J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 5:14:14 AM CEST Dale wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> As some may recall I bought a new router and modem. I was sort of
>> hoping one or both of those would solve a issue I've noticed for a good
>> long while. At times, my internet gets really slow, slower
On Tuesday, April 7, 2020 5:14:14 AM CEST Dale wrote:
> Hey,
>
> As some may recall I bought a new router and modem. I was sort of
> hoping one or both of those would solve a issue I've noticed for a good
> long while. At times, my internet gets really slow, slower than it
> should be at least.
Hey,
As some may recall I bought a new router and modem. I was sort of
hoping one or both of those would solve a issue I've noticed for a good
long while. At times, my internet gets really slow, slower than it
should be at least. I have DSL and it isn't to fast to begin with. At
times tho,
[2]
http://michael.orlitzky.com/articles/why_im_against_ca-signed_certificates.php
.
I like to state some of what you say here as website certificates are only
as trusted as the LEAST trustworthy CA in the trusted certificate store
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.comwrote:
The CA infrastructure was never secure. It exists to transfer money away
from website owners and into the bank accounts of the CAs and browser
makers. Security may be one of their goals, but it's certainly not the
There's a lot FUD out there and equally there is some truth. the NSA
we can decrypt everything statement was really very vague, and can
easily be done if you have a lot of taps (ala PRISM) and start doing
mitm attacks to reduce the level of security to something that is
crackable.
for
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:36:09AM +0100, thegeezer wrote:
There's a lot FUD out there and equally there is some truth. the NSA
we can decrypt everything statement was really very vague, and can
easily be done if you have a lot of taps (ala PRISM) and start doing
mitm attacks to reduce the
When a top-post is that long did you read it before noticing?
Well, if you opened this email, All ur base r belong to us!
:$ oops, was more focussed on my rant than the etiquette
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/09/2013 01:28 AM, Mick wrote:
Are you saying that 2048 RSA keys are no good anymore?
They're probably fine, but when you're making them yourself, the extra
bits are free. I would assume that the NSA can crack 1024-bit RSA[1],
so why not
On 09/09/2013 02:50 AM, Adam Carter wrote:
[2]
http://michael.orlitzky.com/articles/why_im_against_ca-signed_certificates.php
.
I like to state some of what you say here as website certificates are
only as trusted as the LEAST trustworthy CA in the trusted certificate
store
On 09/09/2013 03:19 AM, Pavel Volkov wrote:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com
mailto:mich...@orlitzky.com wrote:
The CA infrastructure was never secure. It exists to transfer money away
from website owners and into the bank accounts of the CAs and
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 10:36:09AM +0100, thegeezer wrote:
There's a lot FUD out there and equally there is some truth. the NSA we can
decrypt everything statement was really very vague, and can easily be done if
you have a lot of taps (ala PRISM) and start doing mitm attacks to reduce the
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:30:31PM +0100, thegeezer wrote:
i read in slashdot that there is a question mark over SELinux because it
came
from the NSA [4] but this is nonsense, as it is a means of securing
processes
not network connections. i find it difficult to believe that a
i read in slashdot that there is a question mark over SELinux because it came
from the NSA [4] but this is nonsense, as it is a means of securing processes
not network connections. i find it difficult to believe that a backdoor in a
locked cupboard in your house can somehow give access
Dale wrote:
Someone found this and sent it to me.
http://news.yahoo.com/internet-experts-want-security-revamp-nsa-revelations-020838711--sector.html
SNIP
Am I right on this, wrong or somewhere in the middle?
Dale
:-) :-)
I got this in my email today.
On 09/09/2013 05:04 PM, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 04:30:31PM +0100, thegeezer wrote:
Interesting, I didn't realise LSM provisioned hooks for SELinux -
thought it it was more modular (and less 'shoehorned') than that.
I need to go read about that some more now
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/09/2013 01:36 PM, Pavel Volkov wrote:
I noticed there's another GLEP which eliminates the mirror problem:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0058.html
It's marked as accepted. I hope they'll implement it in reasonable
time.
This
On Monday 09 Sep 2013 14:42:28 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 09/09/2013 01:28 AM, Mick wrote:
Are you saying that 2048 RSA keys are no good anymore?
