Re: I Installed gcc using yum install gcc, Where can I find the Header files Declarations
On 14 May 2011 09:27, JD jd1...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/13/11 22:18, Varuna Seneviratna wrote: Installed gcc using Code: yum install gcc , Where can I find the Header files Declarations eg:- limits.h, float.h Edit/Delete Message /usr/include/limits.h gcc does not bring in float.h -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines How to get float.h included -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: I Installed gcc using yum install gcc, Where can I find the Header files Declarations
On 05/14/2011 01:26 AM, Varuna Seneviratna wrote: How to get float.h included Try yum provides */float.h You might also try typing man yum -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: I Installed gcc using yum install gcc, Where can I find the Header files Declarations
On 14 May 2011 12:02, Larry Brower la...@maxqe.com wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:26 AM, Varuna Seneviratna wrote: How to get float.h included Try yum provides */float.h You might also try typing man yum -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines float.h is C Header File why isn't it included when GCC is installed -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: I Installed gcc using yum install gcc, Where can I find the Header files Declarations
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:04:34PM +0530, Varuna Seneviratna wrote: On 14 May 2011 12:02, Larry Brower la...@maxqe.com wrote: float.h is C Header File why isn't it included when GCC is installed gcc provides float.h: rpm -q gcc; rpm -ql gcc | grep float gcc-4.6.0-6.fc15.x86_64 /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.6.0/include/float.h (and any other gcc releases, the directory names may differ based on architecture and gcc version, but are automatically searched by gcc during preprocessing). Jakub -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Sound, video on iMac 27 inch
Dear Folks, My wife and son both have an iMac 27 inch running Fedora 14. I have two goals: 1. Get sound working (instead of pulseaudio over the network) 2. Get free software radeon driver working, understanding how to drive the monitor. Currently using the proprietary driver. I am especially keen to get sound working. I've tried the suggestion on http://mac.linux.be/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3t=64, but have not had success. Please point me to any information/bug reports/ideas. $ uname -r 2.6.35.13-91.fc14.x86_64 $ lspci 00:00.0 Host bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Host Bridge (rev b1) 00:00.1 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Memory Controller (rev b1) 00:03.0 ISA bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 LPC Bridge (rev b3) 00:03.1 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Memory Controller (rev b1) 00:03.2 SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP79 SMBus (rev b1) 00:03.3 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Memory Controller (rev b1) 00:03.4 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation Device 0a98 (rev b1) 00:03.5 Co-processor: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Co-processor (rev b1) 00:04.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 OHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev b1) 00:04.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 EHCI USB 2.0 Controller (rev b1) 00:06.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 OHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev b1) 00:06.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 EHCI USB 2.0 Controller (rev b1) 00:08.0 Audio device: nVidia Corporation MCP79 High Definition Audio (rev b1) 00:09.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 PCI Bridge (rev b1) 00:0a.0 Ethernet controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Ethernet (rev b1) 00:0b.0 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP79 SATA Controller (rev b1) 00:0c.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 PCI Express Bridge (rev b1) 00:15.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 PCI Express Bridge (rev b1) 00:16.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 PCI Express Bridge (rev b1) 02:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Device 9488 02:00.1 Audio device: ATI Technologies Inc RV710/730 03:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR928X Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01) 04:00.0 PCI bridge: Texas Instruments XIO2213A/B/XIO2221 PCI Express to PCI Bridge (rev 01) 05:00.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): Texas Instruments XIO2213A/B/XIO2221 IEEE-1394b OHCI Controller (rev 01) $ lsmod Module Size Used by fuse 61934 3 ebtable_nat 1999 0 ebtables 21790 1 ebtable_nat ipt_MASQUERADE 2353 3 iptable_nat 5018 1 nf_nat 20289 2 ipt_MASQUERADE,iptable_nat rfcomm 67058 4 sco17196 2 bnep 15390 2 l2cap 51240 16 rfcomm,bnep nfsd 268660 13 lockd 67367 1 nfsd nfs_acl 2439 1 nfsd auth_rpcgss39300 1 nfsd exportfs3608 1 nfsd sunrpc201276 17 nfsd,lockd,nfs_acl,auth_rpcgss cpufreq_ondemand9278 2 acpi_cpufreq7345 1 freq_table 3955 2 cpufreq_ondemand,acpi_cpufreq mperf 1481 1 acpi_cpufreq bridge 70104 0 stp 2034 1 bridge llc 4802 2 bridge,stp xt_physdev 1810 1 ip6t_REJECT 4279 2 nf_conntrack_ipv6 18078 2 ip6table_filter 1687 1 ip6_tables 17497 1 ip6table_filter ipv6 286354 60 ip6t_REJECT,nf_conntrack_ipv6 kvm_intel 41918 0 kvm 257420 1 kvm_intel uinput 7368 0 snd_hda_codec_atihdmi 2727 1 arc41449 2 snd_hda_codec_cirrus10339 1 ecb 2119 2 ath9k 86167 0 ath9k_common5294 1 ath9k ath9k_hw 283034 2 ath9k,ath9k_common snd_hda_intel 24495 3 snd_hda_codec 86743 3 snd_hda_codec_atihdmi,snd_hda_codec_cirrus,snd_hda_intel ath 9505 2 ath9k,ath9k_hw snd_hwdep 6392 1 snd_hda_codec mac80211 229063 2 ath9k,ath9k_common snd_seq53791 0 snd_seq_device 6191 1 snd_seq snd_pcm80190 2 snd_hda_intel,snd_hda_codec snd_timer 19892 2 snd_seq,snd_pcm snd64032 14 snd_hda_codec_cirrus,snd_hda_intel,snd_hda_codec,snd_hwdep,snd_seq,snd_seq_device,snd_pcm,snd_timer uvcvideo 56105 0 cfg80211 134981 4 ath9k,ath9k_common,ath,mac80211 applesmc 33807 0 btusb 15514 3 fglrx2728441 80 videodev 69118 1 uvcvideo v4l2_compat_ioctl32 7665 1 videodev shpchp 30251 0 soundcore 6576 1 snd bluetooth 89276 11 rfcomm,sco,bnep,l2cap,btusb rfkill 17622 4 cfg80211,bluetooth forcedeth 48795 0 snd_page_alloc
Re: pings with noise-apology
On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 11:52 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: So, this command: echo ^G also produces no noise? Because that's all ping is goging to be doing. That ^G is meant to be a literal ctrl-G, possibly typed as ctrl-v then ctrl-g. All you have to do to test the terminal bell is press the control and g keys while you're in the terminal. You don't need to try to print the character. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: pings with noise-apology
On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 11:52 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: On 13May2011 08:17, Aaron Konstam akons...@sbcglobal.net wrote: | On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 21:04 -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote: | As root, modprobe pcspkr | | I need to apologize. The above suggestion does work. But not on my | laptop. It works on my desktop. What is also strange is that the pcspkr | is not loaded by default. So you need to load it explicitly to make the | ping -a feature work. At least it is not loaded by default on my | machines. So, this command: echo ^G also produces no noise? Because that's all ping is goging to be doing. That ^G is meant to be a literal ctrl-G, possibly typed as ctrl-v then ctrl-g. No that does not work. Neither does ctrl-g typed at the keyboard work on my laptop. So I guess it is a laptop related issue. -- === Remember kids, if there's a loaded gun in the room, be sure that you're the one holding it -- Captain Combat === Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akons...@sbcglobal.net -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Networking problem
On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
RE: Networking problem
Where in the chain did you put the rule? - Ray Pittigher Software Development Environment Department --phone 973-284-2275 --email raymond.pittig...@itt.com http://acdnjpvcs/tmtrack/tmtrack.dll for all your SDE Support needs From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of JD [jd1...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:36 AM To: Community support for Fedora users Subject: Networking problem On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 09:36 AM, JD wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? Try: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60/32 -j ACCEPT there needs to be a netmask in the syntax. -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwolfe(proventesters) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 08:16, Pittigher, Raymond - ES wrote: Where in the chain did you put the rule? - From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org [users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of JD [jd1...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:36 AM To: Community support for Fedora users Subject: Networking problem On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Well there are a few rules above it to accept connections from some specific machines on the LAN. The DROP and REJECT rules come several rules later. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 08:48, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: On 05/14/2011 09:36 AM, JD wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? Try: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60/32 -j ACCEPT there needs to be a netmask in the syntax. Tried it. Did not change anything :( -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 10:27 AM, JD wrote:
On 05/14/11 08:48, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote:
On 05/14/2011 09:36 AM, JD wrote:
On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on
specific ports from some machines on the LAN.
