I've given up on getting my wireless lan card to work but am now confronted with another networking problem. I'm hoping someone can help. In V9.3, I was able, by some magical process, to assign a fixed IP address for use in my small local network and, at the same time, use DHCP provided by my ISP to go outside my local network to the Internet. I don't seem to be able to "do the magic" under 10.0. I'm either missing a critical step or the system has been changed. Here's my setup: My local network is Ethernet and is implemented with a Linksys router switch. The router switch connects to the cable via a cable modem. I've loaded SUSE 10.0 on a non-critical laptop. The laptop connects to my lan via a PCMCIA 10/100 Ethernet card. (If you need any technical details, let me know.) At this point, everything is hard wired. There are three linux machines, but only one running 10.0, on my lan. Each machine's /etc/hosts file have all three of: 192.168.100.10 toshiba.site toshiba 192.168.100.20 linux.site linux 192.168.100.30 camino.site camino The two 9.3 machine's NICs are configured as DHCP. They can access the Internet and can ping in either direction to/from each other. When toshiba is configured as DHCP, toshiba can access the Internet but cannot ping either of the other machines & vice versa. If I change toshiba to fixed IP addresses, I can ping everything on the local network but cannot access the Internet. If you see any obvious mistakes in there, please let me know. If you have any thoughts on how to proceed, let me know that as well. Any assistance will be sincerely appreciated. -- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
On Saturday 15 October 2005 06:38 pm, Donald D Henson wrote:
I've given up on getting my wireless lan card to work but am now confronted with another networking problem. I'm hoping someone can help. In V9.3, I was able, by some magical process, to assign a fixed IP address for use in my small local network and, at the same time, use DHCP provided by my ISP to go outside my local network to the Internet. I don't seem to be able to "do the magic" under 10.0. I'm either missing a critical step or the system has been changed. Here's my setup:
My local network is Ethernet and is implemented with a Linksys router switch. The router switch connects to the cable via a cable modem. I've loaded SUSE 10.0 on a non-critical laptop. The laptop connects to my lan via a PCMCIA 10/100 Ethernet card. (If you need any technical details, let me know.) At this point, everything is hard wired.
There are three linux machines, but only one running 10.0, on my lan. Each machine's /etc/hosts file have all three of:
192.168.100.10 toshiba.site toshiba 192.168.100.20 linux.site linux 192.168.100.30 camino.site camino
The two 9.3 machine's NICs are configured as DHCP. They can access the Internet and can ping in either direction to/from each other. When toshiba is configured as DHCP, toshiba can access the Internet but cannot ping either of the other machines & vice versa. If I change toshiba to fixed IP addresses, I can ping everything on the local network but cannot access the Internet.
If you see any obvious mistakes in there, please let me know. If you have any thoughts on how to proceed, let me know that as well. Any assistance will be sincerely appreciated.
I don't see any obvious mistakes but you are leaving a lot of info out of your emails: 1) If the (non-toshiba machines running 9.3) above are DHCP, why do you know for sure what the IP addresses are? 2) If the machines in (1) are DHCP, I don't think they would have the addresses you show. 3) When you change the toshiba to static IP, do you also set a default gateway? (that's what gets you to the internet) 4) What is the address of your router? (I assume it's 192.168.100.1) 5) What static address are you giving your toshiba? 6) When it is DHCP, have you checked route -n to see how the routing (gateway) is set up? etc, etc, etc.....
I filed a bug report on 10.0 OSS and 10.1, both seemed to prefer one of two imbedded nics and made it very difficult (multiple yast network device configs) to switch to the "working" nic, the one that the working 9.3 installation on the same computer uses to connect to the cable modem. Well, i got tired of that and changed the cable connection to the "preferred by 10.0" nic, Nvidia brand. Suse 9.3 took to the change immediately, i called up yast once and took care of the eth0 assignment. Well, 10.0 needs at least 5 yast resets of the network device each time i boot to it! Apparently it does not prefer one of the two nics, it just loses track of what's there! For some reason the nic becomes a nonexistent device when connection to it is attempted, that's what i read in the boot log. something wrong with hardware detection/ hardware config retention? any workarounds? I would like to explore 10 and 10.1, but it does get quite bothersome to reset the net connection on each reboot, actually it becomes irritating when the reset has to be tried 4-5-6-7 times before success! btw, the mobo is a DFI socket 939, running a 64 bit AMD 3000 (i think).