They're probably fine, but when you're making them yourself, the extra
bits are free. I would assume that the NSA can crack 1024-bit RSA[1],
so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/09/2013 02:07 PM, Mick wrote:
On Monday 09 Sep 2013 14:42:28 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 09/09/2013 01:28 AM, Mick wrote:
Are you saying that 2048 RSA keys are no good anymore?
They're probably fine, but when you're making them yourself,
On Monday 09 September 2013 10:00:25 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
No. There's a GLEP for some of these issues:
https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0057.html
The relevant part is,
...any non-Gentoo controlled rsync mirror can modify executable code;
as much of this code is per
On Monday 09 Sep 2013 20:24:56 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 09/09/2013 02:07 PM, Mick wrote:
On Monday 09 Sep 2013 14:42:28 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 09/09/2013 01:28 AM, Mick wrote:
Are you saying that 2048 RSA keys are no good anymore?
They're probably fine, but when you're making
Someone found this and sent it to me.
http://news.yahoo.com/internet-experts-want-security-revamp-nsa-revelations-020838711--sector.html
I'm not to concerned about the political aspect of this but do have to
wonder what this means when we use sites that are supposed to be secure
and use HTTPS.
On 09/08/2013 09:33 PM, Dale wrote:
Someone found this and sent it to me.
http://news.yahoo.com/internet-experts-want-security-revamp-nsa-revelations-020838711--sector.html
I'm not to concerned about the political aspect of this but do have to
wonder what this means when we use sites
On Monday 09 Sep 2013 03:05:57 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 09/08/2013 09:33 PM, Dale wrote:
Someone found this and sent it to me.
http://news.yahoo.com/internet-experts-want-security-revamp-nsa-revelatio
ns-020838711--sector.html
I'm not to concerned about the political aspect of
On Monday 09 Sep 2013 02:33:48 Dale wrote:
Someone found this and sent it to me.
http://news.yahoo.com/internet-experts-want-security-revamp-nsa-revelations
-020838711--sector.html
I'm not to concerned about the political aspect of this but do have to
wonder what this means when we use
1. are the lights on or flashing with a cable plugged in and pinging
something valid?
No. They are stable
That indicates a problem - if a packet is going out/in, the lights
shouls flash
Excuse me; I looked only half a second!!! Yes they are flashing.
Since this night I found something
If the PC has wireless it would be a quick test to run to prove if the eth0
NIC on the mobo is borked.
Yesterday night, under Win XP (!), I could connect
to internet with wifi.
But, on my desktop I don't have yet internet connection.
Is the network card even so out???
I don't know why, but my desktop is now connected to internet!
The only thing I did was a reboot!
Thanks a lot to you all who tried to help me.
It was a hard way to obtain the solution.
The problem was
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:29:48 +0200, Cahn Roger wrote:
Thanks a lot to you all who tried to help me.
It was a hard way to obtain the solution.
The problem was really a hardware one,
not the cable, but just the little box connected
to the wall socket for my connection to the router
through
You've been using powerline networking and never thought to mention it
throughout this entire thread, even when people were saying it had to be
a hardware problem?
Excuse me Neil, and the others, but you're right,
I should have mentionned it.
On Friday 17 Jun 2011 10:56:30 Roger Cahn wrote:
You've been using powerline networking and never thought to mention it
throughout this entire thread, even when people were saying it had to be
a hardware problem?
Excuse me Neil, and the others, but you're right,
I should have mentionned
Well, as long as your connection problem is now solved you can carry on with
using your Gentoo! :)
Yes, I'm very happy to be able
to use it again on my desktop.
Long life to Gentoo, indeed!!!
All hail to that. Gentoo is the best. By far.
--Original Message--
From: Roger Cahn
To: Gentoo
ReplyTo: Gentoo
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Internet
Sent: 17 Jun 2011 12:32
Well, as long as your connection problem is now solved you can carry on with
using your Gentoo! :)
Yes, I'm very
On 2011-06-17 3:36 AM, Cahn Roger wrote:
Since this night I found something important: the little box
put in the socket wall from where the cable goes out, doesn't
no more work!!!
Wow...