However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections:
-A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT
After restarting the firewall,
I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me.
That machine is not running a firewall.
I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN.
The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same.
Can you ssh in from the other machine ? Assuming yes .. then ..
If its 'ping' you're focused on you might add this in a shell (or
command line) - you need to allow some ICMP packets for proper network
function .. in addition to 'ping' (aka echo-reply/request).
icmp_types=( echo-reply echo-request \
time-exceeded fragmentation-needed \
destination-unreachable 30 )
mum_icmp_type=${#icmp_types[@]}
#
# These are on your firewall machine
#
ip=192.168.1.1
eth=eth0
# Input
j=0; while ((j num_icmp_type))
do
itype=${icmp_types[j]}
iptables -A INPUT -d $ip -i $eth -p icmp --icmp-type $itype \
-j ACCEPT
let j=$j+1
done
# Output
j=0; while ((j num_icmp_type))
do
itype=${icmp_types[j]}
iptables -A OUTPUT -s $ip -o $eth -p icmp --icmp-type $itype \
-j ACCEPT
let j=$j+1
done
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On Saturday, May 14, 2011 09:27:55 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 08:48, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: On 05/14/2011 09:36 AM, JD wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? Try: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60/32 -j ACCEPT there needs to be a netmask in the syntax. Tried it. Did not change anything :( Could we see more of the network topology please? Can you do on both machines: /bin/netstat -rn /sbin/ifconfig If you don't mind, it might be easiest to copy your filewall rules so we can see them. As root, /sbin/iptables -L -v If you are concerned with security and sharing your public IP address, may I suggest changing the public IP address ranges to something else, like xxx.xxx.xxx.0, yyy.yyy.yyy.0, etc, in the output. Another question...if you have multiple ethernet devices, which device is 192.168.1.60 connected to? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 12:17 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
mum_icmp_type=${#icmp_types[@]}
Typo - above should obviously be:
num_icmp_type
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 10:49 AM, JD wrote: -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT And no, I cannot ssh even though on the Fedora machine sshd is running on both my Fedora and the machine at 192.168.1.60 In that case you need to publish all information - as prev poster asked. The full network topology (intervening switches/routers etc) - including how many physical cards and subnets are in play here - and exactly how is x.1.60 set up - perhaps the problem is on that machine. Also are you pinging/ssh'ing by IP or by host name ? Does name resolve to correct IP if the latter ? Do you have any /etc/hosts.[allow, deny] files on either machine? etc .. [PS please post to the list not me] -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 09:17, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 09:27:55 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 08:48, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: On 05/14/2011 09:36 AM, JD wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? Try: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60/32 -j ACCEPT there needs to be a netmask in the syntax. Tried it. Did not change anything :( Could we see more of the network topology please? Can you do on both machines: /bin/netstat -rn On Fedora Machine: # /bin/netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 10.0.0.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 10.1.1.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.122.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 wlan0 On the machine in question (192.168.1.60) # /sbin/netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.1.254 UGSc80en1 127127.0.0.1 UCS 00lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 04lo0 169.254link#6 UCS 00en1 192.168.1 link#6 UCS 20en1 192.168.1.10:26:18:6:ef:7 UHLW0 113en1566 192.168.1.60 127.0.0.1 UHS 00lo0 192.168.1.254 0:1d:5a:c8:91:c1 UHLW 15 153en1565 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::1 link#1 UHL lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0 Uc lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#1 UHL lo0 ff01::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::/32 fe80::1%lo0 UC lo0 /sbin/ifconfig On Fedora machine: # /sbin/ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.1.1.1 Bcast:10.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::203:dff:fe15:2b9e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1340 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:849 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:174589 (170.4 KiB) TX bytes:418153 (408.3 KiB) Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 eth0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.0.0.1 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 loLink 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:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) TX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 22:3E:A6:BB:CD:51 inet addr:192.168.122.1 Bcast:192.168.122.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:8391 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:1617830 (1.5 MiB) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet6 addr: fe80::234:56ff:fe00:343/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:4976669 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4947232 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:1062494718 (1013.2 MiB) TX bytes:500756007 (477.5 MiB) wlan0:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet addr:192.168.1.108 Bcast:192.168.1.255
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 09:34, Genes MailLists wrote: On 05/14/2011 10:49 AM, JD wrote: -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT And no, I cannot ssh even though on the Fedora machine sshd is running on both my Fedora and the machine at 192.168.1.60 In that case you need to publish all information - as prev poster asked. The full network topology (intervening switches/routers etc) - including how many physical cards and subnets are in play here - and exactly how is x.1.60 set up - perhaps the problem is on that machine. I already sent that out. Also are you pinging/ssh'ing by IP or by host name ? Does name resolve to correct IP if the latter ? I am using the IP address, and not machine names. Do you have any /etc/hosts.[allow, deny] files on either machine? etc .. Nop! Neither machine is making use of those files (they are empty). [PS please post to the list not me] Did I post to you? Thunderbird almost never does that when I reply to a message from this list. I checked the Sent folder, and indeed it appears that when I clicked on Reply, the message went to you directly. Weird!! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM, JD jd1...@gmail.com wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? 1. You might try looking at the counts to see where the pings are being rejected. On the target machine, as root: # iptables -nvL Note the counts, then use the source machine to try to ping the target and again: # iptables -nvL Which counts have changed? The lines with the changed counts are the ones activated by the pings. (Of course, you need to do this on a quiet lan so that the target machine is not being flooded by traffic from other systems.) 2. iptables problems can be difficult to debug without seeing all the rules, since the order of the rules is so important. I know you are worried about security, but you'll need to show them to someone you trust if you can't solve tis yourself. -- Dale Dellutri -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On Sat, 14 May 2011 13:49:34 -0500, DD wrote: 2. iptables problems can be difficult to debug without seeing all the rules, since the order of the rules is so important. I know you are worried about security, but you'll need to show them to someone you trust if you can't solve tis yourself. Well, with a few logging rules in clever locations (i.e. those chains where you expect the traffic), the debugging can get much easier, and you won't wonder why ping, ssh, tcpdump and others don't report any replies. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 11:49, Dale Dellutri wrote: On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM, JDjd1...@gmail.com wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? 1. You might try looking at the counts to see where the pings are being rejected. On the target machine, as root: # iptables -nvL Note the counts, then use the source machine to try to ping the target and again: # iptables -nvL Which counts have changed? The lines with the changed counts are the ones activated by the pings. (Of course, you need to do this on a quiet lan so that the target machine is not being flooded by traffic from other systems.) 2. iptables problems can be difficult to debug without seeing all the rules, since the order of the rules is so important. I know you are worried about security, but you'll need to show them to someone you trust if you can't solve tis yourself. Thank you Dale. I can tell you that the counts do not change!! I will seek the help of a friend. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 12:36, Genes MailLists wrote: On 05/14/2011 11:46 AM, JD wrote: On Fedora Machine: # /bin/netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 10.0.0.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 10.1.1.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.122.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 wlan0 ... On Fedora machine: # /sbin/ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.1.1.1 Bcast:10.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::203:dff:fe15:2b9e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1340 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:849 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:174589 (170.4 KiB) TX bytes:418153 (408.3 KiB) Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 eth0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.0.0.1 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 .. wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet6 addr: fe80::234:56ff:fe00:343/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:4976669 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4947232 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:1062494718 (1013.2 MiB) TX bytes:500756007 (477.5 MiB) wlan0:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet addr:192.168.1.108 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 1) Something looks odd here - the netstat above seems to show eth0 have 10.0.x.x and wlan0 being on 10.1.x.x. The ifconfig has eth0 on 10.1.1.1 and a second IP of 10.0.0.1 wlan0 has IP6 address + 192.168.1.108 2) This looks a bit strange - notwithstanding that, it has no interfaces which respond to 192.168.1.1 ... is this the right machine ? If not - and you want it to respond to 192.168.1.1 you should have that configured on at least one interface ... no? The eth0 is not active. It is configured with a static IP, but it is disconnected. Ditto on the PowerBook machine. It is configured with a static IP but is is disconnected, so the ether links on both machines is down. Only the wireless is active. I do not understand why you say I have an IP6 address. the LAN is on IP4 addresses. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 11:08 AM, JD wrote: Thank you Dale. I can tell you that the counts do not change!! I will seek the help of a friend. Before you do you might consider going to the Fedora Forum at http://www.fedorafourm.org and asking in the Security forum. This will give you input from Fedora users around the world and one of them might have the answer. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On Saturday, May 14, 2011 10:46:51 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 09:17, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 09:27:55 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 08:48, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: On 05/14/2011 09:36 AM, JD wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? Try: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60/32 -j ACCEPT there needs to be a netmask in the syntax. Tried it. Did not change anything :( Could we see more of the network topology please? Can you do on both machines: /bin/netstat -rn On Fedora Machine: # /bin/netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 10.0.0.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 10.1.1.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.122.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 wlan0 On the machine in question (192.168.1.60) # /sbin/netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.1.254 UGSc80en1 127127.0.0.1 UCS 00lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 04lo0 169.254link#6 UCS 00en1 192.168.1 link#6 UCS 20en1 192.168.1.10:26:18:6:ef:7 UHLW0 113en1566 192.168.1.60 127.0.0.1 UHS 00lo0 192.168.1.254 0:1d:5a:c8:91:c1 UHLW 15 153en1565 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::1 link#1 UHL lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0 Uc lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#1 UHL lo0 ff01::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::/32 fe80::1%lo0 UC lo0 /sbin/ifconfig On Fedora machine: # /sbin/ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.1.1.1 Bcast:10.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::203:dff:fe15:2b9e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1340 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:849 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:174589 (170.4 KiB) TX bytes:418153 (408.3 KiB) Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 eth0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.0.0.1 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 loLink 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:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) TX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 22:3E:A6:BB:CD:51 inet addr:192.168.122.1 Bcast:192.168.122.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:8391 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:1617830 (1.5 MiB) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet6 addr: fe80::234:56ff:fe00:343/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:4976669 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4947232 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:1062494718 (1013.2 MiB) TX bytes:500756007 (477.5 MiB) wlan0:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 02:13 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 12:36, Genes MailLists wrote: On 05/14/2011 11:46 AM, JD wrote: .. wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet6 addr: fe80::234:56ff:fe00:343/64 Scope:Link wlan0:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet addr:192.168.1.108 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 The eth0 is not active. It is configured with a static IP, but it is disconnected. Ditto on the PowerBook machine. It is configured with a static IP but is is disconnected, so the ether links on both machines is down. Only the wireless is active. I do not understand why you say I have an IP6 address. the LAN is on IP4 addresses. See above. On the powerbook - are you pingning 182.168.1.1 ? or 192.168.1.108? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
F14 install freezes due to disk problems
Good Evening, I am trying to install F14 on my box... Without any success so far. The problem: when it comes to write the partitioning scheme to the disk, the system freezes. This occurs with the following CD images: - Fedora 14 LXDE live image. Installation using Install to Disk script. - Fedora 14, regular i386 image - Fedora 15 (beta) LXDE live image I used the F14 Live CD and performed additional tests. In particular, I tried to partition manually /dev/sdb (the disk where I want to install F14) using fdisk from the shell: - everything is OK until I execute the fdisk's 'w' command. - fdisk then hangs for about 10-15 seconds. The system is still working (I can change to another tty, have a shell etc.). - after those 15s have elapsed, the system freezes (CapsLock doesn't react anymore). At this point, I have no other option but power off the machine. strace reveals that the last syscall before the freeze is: ioctl(3,BLKRRPART,0x5...). That is during the re-read of the partition. A similar freeze could be also produced by dd'ing the /dev/sdb disk. There is no hardware problem with the disk itself. I can read/write partition on that disk without problem using another distro. You'll find the relevant system info gathered during a LiveCD session on pastebin.com (dmesg, lsmod, lspci and smolt profile respectively): http://pastebin.com/MW6UPck5 http://pastebin.com/mvPAGMMb http://pastebin.com/AnNBTSRS http://pastebin.com/F3FcveR7 Do you have any idea where to look at or what I can do? I am not a Linux/Fedora expert, but I'm not afraid to debug over serial or that kind of things if needed... I just need proper guidance. TIA, /NH2 -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
USB wireless adaptor that supports Master Mode?
Does anyone here know which USB wireless dongles or chipsets support operation in Access Point mode with hostapd? I would like to make my laptop into a portable access point, and the built in wireless doesn't support Access Point mode. Thanks in advance. Derek Tattersall -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: USB wireless adaptor that supports Master Mode?
On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:33:37 -0700 Derek Tattersall wrote: Does anyone here know which USB wireless dongles or chipsets support operation in Access Point mode with hostapd? I've just been going through this exercise, and have a USB wi-fi dongle that sorta kinda almost works with the compat-wireless stuff back ported from the 2.6.39 kernel. I expect it may work more solidly by the time 2.6.39 is mainstream. Here's my experiences so far: http://home.comcast.net/~tomhorsley/hardware/rtl8192cu/rtl8192cu.html Unfortunately, if you go through the driver list on the linux wireless web site looking for USB devices that have AP support, you get a really small list of unobtainable stuff :-). -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Comparison of Desktop Environments for F15?
Does anyone know of a good comparison source for the functionality and usability of the various desktop environments that will be released in f15? i.e. the main comparison between Gnome3, KDE4, LXDE and XFCE as they work in f15. A nice table of which standard programmes are set up to do things like terminal, CD/DVD writing, browser, mail client, config settings both for the DE and the system, as well as the display etc. Also a comparison of launcher setup and capability, wireless and network icon and settings, virtualisation launchers and managers, pdf viewers etc. Thanks -- mike c -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 12:55, Genes MailLists wrote: On 05/14/2011 02:13 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 12:36, Genes MailLists wrote: On 05/14/2011 11:46 AM, JD wrote: .. wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet6 addr: fe80::234:56ff:fe00:343/64 Scope:Link wlan0:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet addr:192.168.1.108 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 The eth0 is not active. It is configured with a static IP, but it is disconnected. Ditto on the PowerBook machine. It is configured with a static IP but is is disconnected, so the ether links on both machines is down. Only the wireless is active. I do not understand why you say I have an IP6 address. the LAN is on IP4 addresses. See above. On the powerbook - are you pingning 182.168.1.1 ? or 192.168.1.108? I am pinging 192.168.1.108 -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 12:55, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 10:46:51 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 09:17, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 09:27:55 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 08:48, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: On 05/14/2011 09:36 AM, JD wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? Try: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60/32 -j ACCEPT there needs to be a netmask in the syntax. Tried it. Did not change anything :( Could we see more of the network topology please? Can you do on both machines: /bin/netstat -rn On Fedora Machine: # /bin/netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 10.0.0.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 10.1.1.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.122.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 wlan0 On the machine in question (192.168.1.60) # /sbin/netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.1.254 UGSc80en1 127127.0.0.1 UCS 00lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 04lo0 169.254link#6 UCS 00en1 192.168.1 link#6 UCS 20en1 192.168.1.10:26:18:6:ef:7 UHLW0 113en1566 192.168.1.60 127.0.0.1 UHS 00lo0 192.168.1.254 0:1d:5a:c8:91:c1 UHLW 15 153en1565 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::1 link#1 UHL lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0 Uc lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#1 UHL lo0 ff01::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::/32 fe80::1%lo0 UC lo0 /sbin/ifconfig On Fedora machine: # /sbin/ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.1.1.1 Bcast:10.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::203:dff:fe15:2b9e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1340 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:849 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:174589 (170.4 KiB) TX bytes:418153 (408.3 KiB) Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 eth0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.0.0.1 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 loLink 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:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) TX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 22:3E:A6:BB:CD:51 inet addr:192.168.122.1 Bcast:192.168.122.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:8391 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:1617830 (1.5 MiB) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet6 addr: fe80::234:56ff:fe00:343/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:4976669 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4947232 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:1062494718 (1013.2 MiB) TX bytes:500756007 (477.5 MiB) wlan0:0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 04:27 PM, JD wrote: ded the rule -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.0/24 -j ACCEPT and retried. Same thing. both machines can ping the GW, and they can ping a third machine I have on the LAN. But they cannot ping each other. I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! I dont understand your network setup - you have a mish mosh of multiple ip's on same physical interfaces ... I suggest you clean up and start fresh ... and stick with ip4 - turn of ip6 on all your interfaces. When you say the other interfaces are not active - they are active - they may not have wire plugged in - but they are up and running ... if you're using network service - i'd ifdown the entire bunch and go make nice clean tidy files. If you're using nm-applet - delete them all - bring up the one you want (with no duplicated ip's on the interface) and go from there. I am leaning toward this is not a firewall problem ... -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: pings with noise-apology