Hi Kanenas, This thread might have something useful for you: Re: [SLE] multiple NICs and routes http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=suse-linux-e&m=112682338904054&w=2 regards, - Carl
On Saturday 15 October 2005 05:06 pm, Carl Hartung wrote:
Hi Kanenas,
This thread might have something useful for you: Re: [SLE] multiple NICs and routes http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=suse-linux-e&m=112682338904054&w=2
regards,
- Carl Thanks Karl, will give it a try. But it seems that this time around there are a few too many questions on various aspects of net configuration. There should be *no* reason for this, the code boyz(or girlz or whatevah) should take another look at what they have changed in this area.
On Saturday 15 October 2005 11:21 pm, kanenas wrote:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=suse-linux-e&m=112682338904054&w=2
regards,
- Carl
Thanks Karl, will give it a try. But it seems that this time around there are a few too many questions on various aspects of net configuration. There should be *no* reason for this, the code boyz(or girlz or whatevah) should take another look at what they have changed in this area.
I haven't found anything has changed in that regard. I think what you are seeing are people new to SuSE (and/or Linux) having the usual problems with networking. Would be nice if it was all easier but networking can get involved no matter what distro you're using. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 10/16/05 11:44 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "Live a hundred years, learn a hundred years, and you'll still die a fool. -- Russian proverb"
On Saturday 15 October 2005 11:06 pm, Carl Hartung wrote:
Hi Kanenas,
This thread might have something useful for you: Re: [SLE] multiple NICs and routes http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=suse-linux-e&m=112682338904054&w=2
Just a caveat..... I tried this approach and it worked for most everything but VMware. When trying to config vmware for networking, it only wants to think about ethx, it knows nothing about any other names you use.
oops!!!! that's a big no-no for me, I use vmware quite a bit- for 3d cad and simulations... thanks for the heads up demitri On Sunday 16 October 2005 05:43 am, Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Saturday 15 October 2005 11:06 pm, Carl Hartung wrote:
Hi Kanenas,
This thread might have something useful for you: Re: [SLE] multiple NICs and routes http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=suse-linux-e&m=112682338904054&w=2
Just a caveat..... I tried this approach and it worked for most everything but VMware. When trying to config vmware for networking, it only wants to think about ethx, it knows nothing about any other names you use.
Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Saturday 15 October 2005 06:38 pm, Donald D Henson wrote:
I've given up on getting my wireless lan card to work but am now confronted with another networking problem. I'm hoping someone can help. In V9.3, I was able, by some magical process, to assign a fixed IP address for use in my small local network and, at the same time, use DHCP provided by my ISP to go outside my local network to the Internet. I don't seem to be able to "do the magic" under 10.0. I'm either missing a critical step or the system has been changed. Here's my setup:
My local network is Ethernet and is implemented with a Linksys router switch. The router switch connects to the cable via a cable modem. I've loaded SUSE 10.0 on a non-critical laptop. The laptop connects to my lan via a PCMCIA 10/100 Ethernet card. (If you need any technical details, let me know.) At this point, everything is hard wired.
There are three linux machines, but only one running 10.0, on my lan. Each machine's /etc/hosts file have all three of:
192.168.100.10 toshiba.site toshiba 192.168.100.20 linux.site linux 192.168.100.30 camino.site camino
The two 9.3 machine's NICs are configured as DHCP. They can access the Internet and can ping in either direction to/from each other. When toshiba is configured as DHCP, toshiba can access the Internet but cannot ping either of the other machines & vice versa. If I change toshiba to fixed IP addresses, I can ping everything on the local network but cannot access the Internet.