All of this wasted bandwidth and you are just *now* getting around to
mentioning that you are using a
On Wednesday 15 June 2011 23:38:01 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:14:28 +0100, Mick wrote:
If not please change the ethernet cable.
I did it, it was even a new one!
This seems s much like a hardware failure
I can't think of anything else.
I
Or someone's standing on the cable :-)
Yes, a bad spirit!!!
I resume.
1-The problem occured after I tried to share my Epson printer
between my three PCs: Gentoo+XP (twice) and W7
2-The NIC is included in the motherboard (Asus P5K-E)
3-The cable from the dektop, where the problem exists,
works
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:50:00 +0200, Cahn Roger wrote:
2-The NIC is included in the motherboard (Asus P5K-E)
Can you get hold of a PCI* NIC to try, it will appear as eth1. If it
works the problem is with the motherboard NIC. I'd also check the BIOS to
make sure the pixies haven't disabled the
This really sounds like broken hardware and if the
cable is fine, the NIC is suspect.
I'm afraid you're right!
But, as I just wrote, the NIC is included in the motherboard...
PERHAPS a solution: try a restore from the
external HD where I have saved a week ago with
fsarchiver on SystemRescueCD.
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:06:19 +0200, Cahn Roger wrote:
This really sounds like broken hardware and if the
cable is fine, the NIC is suspect.
I'm afraid you're right!
But, as I just wrote, the NIC is included in the motherboard...
PERHAPS a solution: try a restore from the
external HD
Can you get hold of a PCI* NIC to try, it will appear as eth1.
Excuse me, I don't understand what you mean get hold of a PCI* NIC :-(
A lspci gives:
02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88E8056 PCI-E
Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 12)
On Thursday 16 June 2011 09:50:00 Cahn Roger wrote:
Or someone's standing on the cable :-)
Yes, a bad spirit!!!
I resume.
1-The problem occured after I tried to share my Epson printer
between my three PCs: Gentoo+XP (twice) and W7
Is the printer still connected and switched on?
It's
On Thursday 16 June 2011 10:28:47 Cahn Roger wrote:
Can you get hold of a PCI* NIC to try, it will appear as eth1.
Excuse me, I don't understand what you mean get hold of a PCI* NIC :-(
A lspci gives:
02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Marvell Technology Group Ltd. 88E8056 PCI-E
Gigabit
Based on all the information provided already, there is a very good chance
that the network card on your mainboard is no longer working correctly.
I'm afraid you're right, because neither Gentoo nor XP work and they're
on two different HD.
I am, to be honest, hoping that it is caused by
Apologies if I missed someone already asking these:
1. are the lights on or flashing with a cable plugged in and pinging
something valid?
2. can you ping yourself (both 127.0.0.1 and the nic IP) - cable plugged
in
3. do you have IP tables installed - iptables -vnL and check you have
not
On Thursday 16 Jun 2011 09:02:01 Cahn Roger wrote:
OK, let's look at this from the router side ... what router make model
do you have?
It's a box through which I get internet, telephone.
The name is Neuf-Box and given by access supplier SFR.
It continue to work well on my two other PCs
on 06/16/2011 10:50 AM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
Or someone's standing on the cable :-)
Yes, a bad spirit!!!
I resume.
1-The problem occured after I tried to share my Epson printer
between my three PCs: Gentoo+XP (twice) and W7
2-The NIC is included in the motherboard (Asus
Apologies if I missed someone already asking these:
No problem! Thanks to try to help me.
1. are the lights on or flashing with a cable plugged in and pinging
something valid?
No. They are stable
2. can you ping yourself (both 127.0.0.1 and the nic IP) - cable plugged
in
They work both
Reset the switch too?
Excuse me Thanasis but I don't understand what you mean ;-(
on 06/16/2011 05:11 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
Reset the switch too?
Excuse me Thanasis but I don't understand what you mean ;-(
Reset, or power-off and power-on the switch/hub.
On Thursday 16 June 2011 17:20:10 Thanasis wrote:
on 06/16/2011 05:11 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
Reset the switch too?
Excuse me Thanasis but I don't understand what you mean ;-(
Reset, or power-off and power-on the switch/hub.
Or simply, shut down everything that's
Wait 5 minutes and then restart the whole thing.