On 14May2011 21:44, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au wrote: | On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 11:52 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: | So, this command: |echo ^G | also produces no noise? Because that's all ping is goging to be doing. | | That ^G is meant to be a literal ctrl-G, possibly typed as ctrl-v | then ctrl-g. | | All you have to do to test the terminal bell is press the control and g | keys while you're in the terminal. You don't need to try to print the | character. Depends on your shell; a lot of shells with command line editing will not literally echo the ^G as you type it but embed a visible ^G in the command line (echoing ^ and G, not the BEL character), and ^G may also _be_ a control code for the command line editor. As it is in the zsh I'm using. So, yes, on a traditional cooked mode command line typing a ^G will work because it will be echoed directly as it is typed, but it's not always the case (and, indeed, not the case where I'm typing:-) Cheers, -- Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ The Microsoft manuals, of course, are just a load of self-serving propaganda written by tekkies under the supervision of public relations folks. - David Lloyd-Jones -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On Saturday, May 14, 2011 03:27:53 PM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 12:55, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 10:46:51 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 09:17, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 09:27:55 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 08:48, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: On 05/14/2011 09:36 AM, JD wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? Try: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60/32 -j ACCEPT there needs to be a netmask in the syntax. Tried it. Did not change anything :( Could we see more of the network topology please? Can you do on both machines: /bin/netstat -rn On Fedora Machine: # /bin/netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 10.0.0.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 10.1.1.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.122.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 wlan0 On the machine in question (192.168.1.60) # /sbin/netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.1.254 UGSc80 en1 127127.0.0.1 UCS 00lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 04lo0 169.254link#6 UCS 00en1 192.168.1 link#6 UCS 20en1 192.168.1.10:26:18:6:ef:7 UHLW0 113en1 566 192.168.1.60 127.0.0.1 UHS 00lo0 192.168.1.254 0:1d:5a:c8:91:c1 UHLW 15 153en1 565 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::1 link#1 UHL lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0 Uc lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#1 UHL lo0 ff01::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::/32 fe80::1%lo0 UC lo0 /sbin/ifconfig On Fedora machine: # /sbin/ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.1.1.1 Bcast:10.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::203:dff:fe15:2b9e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1340 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:849 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:174589 (170.4 KiB) TX bytes:418153 (408.3 KiB) Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 eth0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.0.0.1 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 loLink 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:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) TX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 22:3E:A6:BB:CD:51 inet addr:192.168.122.1 Bcast:192.168.122.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:8391 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:1617830 (1.5 MiB) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet6 addr: fe80::234:56ff:fe00:343/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:4976669 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 16:10, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 03:27:53 PM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 12:55, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 10:46:51 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 09:17, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 09:27:55 AM JD wrote: On 05/14/11 08:48, G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote: On 05/14/2011 09:36 AM, JD wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT After restarting the firewall, I still am unable to ping that machine and it is unable to ping me. That machine is not running a firewall. I can ping the router and another machine I have on the LAN. The machine at 192.168.1.60 can do the same. What else do I need to do to be able to talk to machine 192.168.1.60 and it to my fedora machine? Try: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60/32 -j ACCEPT there needs to be a netmask in the syntax. Tried it. Did not change anything :( Could we see more of the network topology please? Can you do on both machines: /bin/netstat -rn On Fedora Machine: # /bin/netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 10.0.0.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 10.1.1.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.122.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 wlan0 On the machine in question (192.168.1.60) # /sbin/netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.1.254 UGSc80 en1 127127.0.0.1 UCS 00lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 04lo0 169.254link#6 UCS 00en1 192.168.1 link#6 UCS 20en1 192.168.1.10:26:18:6:ef:7 UHLW0 113en1 566 192.168.1.60 127.0.0.1 UHS 00lo0 192.168.1.254 0:1d:5a:c8:91:c1 UHLW 15 153en1 565 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::1 link#1 UHL lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0 Uc lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#1 UHL lo0 ff01::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::/32 fe80::1%lo0 UC lo0 /sbin/ifconfig On Fedora machine: # /sbin/ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.1.1.1 Bcast:10.1.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::203:dff:fe15:2b9e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1340 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:849 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:174589 (170.4 KiB) TX bytes:418153 (408.3 KiB) Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 eth0:0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:03:0D:15:2B:9E inet addr:10.0.0.1 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Interrupt:19 Base address:0xd800 loLink 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:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4734603 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) TX bytes:373719874 (356.4 MiB) virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 22:3E:A6:BB:CD:51 inet addr:192.168.122.1 Bcast:192.168.122.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:8391 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:1617830 (1.5 MiB) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:34:56:00:03:43 inet6 addr: fe80::234:56ff:fe00:343/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:4976669 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4947232 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 07:10 PM, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 03:27:53 PM JD wrote: This setup sounds like wifi bridge mode as opposed to wifi ad-hoc mode. Question: in wifi bridging, does the packet from the Powerbook, which is destined for the Fedora, go through the gateway, or can the packet still go directly from the Powerbook to the Fedora? If the answer is the former, I would ask why the gateway doesn't relay the packet to the Fedora. if the answer is the latter, I would assume we should see entries in the ARP tables, in both machines, for the other device in question, and would ask what are the ARP entries in both the Fedora and the Powerbook. Could you tell us the make/model of the gateway please. I read, on the Internet, different wifi gateways have different capabilities. Good thoughts Rick .. The wifi bridges sometimes have 2 'modes' ... one allows wireless clients to see one another - the other mode does not. It is possible that his wifi router is set to disallow wireless to wireless traffic, and that may be a user settable option in the router. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 2:13 PM, JD jd1...@gmail.com wrote: The eth0 is not active. It is configured with a static IP, but it is disconnected. Ditto on the PowerBook machine. It is configured with a static IP but is is disconnected, so the ether links on both machines is down. Only the wireless is active. I do not understand why you say I have an IP6 address. the LAN is on IP4 addresses. Even if you have ipv6 disabled for en1 in OS X, netstat -nr will output ipv6 data if you don't add -f inet to restrict the output to ipv4 (like -4 in the Fedora netstat), as is evidenced in your post. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
Dear JD, On 14/05/11 06:36 -0700, JD wrote: On my F14, I am running a firewall that accepts specific connection on specific ports from some machines on the LAN. However, for one machine I made a general rule to accept all connections: -A INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT The -A means *append*. It is added to the INPUT chain *after* all the other rules. If any rule has previously rejected the connection, adding further rules afterwards will not help. I would *insert* the rule at the beginning of the chain with a command like this: iptables -I INPUT -s 192.168.1.60 -j ACCEPT -- Nick Urbanik http://nicku.org ni...@nicku.org GPG: 7FFA CDC7 5A77 0558 DC7A 790A 16DF EC5B BB9D 2C24 ID: BB9D2C24 -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Comparison of Desktop Environments in F15?