If you see any obvious mistakes in there, please let me know. If you have any thoughts on how to proceed, let me know that as well. Any assistance will be sincerely appreciated.
I don't see any obvious mistakes but you are leaving a lot of info out of your emails:
1) If the (non-toshiba machines running 9.3) above are DHCP, why do you know for sure what the IP addresses are?
Because I can ping them using either the hostname or the IP address.
2) If the machines in (1) are DHCP, I don't think they would have the addresses you show.
Concur. But I can still ping them using the static IPs.
3) When you change the toshiba to static IP, do you also set a default gateway? (that's what gets you to the internet)
I thought I was but route -n shows: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
4) What is the address of your router? (I assume it's 192.168.100.1)
192.168.1.1
5) What static address are you giving your toshiba?
192.168.100.10
6) When it is DHCP, have you checked route -n to see how the routing (gateway) is set up?
See above. It looks like my gateway settings are being ignored. Here's what route -n shows on linux (V9.3): Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Observations?
etc, etc, etc.....
You'll have to be a bit more specific. :-) -- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
On Sunday 16 October 2005 11:10 am, Donald D Henson wrote:
There are three linux machines, but only one running 10.0, on my lan. Each machine's /etc/hosts file have all three of:
192.168.100.10 toshiba.site toshiba 192.168.100.20 linux.site linux 192.168.100.30 camino.site camino
The two 9.3 machine's NICs are configured as DHCP. They can access the Internet and can ping in either direction to/from each other. When toshiba is configured as DHCP, toshiba can access the Internet but cannot ping either of the other machines & vice versa. If I change toshiba to fixed IP addresses, I can ping everything on the local network but cannot access the Internet.
If you see any obvious mistakes in there, please let me know. If you have any thoughts on how to proceed, let me know that as well. Any assistance will be sincerely appreciated.
I don't see any obvious mistakes but you are leaving a lot of info out of your emails:
1) If the (non-toshiba machines running 9.3) above are DHCP, why do you know for sure what the IP addresses are?
Because I can ping them using either the hostname or the IP address.
2) If the machines in (1) are DHCP, I don't think they would have the addresses you show.
Concur. But I can still ping them using the static IPs.
3) When you change the toshiba to static IP, do you also set a default gateway? (that's what gets you to the internet)
I thought I was but route -n shows:
Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
4) What is the address of your router? (I assume it's 192.168.100.1)
192.168.1.1
If it's 192.168.1.1 *WHY* are you setting up the router to hand out 192.168.100.xx addresses?? This puts the router on a different subnet than the machines and they will not be able to reach the router. In fact, I doubt if it is possible to get the router to do that so there is something fishy about the addresses you are showing. If they are NOT DCHP handed out addresses, then there is a big part of your problem.
5) What static address are you giving your toshiba?
192.168.100.10
Again, *all* of your addresses, whether DHCP or static should be on the same subnet ... i.e. 192.168.1.xx
6) When it is DHCP, have you checked route -n to see how the routing (gateway) is set up?
See above. It looks like my gateway settings are being ignored. Here's what route -n shows on linux (V9.3):
Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
Since the machine you are showing here has eth0 on the '100' subnet, it's not going to be able to reach 1.1 on eth0. And you've got eth0 showing both 100.1 and 1.1 above. Compare yours with this: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 where my router is on 192.168.0.1 and this machine is 192.168.0.3 FORGET about the 100.xx business... just keep to 1.xx as your subnet and I think your problems will go away.
