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:[email protected]: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:[email protected]: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:[email protected]: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?

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

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

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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”