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:02 AM, mike cloaked mike.cloa...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone know of a good comparison source for the functionality and usability of the various desktop environments that will be released in f15? I think you're asking more than one or two questions here. ;-) i.e. the main comparison between Gnome3, KDE4, LXDE and XFCE as they work in f15. LXDE and XFCE won't change all that much, near as I saw. Gnome3 and KDE4, you've probably seen the threads on how they've been dumbed down (or, more accurately, re-focused towards people who aren't planning on doing all sorts of technical things with them). A nice table of which standard programmes are set up to do things like terminal, CD/DVD writing, browser, mail client, config settings both for the DE and the system, as well as the display etc. I've often wished for such information. Particularly, I'd like a complete list of the apps they include with the custom spins. The media and security spins, in particular, would profit from not having to read through a yum listing of packages and a recursive diff against /etc/* . Also a comparison of launcher setup and capability, wireless and network icon and settings, virtualisation launchers and managers, pdf viewers etc. I think this is what is called productizing the distro. I think it takes more resources in Q/A and documentation than Fedora currently has, which will probably lead to the answer, Are you volunteering? (To which I wish I had time to say, Sure!) However, I'm sure there are partial lists available around.Wish I could be of more help, but I'm still fighting with grub2 from Debian not chaining to my Fedora installs. Wasting more time looking for perfection from that than I would to just do update-grub in Debian every time I see I've updated a Fedora kernel. But it's helping me understand grub. (I think.) Joel Rees -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 16:46, Genes MailLists wrote: On 05/14/2011 07:10 PM, Rick Sewill wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 03:27:53 PM JD wrote: This setup sounds like wifi bridge mode as opposed to wifi ad-hoc mode. Question: in wifi bridging, does the packet from the Powerbook, which is destined for the Fedora, go through the gateway, or can the packet still go directly from the Powerbook to the Fedora? If the answer is the former, I would ask why the gateway doesn't relay the packet to the Fedora. if the answer is the latter, I would assume we should see entries in the ARP tables, in both machines, for the other device in question, and would ask what are the ARP entries in both the Fedora and the Powerbook. Could you tell us the make/model of the gateway please. I read, on the Internet, different wifi gateways have different capabilities. Good thoughts Rick .. The wifi bridges sometimes have 2 'modes' ... one allows wireless clients to see one another - the other mode does not. It is possible that his wifi router is set to disallow wireless to wireless traffic, and that may be a user settable option in the router. I believe I indicated the router is ATT/2WIRE gateway, part of a bundled service for TV, Phone and Internet (Uverse). I will look into the router to see if your guess is correct. ... OK, I looked, and I saw no user settable feature that [en/dis]ables inter-wireless clients communications. Perhaps it is an unpublished feature. Gues it is time to call the that horrible customer service bureaucracy! -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: F14 install freezes due to disk problems
On 05/14/2011 01:18 PM, Lewis NH2 wrote: Do you have any idea where to look at or what I can do? Try the Fedora full install DVD. If your computer doesn't have a DVD drive download the CD set. (I think it fits on 6 CDs now, but you'll probably not need all of them.) Not only is Anaconda (the Fedora installer) more flexible, you can customize your installation instead of getting only what's on the LiveCD. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: F14 install freezes due to disk problems
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:18 PM, Lewis NH2 wrote: Do you have any idea where to look at or what I can do? Try the Fedora full install DVD. If your computer doesn't have a DVD drive download the CD set. (I think it fits on 6 CDs now, but you'll probably not need all of them.) Not only is Anaconda (the Fedora installer) more flexible, you can customize your installation instead of getting only what's on the LiveCD. If you have a fast net connection do a net install. If I recall correctly, you should be able to use linux askmethod from the i386 CD. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 09:45 PM, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? If nothing else, traceroute should show you the route between the 2 machines. If the router's IP appears, then the packets are going through the router. Its a good backup to show that your ip routing tables are set up properly James McKenzie -- Kevin J. Cummings kjch...@verizon.net cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie Tried it. Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. All it shows is asterisks. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/15/2011 12:55 AM, JD wrote: Perhaps it is an unpublished feature. Gues it is time to call the that horrible customer service bureaucracy! you do not mention which model, therefore a search from here may help; http://support.2wire.com/index.php if a 2701; http://support.2wire.com/index.php?page=viewarticle=765 dslreports.com has a 2wire forum at; http://www.dslreports.com/forum/2wire hth. -- peace out. tc.hago, g . in a free world without fences, who needs gates. ** help microsoft stamp out piracy - give linux to a friend today. ** to mess up a linux box, you need to work at it. to mess up an ms windows box, you just need to *look* at it. ** learn linux: 'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html 'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/ 'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html 'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Thunderbird address book recovery
Hey Y'all, Thunderbird 3.1.10 Linux mushroom.patch 2.6.35.12-90.fc14.i686.PAE #1 SMP Fri Apr 22 16:08:03 UTC 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux When I started Thunderbird tonight it reported that my abook.mab file was corrupted and that it was making a backup copy. That it did. No, how do I recover my address information from the backup file? -- °v° /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registerd Linux user No #267004 www.counter.li.org In a free world without fences, who needs gates. ** Help Microsoft stamp out piracy - give Linux to a friend today. ** To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it. To mess up an MS Windows box, you just need to *look* at it. ** learn linux: 'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html 'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/ 'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html 'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/ -- Signature shamelessly copied from: Jatin Khatri geleem -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie Tried it. Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. All it shows is asterisks. Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go direct between machines Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. -- Kevin J. Cummings kjch...@verizon.net cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Thunderbird address book recovery(Solved)
On 05/14/2011 10:32 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote: Hey Y'all, Thunderbird 3.1.10 Linux mushroom.patch 2.6.35.12-90.fc14.i686.PAE #1 SMP Fri Apr 22 16:08:03 UTC 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux When I started Thunderbird tonight it reported that my abook.mab file was corrupted and that it was making a backup copy. That it did. No, how do I recover my address information from the backup file? I recovered my abook.mab file from last nights backup. All is apparently will now. I wonder what happened to cause the file to be corrupted. I didn't add/delete anything to/from the file as far as I know. -- °v° /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registerd Linux user No #267004 www.counter.li.org In a free world without fences, who needs gates. ** Help Microsoft stamp out piracy - give Linux to a friend today. ** To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it. To mess up an MS Windows box, you just need to *look* at it. ** learn linux: 'Rute User's Tutorial and Exposition' http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html 'The Linux Documentation Project' http://www.tldp.org/ 'LDP HOWTO-index' http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/HOWTO-INDEX/index.html 'HowtoForge' http://howtoforge.com/ -- Signature shamelessly copied from: Jatin Khatri geleem -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 5/14/11 7:41 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie Tried it. Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. All it shows is asterisks. Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go direct between machines That it is if the two devices exist on the same subnet, which is a bad thing for wireless. Your suggestion on how to solve this is 'spot on'. Unless traffic is local, it should go to the gateway on wireless. Wired is much different. James McKenzie -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Thunderbird address book recovery(Solved)
On 05/14/2011 10:50 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote: No, how do I recover my address information from the backup file? I recovered my abook.mab file from last nights backup. All is apparently will now. I wonder what happened to cause the file to be corrupted. I didn't add/delete anything to/from the file as far as I know. On a related note - you can use gcontactsync to share with google contacts - works well ... and adds another backup ... You can also export your address book to LDIF format for safekeeping. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 19:41, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie Tried it. Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. All it shows is asterisks. Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go direct between machines Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. No that would not do anything because already the default route is 192.168.1.254 which is the gateway/router. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 19:59, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 7:41 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie Tried it. Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. All it shows is asterisks. Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go direct between machines That it is if the two devices exist on the same subnet, which is a bad thing for wireless. Your suggestion on how to solve this is 'spot on'. Unless traffic is local, it should go to the gateway on wireless. Wired is much different. James McKenzie For wired machines, the intelligence is in the switch which has no firmware, but programmed gate arrays which make the packets go from one ether port to another without blasting the packets at all the ports (which is what hubs do). Wireless is indeed very different in the sense that the intelligence is in the software running on the router. That is why I need to talk to att uverse to see what they can do from remote. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 5/14/11 8:42 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 19:41, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie Tried it. Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. All it shows is asterisks. Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go direct between machines Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. No that would not do anything because already the default route is 192.168.1.254 which is the gateway/router. That default route will ONLY be used if you specified the IP range as /32, i.e. 192.168.1.1/32. Otherwise the system will assume /24 and nothing local will be able to be located (you should be able to ping outbound the gateway, but nothing else in that subnet.) James McKenzie -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 19:09, g wrote: On 05/15/2011 12:55 AM, JD wrote: Perhaps it is an unpublished feature. Gues it is time to call the that horrible customer service bureaucracy! you do not mention which model, therefore a search from here may help; http://support.2wire.com/index.php if a 2701; http://support.2wire.com/index.php?page=viewarticle=765 dslreports.com has a 2wire forum at; http://www.dslreports.com/forum/2wire hth. It is model http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=C_0_0 3800HGV-B -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 11:42 PM, JD wrote: Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. No that would not do anything because already the default route is 192.168.1.254 which is the gateway/router. No. The default route is only used when there is not a route found for the target machine. If the target machine is on the same subnet, then the packets just get sent out on the local network device. While its true that both the target machine and the router are on this network, this is the configuration that is not working for you. What you want is to either add a specific route before the local network route so that all traffic to that machine gets sent to the router, or, remove your local network route from your routing table. In that case, all you should have is a default route (that might work). This is my laptop routing table: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface local.net * 255.255.255.0 U 2 00 eth1 default 192.168.6.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth1 Note that any traffic to my local network gets put on the local network. (This is the first routing line.) BTW, local.net is 192.168.6.0/24. If there is traffic for *anywhere* else, that's what invokes the default route, and that gets sent to my router. I'm suggesting that you either have: 192.168.1.108 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 UG wlan0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 or you have only: 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 I think you'll see a difference I'm also wondering if you'll have to do the something similar on the other wireless machine (192.168.1.108?) I'm assuming your 2 wireless machines are 192.168.1.60 192.168.1.108, and that your router is 192.168.1.254. -- Kevin J. Cummings kjch...@verizon.net cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 11:53 PM, JD wrote: It is model http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=C_0_0 3800HGV-B O, Bad URL 192.168.1.254 is a non-route-able Internet address. It only works on *your* network -- Kevin J. Cummings kjch...@verizon.net cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 11:59 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: I'm suggesting that you either have: 192.168.1.108 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 UG wlan0 Oops, the Genmask above should have been 255.255.255.255 ... my bad. 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 or you have only: 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 -- Kevin J. Cummings kjch...@verizon.net cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net cummi...@kjc386.framingham.ma.us Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 20:53, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 8:42 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 19:41, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie Tried it. Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. All it shows is asterisks. Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go direct between machines Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. No that would not do anything because already the default route is 192.168.1.254 which is the gateway/router. That default route will ONLY be used if you specified the IP range as /32, i.e. 192.168.1.1/32. Otherwise the system will assume /24 and nothing local will be able to be located (you should be able to ping outbound the gateway, but nothing else in that subnet.) James McKenzie # route add -host 192.168.1.70 gw 192.168.1.108 dev wlan0 # ping 192.168.1.70 PING 192.168.1.70 (192.168.1.70) 56(84) bytes of data. From 192.168.1.108 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.108 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.108 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable Also, on the Fedora PC: # traceroute 192.168.1.60 traceroute to 192.168.1.60(192.168.1.60), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 192.168.1.108 (192.168.1.108) 3007.379 ms !H 3007.348 ms !H 3007.327 ms !H and it stopped right there. Whereas on the Powerbook, all I get is many lines of asterisks and then it gives up. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/2011 10:59 PM, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 7:41 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie Tried it. Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. All it shows is asterisks. Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go direct between machines That it is if the two devices exist on the same subnet, which is a bad thing for wireless. Your suggestion on how to solve this is 'spot on'. Unless traffic is local, it should go to the gateway on wireless. Wired is much different. Wired and wireless are essentially the same. They all adhere to the IEEE 802.3 spec and the 802.1 bridging paradigms. Copper, light, air ... it's all in the physical layer as stipulated in IEEE 802.3. Once the electrical signals are delivered, then it becomes IEEE 802.1 for bridging and all the RFCs for IP and ICMP, TCP and UDP and etc. You can build a network with 254 hosts (192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.254) using both wired and wireless and it works quite well. I've done that in my house for the last 10 years. I work at a place where we have 40 buildings with 20 wireless networks that span virtual-LANs across our campus connecting to routing interfaces throughout the campus. But, as one poster has already pointed out, there are different modes of the radios that can cause problems. However, the OP appears to be pinging wired machine (having an en1 interface) from a wireless machine (having a wlan interface). If this is true then the radio mode shouldn't make any different. I'm almost ready to break down asking for ARP information. But I think we have one other test before diving deep into the dungeons. One thing confuses me here. The OP is trying to ping 192.168.1.60. Yet, the physical interface of the ifconfig listing for machine at 192.168.1.60 shows en1 as having 192.168.1.70. In fact, there is no physical interface on that computer having 192.168.1.60 configured on it. However, there is a route table listing that says to get to 192.168.1.60, packets should be routed to localhost (127.0.0.1). Here's an excerpt of what I am describing: 192.168.1.60 127.0.0.1 UHS 00lo0 So, the next question is; is there something in the host that is actually listening for packets destined for 192.168.1.60? Because at this point, it looks like any packets destined for 192.168.1.60 hit 127.0.0.1 and then die for the lack of a responder. The machine won't respond, because there is no physical interface having an address that matches the destination of the packet. My next test would be to try pinging 192.168.1.70 from the 192.168.1.108 machine and see what happens. (Of course, modify the iptables of the 192.168.1.108 machine appropriately.) Shane -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Fedora 14: Sound, video on iMac 27 inch
Dear Folks, Okay, after much mucking about, I now have sound through the headphones only, not yet through the speakers. I added this line to /etc/modprobe.d/local.conf: options snd-hda-intel model=imac27 The clue came from seeing this kernel patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/758902/ Next to get sound out through the speakers. Any ideas anyone? On 14/05/11 21:53 +1000, Nick Urbanik wrote: Dear Folks, My wife and son both have an iMac 27 inch running Fedora 14. I have two goals: 1. Get sound working (instead of pulseaudio over the network) 2. Get free software radeon driver working, understanding how to drive the monitor. Currently using the proprietary driver. I am especially keen to get sound working. I've tried the suggestion on http://mac.linux.be/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3t=64, but have not had success. Please point me to any information/bug reports/ideas. $ uname -r 2.6.35.13-91.fc14.x86_64 $ lspci 00:00.0 Host bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Host Bridge (rev b1) 00:00.1 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Memory Controller (rev b1) 00:03.0 ISA bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 LPC Bridge (rev b3) 00:03.1 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Memory Controller (rev b1) 00:03.2 SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP79 SMBus (rev b1) 00:03.3 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Memory Controller (rev b1) 00:03.4 RAM memory: nVidia Corporation Device 0a98 (rev b1) 00:03.5 Co-processor: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Co-processor (rev b1) 00:04.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 OHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev b1) 00:04.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 EHCI USB 2.0 Controller (rev b1) 00:06.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 OHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev b1) 00:06.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 EHCI USB 2.0 Controller (rev b1) 00:08.0 Audio device: nVidia Corporation MCP79 High Definition Audio (rev b1) 00:09.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 PCI Bridge (rev b1) 00:0a.0 Ethernet controller: nVidia Corporation MCP79 Ethernet (rev b1) 00:0b.0 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP79 SATA Controller (rev b1) 00:0c.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 PCI Express Bridge (rev b1) 00:15.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 PCI Express Bridge (rev b1) 00:16.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP79 PCI Express Bridge (rev b1) 02:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Device 9488 02:00.1 Audio device: ATI Technologies Inc RV710/730 03:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR928X Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01) 04:00.0 PCI bridge: Texas Instruments XIO2213A/B/XIO2221 PCI Express to PCI Bridge (rev 01) 05:00.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): Texas Instruments XIO2213A/B/XIO2221 IEEE-1394b OHCI Controller (rev 01) $ lsmod Module Size Used by fuse 61934 3 ebtable_nat 1999 0 ebtables 21790 1 ebtable_nat ipt_MASQUERADE 2353 3 iptable_nat 5018 1 nf_nat 20289 2 ipt_MASQUERADE,iptable_nat rfcomm 67058 4 sco17196 2 bnep 15390 2 l2cap 51240 16 rfcomm,bnep nfsd 268660 13 lockd 67367 1 nfsd nfs_acl 2439 1 nfsd auth_rpcgss39300 1 nfsd exportfs3608 1 nfsd sunrpc201276 17 nfsd,lockd,nfs_acl,auth_rpcgss cpufreq_ondemand9278 2 acpi_cpufreq7345 1 freq_table 3955 2 cpufreq_ondemand,acpi_cpufreq mperf 1481 1 acpi_cpufreq bridge 70104 0 stp 2034 1 bridge llc 4802 2 bridge,stp xt_physdev 1810 1 ip6t_REJECT 4279 2 nf_conntrack_ipv6 18078 2 ip6table_filter 1687 1 ip6_tables 17497 1 ip6table_filter ipv6 286354 60 ip6t_REJECT,nf_conntrack_ipv6 kvm_intel 41918 0 kvm 257420 1 kvm_intel uinput 7368 0 snd_hda_codec_atihdmi 2727 1 arc41449 2 snd_hda_codec_cirrus10339 1 ecb 2119 2 ath9k 86167 0 ath9k_common5294 1 ath9k ath9k_hw 283034 2 ath9k,ath9k_common snd_hda_intel 24495 3 snd_hda_codec 86743 3 snd_hda_codec_atihdmi,snd_hda_codec_cirrus,snd_hda_intel ath 9505 2 ath9k,ath9k_hw snd_hwdep 6392 1 snd_hda_codec mac80211 229063 2 ath9k,ath9k_common snd_seq53791 0 snd_seq_device 6191 1 snd_seq snd_pcm80190 2 snd_hda_intel,snd_hda_codec snd_timer 19892 2 snd_seq,snd_pcm snd64032 14 snd_hda_codec_cirrus,snd_hda_intel,snd_hda_codec,snd_hwdep,snd_seq,snd_seq_device,snd_pcm,snd_timer uvcvideo 56105 0 cfg80211 134981 4 ath9k,ath9k_common,ath,mac80211 applesmc 33807 0 btusb