On Sat, 2005-10-15 at 16:38 -0600, Donald D Henson wrote:
My local network is Ethernet and is implemented with a Linksys router switch. The router switch connects to the cable via a cable modem. I've loaded SUSE 10.0 on a non-critical laptop. The laptop connects to my lan via a PCMCIA 10/100 Ethernet card. (If you need any technical details, let me know.) At this point, everything is hard wired. <snip> -- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
My question/suggestion is the same as Bruce's but from different angle. The key to your situation is Linksys config. Obviously, the Linksys gets a public IP address assigned by your ISP and provides NAT. And DHCP server running on the Linksys provides private IP addresses to your PCs:192.168.100.x. You should check the DHCP server setting in the Linksys, like... 1) its LAN side IP address(in Bruce's assumption 192.168.100.1) and subnet mask (I assume /24 or 255.255.255.0) 2) DHCP address range (example: from 192.168.100.2 to 192.168.100.99) After that, you should compare the subnet mask on the other PC. All subnet mask have to be the same if you want them talk each other. And you shouldn't assign static IP addresses inside of the DHCP address range. In my example, you can use 192.168.100.100 or above. Otherwise Linksys's DHCP server may not work properly because of address conflict. Toshi
Donald D Henson wrote:
I've given up on getting my wireless lan card to work but am now confronted with another networking problem. I'm hoping someone can help. In V9.3, I was able, by some magical process, to assign a fixed IP address for use in my small local network and, at the same time, use DHCP provided by my ISP to go outside my local network to the Internet. I don't seem to be able to "do the magic" under 10.0. I'm either missing a critical step or the system has been changed. Here's my setup:
The problem seems to have been an IP address conflict between DHCP and static IP addresses. Thanks to all for helping find the problem. -- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
Donald D Henson wrote:
Donald D Henson wrote:
I've given up on getting my wireless lan card to work but am now confronted with another networking problem. I'm hoping someone can help. In V9.3, I was able, by some magical process, to assign a fixed IP address for use in my small local network and, at the same time, use DHCP provided by my ISP to go outside my local network to the Internet. I don't seem to be able to "do the magic" under 10.0. I'm either missing a critical step or the system has been changed. Here's my setup:
The problem seems to have been an IP address conflict between DHCP and static IP addresses. Thanks to all for helping find the problem.
It appears that the problem has not been resolved. There was an address conflict, now repaired, but... Since the laptop (toshiba) will be rebooted frequently, I decided to reboot it just to make sure. Guess what. The ethernet connection no longer works. Worse, no matter what I change in the configuration of my PCMCIA ethernet card, I can't ping anywhere nor can I access the Internet. This has all the signs of a bug in the 10.0 software. Which bugzilla would I use to report such a problem? -- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
On Sunday 16 October 2005 04:24 pm, Donald D Henson wrote:
It appears that the problem has not been resolved. There was an address conflict, now repaired, but...
Since the laptop (toshiba) will be rebooted frequently, I decided to reboot it just to make sure. Guess what. The ethernet connection no longer works. Worse, no matter what I change in the configuration of my PCMCIA ethernet card, I can't ping anywhere nor can I access the Internet. This has all the signs of a bug in the 10.0 software. Which bugzilla would I use to report such a problem?
I think you'd better slow down a bit before reporting it as a bug. There were too many things wrong before and no guarantee they all got fixed. Once again: 1) What is the ip address of the toshiba now? 2) How did it get obtained? 3) What is the output on the laptop of ifconfig? 4) What is the output on the laptop of route -n? You should start writing these questions down so you can provide the information without people having to ask.
Bruce Marshall wrote:
On Sunday 16 October 2005 04:24 pm, Donald D Henson wrote:
It appears that the problem has not been resolved. There was an address conflict, now repaired, but...
Since the laptop (toshiba) will be rebooted frequently, I decided to reboot it just to make sure. Guess what. The ethernet connection no longer works. Worse, no matter what I change in the configuration of my PCMCIA ethernet card, I can't ping anywhere nor can I access the Internet. This has all the signs of a bug in the 10.0 software. Which bugzilla would I use to report such a problem?
I think you'd better slow down a bit before reporting it as a bug.
There were too many things wrong before and no guarantee they all got fixed.
Actually, in the end, the only thing that got changed was the address conflict. Otherwise, everything is back to the way it was and the 9.3 machines are working great.