I did it, but without success :-(
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:10 +0200, Cahn Roger wrote:
Apologies if I missed someone already asking these:
No problem! Thanks to try to help me.
1. are the lights on or flashing with a cable plugged in and pinging
something valid?
No. They are stable
That indicates a problem - if a
If you have ethtool installed on the problematic pc, post the output of:
ethtool eth0
No, I don't have it.
f you don't have ethtool, post the output of:
# dmesg | grep eth
dmesg | grep eth
[2.161822] sky2 :02:00.0: eth0: addr 00:1e:8c:4a:44:db
[ 15.970632] sky2 :02:00.0:
On Wednesday 15 Jun 2011 09:04:09 Cahn Roger wrote:
If you have ethtool installed on the problematic pc, post the output of:
ethtool eth0
No, I don't have it.
f you don't have ethtool, post the output of:
# dmesg | grep eth
dmesg | grep eth
[2.161822] sky2 :02:00.0:
open a root terminal and type
ifconfig
and
route -n
Here it is:
ifconfig
eth0 Lien encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1e:8c:4a:44:db
inet adr:192.168.1.20 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Masque:255.255.255.0
adr inet6: fe80::21e:8cff:fe4a:44db/64 Scope:Lien
UP BROADCAST
On Wednesday 15 Jun 2011 14:55:00 Cahn Roger wrote:
open a root terminal and type
ifconfig
and
route -n
Here it is:
ifconfig
eth0 Lien encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1e:8c:4a:44:db
inet adr:192.168.1.20 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Masque:255.255.255.0
adr inet6:
on 06/15/2011 04:55 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
open a root terminal and type
ifconfig
and
route -n
I wanted to see those when you have booted from a rescue CD.
on 06/15/2011 04:55 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
open a root terminal and type
ifconfig
and
route -n
Try to boot from a rescue or live CD (like ubuntu maybe) and see what
you get.
When you then run:
route add default gw 192.168.1.1
to define a route manually what do you get in response and then what does it
show:
route -n
and what does ip show:
ip link show dev eth0
Here it is. But the last command not found!
route add default gw 192.168.1.1
Bureau cahn #
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Cahn Roger rc...@club-internet.fr wrote:
Bureau cahn # ip link show dev eth0
bash: ip : commande introuvable
It is in package sys-apps/iproute2
open a root terminal and type
ifconfig
and
route -n
Try to boot from a rescue or live CD (like ubuntu maybe) and see what
you get.
After the SystemRescueCD was launched, ifconfig
gave for etho a bad adress: fe00::
and route -n gave kernel IP routing table
but without answers
Le 15/06/2011 16:52, Paul Hartman a écrit :
It is in package sys-apps/iproute2
Yes and I haven't it emerged.
But I can't do it because...I have no connection to internet!
Thanks Paul for helping me
Roger
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Cahn Roger rc...@club-internet.fr wrote:
Yes and I haven't it emerged.
But I can't do it because...I have no connection to internet!
I'm sorry. :) I didn't read the entire thread.
If you have another device with Internet connection you can download
the missing
on 06/15/2011 05:55 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
open a root terminal and type
ifconfig
and
route -n
Try to boot from a rescue or live CD (like ubuntu maybe) and see what
you get.
After the SystemRescueCD was launched, ifconfig
gave for etho a bad adress: fe00::
If you have another device with Internet connection you can download
the missing files and place it into your /usr/portage/distfiles
Thank you Paul for the tip :-)
Roger
Now I have emerged iproute2 and I can give also the last answer
route -n
and what does ip show:
ip link show dev eth0
route add default gw 192.168.1.1
Bureau cahn # route -n
Table de routage IP du noyau
Destination Passerelle Genmask Indic Metric RefUse
Iface
on 06/15/2011 06:47 PM Thanasis wrote the following:
on 06/15/2011 05:55 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
open a root terminal and type
ifconfig
and
route -n
Try to boot from a rescue or live CD (like ubuntu maybe) and see what
you get.
After the SystemRescueCD was launched, ifconfig
On Wednesday 15 Jun 2011 16:53:58 Cahn Roger wrote:
Now I have emerged iproute2 and I can give also the last answer
route -n
and what does ip show:
ip link show dev eth0
route add default gw 192.168.1.1
Bureau cahn # route -n
Table de routage IP du noyau
Destination
Once you are inside the SystemRescueCD (has finished booting) try to
start the network. It should get an IP from the router's dhcp server.
