On Sat, September 8, 2007 6:42 pm, James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > rbw wrote: >> Also don't use the uplink port on the switch... >> (See below) > > yes, see below.. > >> >> Lan Barnes wrote: >>> Thanks. I'll dig in my parts box. >>> >>> On Sat, September 8, 2007 1:55 pm, Brad Beyenhof wrote: >>>> If you're just adding ports, and you're not interested in segmenting >>>> your network at all, it would probably be better to use a hub instead >>>> of a switch. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Brad Beyenhof, Systems Administrator >>>> UC San Diego, Laboratory of Cognitive Imaging >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/8/07, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> I want to add ports to my wireless router. Both wireless and switch >>>>> have >>>>> been tested and work. >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't work: >>>>> >>>>> Cable modem >>>>> | >>>>> V >>>>> d-link's "uplink" port >>>>> ***** (wireless now works) >>>>> A d-link regular port >>>>> | >>>>> V >>>>> Switch's uplink port >> >> Make this (above) a regular port on the switch... >> This will just pass through or repeat the connections below. > > rbw- I can't understand why you say this. On a non-autosensing switch > (which I assume LB has), the uplink port can connect to the dlink with a > straight-through cable .. or a "normal" port can connect to the dlink > with a crossover cable. Were you possibly assuming his setup didn't work > _because_ he had a crossover cable? > >>
For the record (why why am I still answering?), I do have a crossover but did not use it. I _did_ try both normal to uplink and normal to normal. Neither seemed to work. But I would want to try that again to be sure, and I have zero incentive. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