Once again:
1) What is the ip address of the toshiba now?
That appears to be the problem. I don't think it has one.
2) How did it get obtained?
I used YaST to try to configure the network card. I first set it up as Static IP (192.168.100.10) and then changed it to DHCP. But as you can see from the outputs below, the configuration didn't seem to "take". As I said, this looks a lot like a bug.
3) What is the output on the laptop of ifconfig?
lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:41 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:41 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:3039 (2.9 Kb) TX bytes:3039 (2.9 Kb)
4) What is the output on the laptop of route -n?
Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
You should start writing these questions down so you can provide the information without people having to ask.
Just what I need. Attitude. No problem. I'm going back to 9.3, which works, and let you smart guys figure this out. I wasted enough time trying to fix a broken distribution. -- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
On Sunday 16 October 2005 05:25 pm, Donald D Henson wrote:
Once again:
1) What is the ip address of the toshiba now?
That appears to be the problem. I don't think it has one.
No, it appears that your nic isn't set up. (no eth0 showing in ifconfig)
2) How did it get obtained?
I used YaST to try to configure the network card. I first set it up as Static IP (192.168.100.10) and then changed it to DHCP. But as you can see from the outputs below, the configuration didn't seem to "take". As I said, this looks a lot like a bug.
Why are you still trying to use 100.xx addresses???????????? Your router is on 192.168.1.1 use a 1.xx address that doesn't conflict with the DHCP addresses on the router.
3) What is the output on the laptop of ifconfig?
lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:41 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:41 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:3039 (2.9 Kb) TX bytes:3039 (2.9 Kb)
no eth0. If it was set for DHCP at this point, it didn't pick up an ip addr.
4) What is the output on the laptop of route -n?
Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
No eth0 to route anywhere.
You should start writing these questions down so you can provide the information without people having to ask.
Just what I need. Attitude. No problem. I'm going back to 9.3, which works, and let you smart guys figure this out. I wasted enough time trying to fix a broken distribution.
Hey.... I'm ready to give up too if you continue using 100.1 addresses.... :-) Oh... I see you already gave up. Ok...
On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 17:39 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
You should start writing these questions down so you can provide the information without people having to ask.
Just what I need. Attitude. No problem. I'm going back to 9.3, which works, and let you smart guys figure this out. I wasted enough time trying to fix a broken distribution.
Hey.... I'm ready to give up too if you continue using 100.1 addresses.... :-)
Oh... I see you already gave up. Ok...
That's too sad ;( If you don't see "eth0" in ifconfig, there may be a compatibility issue between SuSE 10.0 and the PCMCIA NIC. If you want to set up a static IP on one of your PCs(like the laptop) in the future, pick one of IPs within 192.168.1.52-192.168.1.254 because you said you assigned 50 IPs for DHCP at the Linksys (192.168.1.2-192.168.1.51). For example, -Linksys: 192.168.1.1/24 (DHCP server) -PC-1 : 192.168.1.2(via DHCP) -PC-2 : 192.168.1.3(via DHCP) -PC-3 : 192.168.1.4(via DHCP) -Laptop : 192.168.1.52(static) This is the way to keep all devices happy campers. Toshi
On Sunday 16 October 2005 06:46 pm, Toshi Esumi wrote:
On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 17:39 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
You should start writing these questions down so you can provide the information without people having to ask.
Just what I need. Attitude. No problem. I'm going back to 9.3, which works, and let you smart guys figure this out. I wasted enough time trying to fix a broken distribution.
Hey.... I'm ready to give up too if you continue using 100.1 addresses.... :-)
Oh... I see you already gave up. Ok...
That's too sad ;( If you don't see "eth0" in ifconfig, there may be a compatibility issue between SuSE 10.0 and the PCMCIA NIC.
