


Please enter a first name

Please enter a last name

8+ characters (letters, numbers, and a symbol)

By clicking, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.