But why would you want the wireless runnning if you are plugged into the wired network? All my experience tells me that performance over the wired network will exceed the wireless one.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:25:46 +1300 Roger Searle wrote: > omg - what happened to my weekend? > > Now that I understand what's going on with the routes this is all making > pretty good sense. On the surface it would seem that windows and linux > handle the default route issue a little differently (I stand to be > corrected and it doesn't really matter anyway because it's the linux > issue I'm trying to resolve). The routing table on the notebook running > windows shows a default route not tied to a particular interface - I can > turn either interface on and off and retain connectivity beyond the > router. And it just works. > > Whereas when running linux the default gateway is tied to a particular > interface. Depending on which one is up when booting (or at what point > the wireless card is inserted) the routing table may or may not provide > a suitable route out. This is easily rectified with a simple "route > -add" command. > > It would appear that Don's solution will be what I need to obtain a > solution that doesn't need any further input from me. So next to try > that . . . > > Thanks for the various replies from everyone. > Cheers, Roger > > > Nick Rout wrote: > > >On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:54:31 +1300 > >Roger Searle wrote: > > > > > > > >>ummm.... i am no networking expert by any means - all i can say is that > >>i've had this card succesfully running at home running that other OS > >>with the equivalent setup ie address set by dhcp. my understanding was > >>that the wireless card is just another node on the network and should be > >>in the SAME subnet? but as i say, i'm no expert and stand to be > >>corrected - i'm here to learn more than anything. > >> > >> > > > >And in the other OS, what IP addresses were in use? (ipconfig /all) and > >what routing table? > > > >Think about this: a device on the wired side wants to send a packet to a > >device on the wireless side. How does the packet get there? the routing > >table on the wired side simply tells it that anything in 192.168.1.0/24 > >is attached via eth0. But it isn't. > > > >On the machine that has a wired and wireless interface, what does the > >routing table look like? If you want to send a packet to an address on > >the 192.168.1.0/24 network, does it go out the eth0 or ath0? > > > > > > > >>i'm not sure what more info you would like about the network. it's just > >>a simple setup - linksys wag54g router (and additional switch), a couple > >>of wired desktops running (win2k on one, xp/suse on another) and the > >>notebook (xp/suse) (wired and wireless though for this exercise not > >>connected via ethernet). > >> > >> > > > >the routing table would be excellent > > > >(/sbin/route -n) > > > >Also, if you say it is not connected to the ethernet (I assume you mean > >the wired ethernet) then why is the interface up and have an ip address? > >I actually suspect your packets are ending at eth0, which is a dead end > >:) > > > > > > > > > > > >>192.168.1.0/24 (but that would have been > >>obvious). > >> > >>the only routing setting i have made is in yast "network card" - it has > >>a routing section, which just contains a setting for the default > >>gateway, which I have set to the router's ip address. that's global for > >>the machine, i believe? > >> > >>after yet another powering off and reboot (it's something to do with the > >>wireles card - usually when writing new settings to it via yast?) and > >>connecting via ethernet, i can ping out or use a browser. via the > >>wireless card only, can't get beyond the router. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