I have had issues with eth0/eth1 assignment in my desktop with 10.0. In my case a perfectly good eth config through yast ends up with a "nonexistent device" error when eth0 is looked up for energization, leaving only lo and vmnet1 in the ifconfig listing ( i run vmware) . I am convinced it's a bug, everything works great in the same machine when running under 9.3. Have filed it as bug #120332 in Bugzilla. For me it looks like 10.0 will stay in the "play" partition for a while yet... demitri
If you want to set up a static IP on one of your PCs(like the laptop) in the future, pick one of IPs within 192.168.1.52-192.168.1.254 because you said you assigned 50 IPs for DHCP at the Linksys (192.168.1.2-192.168.1.51). For example, -Linksys: 192.168.1.1/24 (DHCP server) -PC-1 : 192.168.1.2(via DHCP) -PC-2 : 192.168.1.3(via DHCP) -PC-3 : 192.168.1.4(via DHCP) -Laptop : 192.168.1.52(static)
This is the way to keep all devices happy campers.
Toshi
On Sunday 16 October 2005 06:46 pm, Toshi Esumi wrote:
On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 17:39 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:
You should start writing these questions down so you can provide
On Sunday, October 16, 2005 @ 10:07 PM, Toshi wrote: the
information without people having to ask.
Just what I need. Attitude. No problem. I'm going back to 9.3, which works, and let you smart guys figure this out. I wasted enough time trying to fix a broken distribution.
Hey.... I'm ready to give up too if you continue using 100.1 addresses.... :-)
Oh... I see you already gave up. Ok...
That's too sad ;( If you don't see "eth0" in ifconfig, there may be a compatibility issue between SuSE 10.0 and the PCMCIA NIC.
I have had issues with eth0/eth1 assignment in my desktop with 10.0. In my case a perfectly good eth config through yast ends up with a "nonexistent device" error when eth0 is looked up for energization, leaving only lo and vmnet1 in the ifconfig listing ( i run vmware) . I am convinced it's a bug,
everything works great in the same machine when running under 9.3. Have filed it as bug #120332 in Bugzilla. For me it looks like 10.0 will stay in the "play" partition for a while yet... demitri
I once had a device problem where I had a kernel module being loaded that shouldn't have been. The solution was to do a modprobe -r so that the kernel wouldn't load that module. I'm wondering if you might have just the opposite problem; I, e, a kernel module that should be getting loaded but isn't. I'm way out of my league here, but since you've pretty much given up on this, I thought I'd throw this out as a WAG. I may be completely off in left field here (wouldn't be the first time) but maybe someone with better kernel knowledge could step in and say it this is a possibility.
If you want to set up a static IP on one of your PCs(like the laptop) in the future, pick one of IPs within 192.168.1.52-192.168.1.254 because you said you assigned 50 IPs for DHCP at the Linksys (192.168.1.2-192.168.1.51). For example, -Linksys: 192.168.1.1/24 (DHCP server) -PC-1 : 192.168.1.2(via DHCP) -PC-2 : 192.168.1.3(via DHCP) -PC-3 : 192.168.1.4(via DHCP) -Laptop : 192.168.1.52(static)
This is the way to keep all devices happy campers.
Toshi
Greg Wallace
On Monday 17 October 2005 05:25 am, Greg Wallace wrote:
I once had a device problem where I had a kernel module being loaded that shouldn't have been. The solution was to do a modprobe -r so that the kernel wouldn't load that module. I'm wondering if you might have just the opposite problem; I, e, a kernel module that should be getting loaded but isn't. I'm way out of my league here, but since you've pretty much given up on this, I thought I'd throw this out as a WAG. I may be completely off in left field here (wouldn't be the first time) but maybe someone with better kernel knowledge could step in and say it this is a possibility.
I was going to suggest this same thing based on the following: When the kernel moved from 2.6.11.xx to 2.6.12+ something changed drastically in the way it loaded and booted because I found that if I didn't add modules that covered the NICs and USB modules, these devices wouldn't show up when the system was booted. Once added to /etc/sysconfig/kernel list for initrd modules, then things worked fine. If you compare the initrd module lists between 9.3 and 10.0 I think you'll find a lot more things getting loaded. And it's possible that SuSE has a bug in the way they make up that list... Simple as that.