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 20:59, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 11:42 PM, JD wrote: Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. No that would not do anything because already the default route is 192.168.1.254 which is the gateway/router. No. The default route is only used when there is not a route found for the target machine. If the target machine is on the same subnet, then the packets just get sent out on the local network device. While its true that both the target machine and the router are on this network, this is the configuration that is not working for you. What you want is to either add a specific route before the local network route so that all traffic to that machine gets sent to the router, or, remove your local network route from your routing table. In that case, all you should have is a default route (that might work). This is my laptop routing table: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface local.net * 255.255.255.0 U 2 00 eth1 default 192.168.6.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth1 Note that any traffic to my local network gets put on the local network. (This is the first routing line.) BTW, local.net is 192.168.6.0/24. If there is traffic for *anywhere* else, that's what invokes the default route, and that gets sent to my router. I'm suggesting that you either have: 192.168.1.108 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 UG wlan0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 or you have only: 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 I think you'll see a difference I'm also wondering if you'll have to do the something similar on the other wireless machine (192.168.1.108?) I'm assuming your 2 wireless machines are 192.168.1.60 192.168.1.108, and that your router is 192.168.1.254. I do not seem to be able to alter the routing table. Current table on Fedora pc is: $ route -vn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 wlan0 I removed interfaces eth0 and virbr0 (i.e. I deactivated them) so they no longer get configured at bootup. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 21:01, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 11:53 PM, JD wrote: It is modelhttp://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=C_0_0 3800HGV-B O, Bad URL 192.168.1.254 is a non-route-able Internet address. It only works on *your* network :) That is weird!! When I copied and pasted the model number in the message, there was no URL!!! And I have configured the email addr of this list in Thunderbird as a text only recipient. You discovered a bug :) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/15/2011 12:18 AM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 20:59, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 11:42 PM, JD wrote: Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. No that would not do anything because already the default route is 192.168.1.254 which is the gateway/router. No. The default route is only used when there is not a route found for the target machine. If the target machine is on the same subnet, then the packets just get sent out on the local network device. While its true that both the target machine and the router are on this network, this is the configuration that is not working for you. What you want is to either add a specific route before the local network route so that all traffic to that machine gets sent to the router, or, remove your local network route from your routing table. In that case, all you should have is a default route (that might work). This is my laptop routing table: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface local.net * 255.255.255.0 U 2 00 eth1 default 192.168.6.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth1 Note that any traffic to my local network gets put on the local network. (This is the first routing line.) BTW, local.net is 192.168.6.0/24. If there is traffic for *anywhere* else, that's what invokes the default route, and that gets sent to my router. I'm suggesting that you either have: 192.168.1.108192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 UG wlan0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 or you have only: 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 I think you'll see a difference I'm also wondering if you'll have to do the something similar on the other wireless machine (192.168.1.108?) I'm assuming your 2 wireless machines are 192.168.1.60 192.168.1.108, and that your router is 192.168.1.254. I do not seem to be able to alter the routing table. Current table on Fedora pc is: $ route -vn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 wlan0 I removed interfaces eth0 and virbr0 (i.e. I deactivated them) so they no longer get configured at bootup. It simply cannot be a default route issue. The OP is attempting to ping a device on the 192.168.1.0 network from a device on the 192.168.1.0 network. They are local. No router will get involved with this communication. The machines themselves will not use their default route. They will use 802.3 layer-2 communications to talk with one another, i.e., MAC addresses. The traffic should be bridged/switched. Shane -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Shane Dawalt sdaw...@donet.com wrote: On 05/14/2011 10:59 PM, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 7:41 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 10:09 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:45, James McKenzie wrote: On 5/14/11 6:40 PM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 18:24, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/14/2011 01:27 PM, JD wrote: I also brought the fedora firewall down, and retried to ping Fedora from Powerbook. No go!! That means that it's not a firewall issue. Check your router config to see if it's set to allow pings inside the LAN. Thanx! I checked. The gateway has a built-in feature (program) to let you ping any client on the lan (or any ip on the public net). The gateway can ping both the powerbook and the fedora pc. no problems there. The fedora pc and the powerbook can ping the gw, and a third machine connected to the GW by ethernet, and can of course ping addresses on the public net. They (fedora pc and powerbook) cannot ping each other! Powerbook firewall is set to promiscuous mode. And as I had stated earlier, I even stopped iptables on the fedora pc, which puts it also in promiscuous mode (I assume). Still these two machines refuse to talk. Can you use traceroute to communicate between the two of them? James McKenzie Tried it. Tracerout is unable to get to target after 30 tries. All it shows is asterisks. Sounds to me like traceroute is trying to go direct between machines That it is if the two devices exist on the same subnet, which is a bad thing for wireless. Your suggestion on how to solve this is 'spot on'. Unless traffic is local, it should go to the gateway on wireless. Wired is much different. Wired and wireless are essentially the same. They all adhere to the IEEE 802.3 spec and the 802.1 bridging paradigms. Copper, light, air ... it's all in the physical layer as stipulated in IEEE 802.3. Once the electrical signals are delivered, then it becomes IEEE 802.1 for bridging and all the RFCs for IP and ICMP, TCP and UDP and etc. You can build a network with 254 hosts (192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.254) using both wired and wireless and it works quite well. I've done that in my house for the last 10 years. I work at a place where we have 40 buildings with 20 wireless networks that span virtual-LANs across our campus connecting to routing interfaces throughout the campus. But, as one poster has already pointed out, there are different modes of the radios that can cause problems. However, the OP appears to be pinging wired machine (having an en1 interface) from a wireless machine (having a wlan interface). If this is true then the radio mode shouldn't make any different. I'm almost ready to break down asking for ARP information. But I think we have one other test before diving deep into the dungeons. One thing confuses me here. The OP is trying to ping 192.168.1.60. Yet, the physical interface of the ifconfig listing for machine at 192.168.1.60 shows en1 as having 192.168.1.70. In fact, there is no physical interface on that computer having 192.168.1.60 configured on it. However, there is a route table listing that says to get to 192.168.1.60, packets should be routed to localhost (127.0.0.1). Here's an excerpt of what I am describing: 192.168.1.60 127.0.0.1 UHS 00lo0 So, the next question is; is there something in the host that is actually listening for packets destined for 192.168.1.60? Because at this point, it looks like any packets destined for 192.168.1.60 hit 127.0.0.1 and then die for the lack of a responder. The machine won't respond, because there is no physical interface having an address that matches the destination of the packet. My next test would be to try pinging 192.168.1.70 from the 192.168.1.108 machine and see what happens. (Of course, modify the iptables of the 192.168.1.108 machine appropriately.) Shane -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Sorry! My bad. Because I am doing my email on the fedora machine, I can only look at the powerbook machine and do a visual transcription of the output of the commands. So, my typing is not so accurate. I should proof read before sending :) on the Powerbook, en1 is the wireless interface, and en0 is the wired interface. So, both the Fedora PC and the Powerbook are wirelessly associated with the router. So, I am pinging 192.168.1.70 from 192.168.1.108 (fedora) and it fails. Vice versa (on the powerbook - 192.168.70), also fails. I think this weird problem is most certainly caused by the router. It has bad firmware!! This router also has individual firewall for each connected client. All of them are identical, except for the Fedora machine, for which a
Re: USB wireless adaptor that supports Master Mode?
