Nick Rout wrote:
Yes. Both are valid IP number, I assume; I have always used ..0.1 on the laptop, to connect to the gateway, with no problem.Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Use Iface
192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 255.255255.0 U 0 eth0
Did you enter the route manually? I suspect the first entry on the first line should be "192.168.0.0" not "..0.1"
0.0.0.0 192.168.0.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 eth0
you are also missing the loopback route, I am not sure if this hurts. Hers the route output from my box as a comparison:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] nick $ /sbin/route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
True. That line is missing from the route..
..But it has its section below eth0 ("lo") returned from:I just thought I recalled having to activate 'IPV6' or similar on an install or two, to hook in (receive). Likely wrong.ifconfig
Is it IP firwarding I might be missing?
Well that machine is not doing any forwarding is it? Just one NIC on one ip address on one subnet.
Finally I assume you are pinging by ip number rather than name - make sure you are so as to eliminate dns problems.
Yes, that's correct.
More looking about: #network-admin
starts "Network Settings" GUI up, but "..host-based authentication failed.." is returned at prompt.
Thanks,
-- Richard Tindall InfoHelp Services