Greg Wallace wrote:
I once had a device problem where I had a kernel module being loaded that shouldn't have been. The solution was to do a modprobe -r so that the kernel wouldn't load that module. I'm wondering if you might have just the opposite problem; I, e, a kernel module that should be getting loaded but isn't. I'm way out of my league here, but since you've pretty much given up on this, I thought I'd throw this out as a WAG. I may be completely off in left field here (wouldn't be the first time) but maybe someone with better kernel knowledge could step in and say it this is a possibility.
At this point, I'd say that your guess is as good as anyone's. -- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
kanenas wrote:
I have had issues with eth0/eth1 assignment in my desktop with 10.0. In my case a perfectly good eth config through yast ends up with a "nonexistent device" error when eth0 is looked up for energization, leaving only lo and vmnet1 in the ifconfig listing ( i run vmware) . I am convinced it's a bug, everything works great in the same machine when running under 9.3. Have filed it as bug #120332 in Bugzilla. For me it looks like 10.0 will stay in the "play" partition for a while yet...
Thank you! Finally, someone who is having problems similar to mine. To which bugzilla did you submit your bug? I'd like to have a look at it. Aloha -- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
Toshi Esumi wrote:
That's too sad ;( If you don't see "eth0" in ifconfig, there may be a compatibility issue between SuSE 10.0 and the PCMCIA NIC.
The NIC is Linksys. If Linux doesn't support Linksys, they'll be missing about half the computers on the planet. Anyway, I had no problems using the same NIC when running 9.3. Again, my contention is that there is either a bug in the software or in the installation routine.
If you want to set up a static IP on one of your PCs(like the laptop) in the future, pick one of IPs within 192.168.1.52-192.168.1.254 because you said you assigned 50 IPs for DHCP at the Linksys (192.168.1.2-192.168.1.51). For example, -Linksys: 192.168.1.1/24 (DHCP server) -PC-1 : 192.168.1.2(via DHCP) -PC-2 : 192.168.1.3(via DHCP) -PC-3 : 192.168.1.4(via DHCP) -Laptop : 192.168.1.52(static)
This is the way to keep all devices happy campers.
Good advice. Thanks. -- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 12:37 -0600, Donald D Henson wrote:
Donald D Henson wrote:
I've given up on getting my wireless lan card to work but am now confronted with another networking problem. I'm hoping someone can help. In V9.3, I was able, by some magical process, to assign a fixed IP address for use in my small local network and, at the same time, use DHCP provided by my ISP to go outside my local network to the Internet. I don't seem to be able to "do the magic" under 10.0. I'm either missing a critical step or the system has been changed. Here's my setup:
The problem seems to have been an IP address conflict between DHCP and static IP addresses. Thanks to all for helping find the problem.
-- Donald D. Henson, Managing Director West El Paso Information Network The "Non-Initiation of Force Principle" Rules
I'm glad I could contribute you to solve your problem. But one thing, in case you encounter another problem like this.... DHCP is client/server protocol. In your case, your ISP is running DHCP server and Linksys's Internetside(or WAN side) is running DHCP client to get an IP address from the ISP. On the other hand, the Linksys is also running DHCP server on LAN side(192.168.1.x) to provide DHCP service to your PCs that run DHCP client to get one of 192.168.1.x addresses. When you mentioned DHCP setting in Yast, you probably meant DHCP client setting under Network Devices->Network Card (I may be mistaken for the menu of 10.0. I'm still running 9.3s). Don't get confused with DHCP server. The server setting for SuSE is under Network Services->DHCP Server. It's the function that the SuSE can provide IP addresses to the other LAN devices. In your application, no need for DHCP server on any of you PCs including your Laptop. The Linksys has taken care of it. Toshi
participants (6)
-
Bruce Marshall -
Carl Hartung -
Donald D Henson -
Greg Wallace -
kanenas -
Toshi Esumi