Thanks for the pointers Nick. I'll keep exploring and report back any success.

Nick Rout wrote:

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 14:10:12 +1200
Richard Tindall wrote:

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"



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.



The entry is a destination not an ip address as such.


That bit has me somewhat mystified. "Network Settings" has just the one option for setting up the eth0 address, and this line was the result. I don't know where to input any "destination" entry. Is that to check all traffic for ownership/receipt on 192.168.0.* (opposite of masking out)?


Does your gateway do dhcp? If so use it, it eliminates mistyping.

It would (RH9), but I prefer the sense of selection & knowing exactly what I want & that it will work (via iptables), which in most other cases it has. Iptables is the trickiest part of the mix, only allowing 192.168.0.1 traffic past the gateway, as things stand. Also, 100% typing accuracy is an obtainable goal, and necessary for CLI work too. This install can/must be able to work like others successful on the box (?).

Oh and by the way I assume you do not have the laptop plugged into the
lan and on the same ip address at the same time?

We're talking about just the one 192.168.0.1 machine/install - a laptop. Plus one gateway.

I guess other more esoteric things could be wrong, like you or the
configuration program wrongly guessing the driver? I have seen some
modules appear to load, but aren't the right one.


I don't think we would have got this far without the correct driver but
make double sure ok? Compare the driver that ubuntu loads.


I'll check that more closely then; lspci lists Nat'Semi Macphyter.., as expected, in Debian. I have excluded confusion with eth1 (wireless), which has often been given the eth0 port on previous installs - a bugbear. In this case that appears as eth1 (disabled), where it belongs. :-)

Last point, I have seen very experienced computer user subsequently post in threads like 
this that they "forgot to plug in the cable" -
embarrassing but true, and we have all done it.

Check it, both ends, and the lights on the nics and the switch.

That's what I meant by 'link tested good' - untouched between reboots into other OS, where it works fine (as 192.168.0.1 laptop).

Must be a Debian (secure) config thing, I'm guessing. Haven't found any firewalling to modify as yet.

Cheers,

Rik

--
Richard Tindall
InfoHelp Services




Reply via email to