On 05/14/2011 02:51 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:33:37 -0700 Derek Tattersall wrote: Does anyone here know which USB wireless dongles or chipsets support operation in Access Point mode with hostapd? I've just been going through this exercise, and have a USB wi-fi dongle that sorta kinda almost works with the compat-wireless stuff back ported from the 2.6.39 kernel. I expect it may work more solidly by the time 2.6.39 is mainstream. Here's my experiences so far: http://home.comcast.net/~tomhorsley/hardware/rtl8192cu/rtl8192cu.html Unfortunately, if you go through the driver list on the linux wireless web site looking for USB devices that have AP support, you get a really small list of unobtainable stuff :-). Yes, I noticed that. I was hoping there might be some more recent information out there. I have an Atom netbook - an Acer Aspire One 532H-2382. The on board wireless on that does work in AP mode. Unfortunately it is not enough laptop for what I need when travelling. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 21:28, Shane Dawalt wrote: On 05/15/2011 12:18 AM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 20:59, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 11:42 PM, JD wrote: Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. No that would not do anything because already the default route is 192.168.1.254 which is the gateway/router. No. The default route is only used when there is not a route found for the target machine. If the target machine is on the same subnet, then the packets just get sent out on the local network device. While its true that both the target machine and the router are on this network, this is the configuration that is not working for you. What you want is to either add a specific route before the local network route so that all traffic to that machine gets sent to the router, or, remove your local network route from your routing table. In that case, all you should have is a default route (that might work). This is my laptop routing table: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface local.net * 255.255.255.0 U 2 00 eth1 default 192.168.6.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth1 Note that any traffic to my local network gets put on the local network. (This is the first routing line.) BTW, local.net is 192.168.6.0/24. If there is traffic for *anywhere* else, that's what invokes the default route, and that gets sent to my router. I'm suggesting that you either have: 192.168.1.108 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 UG wlan0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 or you have only: 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 I think you'll see a difference I'm also wondering if you'll have to do the something similar on the other wireless machine (192.168.1.108?) I'm assuming your 2 wireless machines are 192.168.1.60192.168.1.108, and that your router is 192.168.1.254. I do not seem to be able to alter the routing table. Current table on Fedora pc is: $ route -vn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 wlan0 I removed interfaces eth0 and virbr0 (i.e. I deactivated them) so they no longer get configured at bootup. It simply cannot be a default route issue. The OP is attempting to ping a device on the 192.168.1.0 network from a device on the 192.168.1.0 network. They are local. No router will get involved with this communication. The machines themselves will not use their default route. They will use 802.3 layer-2 communications to talk with one another, i.e., MAC addresses. The traffic should be bridged/switched. Shane Well, that bridge is the router. Wireless clients that are associated with an Access Point in infrastructure mode cannot directly talk to each other. Their traffic must flow through the router. If I had set the two computers to use AdHoc mode of association with each other, then indeed, their traffic would go directly to each other without any other facility in between. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/15/2011 12:45 AM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 21:28, Shane Dawalt wrote: On 05/15/2011 12:18 AM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 20:59, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 11:42 PM, JD wrote: Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. No that would not do anything because already the default route is 192.168.1.254 which is the gateway/router. No. The default route is only used when there is not a route found for the target machine. If the target machine is on the same subnet, then the packets just get sent out on the local network device. While its true that both the target machine and the router are on this network, this is the configuration that is not working for you. What you want is to either add a specific route before the local network route so that all traffic to that machine gets sent to the router, or, remove your local network route from your routing table. In that case, all you should have is a default route (that might work). This is my laptop routing table: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface local.net * 255.255.255.0 U 2 00 eth1 default 192.168.6.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth1 Note that any traffic to my local network gets put on the local network. (This is the first routing line.) BTW, local.net is 192.168.6.0/24. If there is traffic for *anywhere* else, that's what invokes the default route, and that gets sent to my router. I'm suggesting that you either have: 192.168.1.108 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 UG wlan0 192.168.1.0* 255.255.255.0 U wlan0 0.0.0.0192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 or you have only: 0.0.0.0192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 I think you'll see a difference I'm also wondering if you'll have to do the something similar on the other wireless machine (192.168.1.108?) I'm assuming your 2 wireless machines are 192.168.1.60 192.168.1.108, and that your router is 192.168.1.254. I do not seem to be able to alter the routing table. Current table on Fedora pc is: $ route -vn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 wlan0 I removed interfaces eth0 and virbr0 (i.e. I deactivated them) so they no longer get configured at bootup. It simply cannot be a default route issue. The OP is attempting to ping a device on the 192.168.1.0 network from a device on the 192.168.1.0 network. They are local. No router will get involved with this communication. The machines themselves will not use their default route. They will use 802.3 layer-2 communications to talk with one another, i.e., MAC addresses. The traffic should be bridged/switched. Shane Well, that bridge is the router. Wireless clients that are associated with an Access Point in infrastructure mode cannot directly talk to each other. Their traffic must flow through the router. If I had set the two computers to use AdHoc mode of association with each other, then indeed, their traffic would go directly to each other without any other facility in between. Well yes. I'm using the terms bridge and router in the operative sense. I think we are stumbling on semantics. But I suspect you're right when you say your wireless router is misbehaving, either due to software or due to it's configuration. Usually, firewalls don't inhibit ARP entries. To test this theory, try ping 192.168.1.70 from your 192.168.1.108 box. Directly after that, issue the command arp -a. If ARP works, you should see something like this. ? (10.1.1.1) at 00:30:ab:13:9e:3d [ether] on eth0 (On my net, 10.1.1.1 is my gateway.) If it doesn't work, you'll see something like this: ? (10.1.1.253) at incomplete on eth0 where 10.1.1.253 is a non-existent machine on my network. And you'll see ping responses such
Re: Fedora 14: Sound, video on iMac 27 inch
Dear Folks, On 15/05/11 14:12 +1000, Nick Urbanik wrote: Dear Folks, Okay, after much mucking about, I now have sound through the headphones only, not yet through the speakers. I added this line to /etc/modprobe.d/local.conf: options snd-hda-intel model=imac27 The clue came from seeing this kernel patch: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/758902/ Next to get sound out through the speakers. Any ideas anyone? It simply came down to running alsamixer -c0, unmuting all the outputs, including surround sound, and saving the results with sudo alsactl store 0. Now my son's speakers work! Next is to get the video working with the non-proprietary drivers. It seems that the problem, according to David Arlie, is the monitor, not the video card. I don't know what to do about this. -- Nick Urbanik http://nicku.org ni...@nicku.org GPG: 7FFA CDC7 5A77 0558 DC7A 790A 16DF EC5B BB9D 2C24 ID: BB9D2C24 -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Networking problem
On 05/14/11 22:02, Shane Dawalt wrote: On 05/15/2011 12:45 AM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 21:28, Shane Dawalt wrote: On 05/15/2011 12:18 AM, JD wrote: On 05/14/11 20:59, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: On 05/14/2011 11:42 PM, JD wrote: Can you add a special static route between the 2 specifying the router as the gateway? As I recall, LAN traffic assumes that anything sent on the local interface will get directly to anything else on the local network by just sending it. I'm not sure why the router doesn't route those packets when it sees them unless it assumes that if receives them over the wireless and the target machine is also wireless, that that would be redundant. Sometimes I used to set up static routes between machines, guaranteeing that the route the packets take will get there. something like: On machine w.x.y.2, sending to machine w.x.y.3, using the router at w.x.y.1 as the intermediary: # route add -host w.x.y.3 gw w.x.y.1 dev eth0 I'm not 100% sure this will work, because if the router is at fault, it may still fail. But its worth a try. No that would not do anything because already the default route is 192.168.1.254 which is the gateway/router. No. The default route is only used when there is not a route found for the target machine. If the target machine is on the same subnet, then the packets just get sent out on the local network device. While its true that both the target machine and the router are on this network, this is the configuration that is not working for you. What you want is to either add a specific route before the local network route so that all traffic to that machine gets sent to the router, or, remove your local network route from your routing table. In that case, all you should have is a default route (that might work). This is my laptop routing table: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface local.net * 255.255.255.0 U 2 00 eth1 default 192.168.6.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth1 Note that any traffic to my local network gets put on the local network. (This is the first routing line.) BTW, local.net is 192.168.6.0/24. If there is traffic for *anywhere* else, that's what invokes the default route, and that gets sent to my router. I'm suggesting that you either have: 192.168.1.108 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 UG wlan0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 or you have only: 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG wlan0 I think you'll see a difference I'm also wondering if you'll have to do the something similar on the other wireless machine (192.168.1.108?) I'm assuming your 2 wireless machines are 192.168.1.60 192.168.1.108, and that your router is 192.168.1.254. I do not seem to be able to alter the routing table. Current table on Fedora pc is: $ route -vn Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 wlan0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 wlan0 I removed interfaces eth0 and virbr0 (i.e. I deactivated them) so they no longer get configured at bootup. It simply cannot be a default route issue. The OP is attempting to ping a device on the 192.168.1.0 network from a device on the 192.168.1.0 network. They are local. No router will get involved with this communication. The machines themselves will not use their default route. They will use 802.3 layer-2 communications to talk with one another, i.e., MAC addresses. The traffic should be bridged/switched. Shane Well, that bridge is the router. Wireless clients that are associated with an Access Point in infrastructure mode cannot directly talk to each other. Their traffic must flow through the router. If I had set the two computers to use AdHoc mode of association with each other, then indeed, their traffic would go directly to each other without any other facility in between. Well yes. I'm using the terms bridge and router in the operative sense. I think we are stumbling on semantics. But I suspect you're right when you say your wireless router is misbehaving, either due to software or due to it's configuration. Usually, firewalls don't inhibit ARP entries. To test this theory, try ping 192.168.1.70 from your 192.168.1.108 box. Directly after that, issue the command arp -a. If ARP works, you should see something like this. ? (10.1.1.1) at 00:30:ab:13:9e:3d [ether] on eth0 (On my net, 10.1.1.1 is my gateway.) If it doesn't work, you'll see something like this: ? (10.1.1.253) atincomplete on eth0 where 10.1.1.253 is a non-existent machine on my