If it doesn't, then try to assign manually one to eth0, and test.
OK. I make an ifconfig and the adress is: 169.264.240.204
and of course Firefox has no
Can you please try to ping your router:
ping -c 3 192.168.1.1
It fails: Destination Host Unreachable
if this fails try to ping other PCs in your LAN.
I can't get other PCs
If that fails too can you use arping instead:
arping -c 3 -I eth0 192.168.1.1
or the same with the IP
on 06/15/2011 07:26 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
Once you are inside the SystemRescueCD (has finished booting) try to
start the network. It should get an IP from the router's dhcp server.
If it doesn't, then try to assign manually one to eth0, and test.
OK. I make an ifconfig and the
Assign one manually.
ifconfig eth0 down 0
ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.111 up
ifconfig
route -n
ping 192.168.1.1
arp -a
It works as well with SystemRescueCD as on a terminal
But ping to another PC gives Destination Host Unreachable
on 06/15/2011 08:31 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
Assign one manually.
ifconfig eth0 down 0
ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.111 up
ifconfig
route -n
ping 192.168.1.1
arp -a
It works as well with SystemRescueCD as on a terminal
But ping to another PC gives Destination Host Unreachable
So try the following and post output:
# ping -c 3 192.168.1.1 ; arp -a
ping -c 3 192.168.1.1 ; arp -a
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.20 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.20 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.20
On Wednesday 15 Jun 2011 17:44:40 Cahn Roger wrote:
Can you please try to ping your router:
ping -c 3 192.168.1.1
It fails: Destination Host Unreachable
if this fails try to ping other PCs in your LAN.
I can't get other PCs
If that fails too can you use arping instead:
arping
Can you ping your machine from any other PC on your LAN?
No: Destination Host Unreachable
(from 192.168.1.22 to 192.168.1.20)
If not please change the ethernet cable.
I did it, it was even a new one!
This seems s much like a hardware failure
I can't think of anything else.
I
On Wednesday 15 Jun 2011 22:49:46 Cahn Roger wrote:
Can you ping your machine from any other PC on your LAN?
No: Destination Host Unreachable
(from 192.168.1.22 to 192.168.1.20)
If not please change the ethernet cable.
I did it, it was even a new one!
This seems s much like a
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 23:14:28 +0100, Mick wrote:
If not please change the ethernet cable.
I did it, it was even a new one!
This seems s much like a hardware failure
I can't think of anything else.
I would like this was the key, but... :-(
OK, let's look
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 16:30:54 Thanasis wrote:
on 06/14/2011 05:45 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
Can you check the network cable and connections to ensure that is
actually correct?
The cable and connections are well.
NIC became faulty?
After reading this thread, I'd say that
Hi,
Yesterday I tried to make a connection between my three PC
to manage my Epson printer: two with Win XP and Gentoo
and one with Win7.
I didn't succeed, but that's not important!
After reboot of the three machines
I went back to Win7: no problem
and to my laptop with Xp and Gentoo: OK.
But
* Cahn Roger rc...@club-internet.fr [110614 09:05]:
Hi,
[..]
* Bringing up interface eth0
* dhcp ...
* Running dhcpcd ...
dhcpcd[3076]: version 5.2.12 starting
dhcpcd[3076]: eth0: waiting for carrier
dhcpcd[3076]: eth0: carrier acquired
dhcpcd[3076]: eth0: rebinding lease of
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 15:32:22 Cahn Roger wrote:
Hi,
snipped
But the problem is on my desktop with two HD,
one with XP and the other with Gentoo amd64.
None of them can connect to internet neither gentoo nor XP.
I tryed many things (revdep-rebuild, verification in the box, etc.)
but I
On Tuesday 14 Jun 2011 14:32:22 Cahn Roger wrote:
Hi,
Yesterday I tried to make a connection between my three PC
to manage my Epson printer: two with Win XP and Gentoo
and one with Win7.
I didn't succeed, but that's not important!
