Well naturally I would only ever want to use one at a time, and of
course it's much faster on wired. Not as convenient though and "she who
must be obeyed" doesn't like cables everywhere. (don't ask - I don't
know WHAT the problem is there)
I may want to pick up the notebook and move to another room for a
meeting, without needing to reboot. Or move out onto the deck on a nice
summer's day, or to the bedroom with no network access, after being on
the wired network. This doesn't work out of the box - I think it should
- but glad to see that it will be possible and looks easy.
Roger
Nick Rout wrote:
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.
