Ok now we're getting technical... I read thru the other posts and had a few thoughts...
Don't quote me as gospel but I think this is how it should work... 1. The wired and wireless parts of the network should be on their own subnets. eg 192.168.1.1/28 - this would make your subnet - 255.255.255.128 iirc (but I think I'm wrong, but you get the idea - ie it shouldn't be x.x.x.0) 2. Each interface should have it's own default route because each is on it's own interface - having each on it's own subnet would then tell the route table what to do - problem is that you've prob got your subnet set to 255.255.255.0 - I know I do. 3. The wifi ap/router should be it's own gw. So the gw for the wifi card should be 192.168.1.250 (assuming that's the IP of the AP router) and the gw on the AP router should be 192.168.1.1 (assuming that's the IP of the ADSL/Cable/Wireless(woosh) modem/router) So, what we end up with is the two interfaces working correctly.... Now that we have the two interfaces working correctly we don't have to worry about them going up and down... TCP/IP should do the rest of that for us... However we also haven't set a metric on the interfaces which we should because the wired interface has less hops than the wireless interface to get to the out side world. ethE = Wired ethW = wifi card If configured correctly (and again I express that I'm rusty and this is my recollection only) TCP/IP should see that ethE isn't returning packets so should then trying ethW. ethE will always be used first because it's got a lower metric (I think that's what metric is for anyway). This was the whole point of TCP/IP in the first place, that it would just switch between interfaces automatically without having to stuff around. Roger I could be a bit wrong about some of this but like you I'm still having troubles with my machine switching between the two, so I'll be having a bit more of a play was well. As for what Windows is up to... we all know that windows is programmed to forget about the rules and just make it work - hence why it also gets things wrong so often. In the mean time I've got a whole book here somewhere on tcp/ip and I got a really good book from the library the other day on wifi so I guess I should do some more reading. Thoughts people? Cheers Don On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 11:25, 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. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- Don Gould