After reboot of the three machines
I went back to Win7: no
Le 14/06/2011 15:15, Todd Goodman a écrit :
Hi Todd,
Thank you for your quick answer.
It looks like your DHCP server isn't serving addresses.
Well, it serves adresses for W7, and on the laptop for XP and Gentoo.
The box is configured with fixed adresses.
If it's your Internet router you
Hi Mick,
What does the router log show?
Euh, how can I get it???
Can you please share:
ifconfig eth0
ifconfig eth0
eth0Lien encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1e:8c:4a:44:db
inet adr:169.254.79.43 Bcast:169.254.255.255 Masque:255.255.0.0
adr inet6:
Can you check the network cable and connections to ensure that is actually
correct?
The cable and connections are well.
Thank you Joost
Roger
on 06/14/2011 05:45 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
Can you check the network cable and connections to ensure that is actually
correct?
The cable and connections are well.
NIC became faulty?
* Cahn Roger rc...@club-internet.fr [110614 09:31]:
Le 14/06/2011 15:15, Todd Goodman a écrit :
Hi Todd,
Hi Roger,
Thank you for your quick answer.
You're welcome (for what it's worth.)
It looks like your DHCP server isn't serving addresses.
Well, it serves adresses for W7, and
On Tuesday 14 Jun 2011 15:42:52 Cahn Roger wrote:
Hi Mick,
What does the router log show?
Euh, how can I get it???
It depends on your router. Usually routers have at least a GUI control panel
access and one of the pages shows recent attempts to connect and authenticate.
Are your
It depends on your router. Usually routers have at least a GUI control panel
access and one of the pages shows recent attempts to connect and authenticate.
My router hasn't this!
Are your running some sort of an access control list on the router and have
not included your MAC address?
Your DHCP server serves addresses for other hardware OK?
Yes. A PC with W7, my laptop with XP and Gentoo
Both work fine.
The problem is on my desktop with two HD: XP and Gentoo
Both OS can't connect to Internet.
When you say fixed addresses you mean the DHCP server gives out a
fixed IP
Try setting an address manually:
ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.20 broadcast 192.168.1.255 netmask 255.255.255.0
route add default gw 192.168.1.1 (assuming that this is your router)
I put this in /etc/conf.d/net; is it right?
No. Run them from terminal as root.
Then check.
Try setting an address manually:
ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.20 broadcast 192.168.1.255 netmask 255.255.255.0
route add default gw 192.168.1.1 (assuming that this is your router)
It doesn't work: error locating host target (for route)
Regards
Roger
# /etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
# ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.20 up
and post output of
/etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
* Caching service dependencies ...
/etc/init.d/../conf.d/net: line 9: broadcast : commande introuvable
/etc/init.d/../conf.d/net: line 10: netmask : commande introuvable
SIOCADDRT: Le
on 06/14/2011 10:45 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
# /etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
# ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.20 up
and post output of
/etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
* Caching service dependencies ...
/etc/init.d/../conf.d/net: line 9: broadcast : commande introuvable
Run these (in sequence) as root (and post output):
# echo /etc/conf.d/net
# /etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
# /etc/init.d/net.eth0 zap
# ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.20 up
# ifconfig
# ping 192.168.1.1
Bad luck: it fails.
Bureau cahn # echo /etc/conf.d/net
Bureau cahn # /etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
on 06/14/2011 11:36 PM Cahn Roger wrote the following:
snip
Bureau cahn # ping 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.20 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.20 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.20 icmp_seq=4
Can you ping 192.168.1.1 from another machine?
Yes, from my laptop with which I'm writing
Portable cahn # ping 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=3.86 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=3.86 ms
64
On Tuesday 14 Jun 2011 18:44:43 Cahn Roger wrote:
Try setting an address manually:
ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.20 broadcast 192.168.1.255 netmask
255.255.255.0
route add default gw 192.168.1.1 (assuming that this is your router)
It doesn't work: error locating host target (for route)
On Tuesday 14 Jun 2011 20:45:30 Cahn Roger wrote:
# /etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
# ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.20 up
and post output of
/etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop
* Caching service dependencies ...
/etc/init.d/../conf.d/net: line 9: broadcast : commande introuvable
1 - 100 of 157 matches
Mail list logo
