[Solved, for information only] How to Restore Ethernet Connection, if accidentally deleted, for any System?

[Susmita/Rajib]

To,
The Team Debian-User,
debian-user@lists.debian.org,
Debian.org

My dear illustrious Team Leaders,

Good afternoon.

I had a serious but luckily temporary problem with my Wired internet
connection, losing internet via wired line, as I uninstalled wicd.

Debian Squeeze 9.11.0 Live ISO has lxde when installed on HDD.

The ISO installs wicd as the Network Managing software and not Network
Manager Tool. Network Manager has nm-connection-editor to manage
network.

Moreover, I am far familiar with Network Manager tool than wicd.

So I am heavily biased towards the former, having little to no
familiarity with the latter. Moreover, when Debian was installed in
the beginning and a difficulty was faced while installing the WiFi.
Then, the familiar Network Manager was installed and WiFi was easily
configured.

The simple and elegant solution designed by Team Debian is here for
users like us older generations who had to work very hard to install
any new hardware added to our systems.

[Solved] Re-install Wired Network and more ...
at: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=7=146631

Regards,
Rajib Bandopadhyay
A dedicated Debian and Knoppix user

Re: Ethernet Connection Dropped Again

[Dan Ritter]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:44:55PM -0500, Thomas George wrote:
> Starting last month the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made
> atbootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I havefound
> to re-establish the connection is to turn the TP-Link AC1750 router off and
> on again.
> 
> The system is Debian Stretch.
> 
> The connection was just dropped and I recorded the attached last 60 lines of
> dmesg and syslog
> 
> Can anyone tell me why this happens or point me to references I must study
> to learn how to fix this?
> 
> 
> 
> [8.573411] r8169 :03:00.0: firmware: failed to load 
> rtl_nic/rtl8168d-2.fw (-2)
> [8.573471] r8169 :03:00.0: Direct firmware load for 
> rtl_nic/rtl8168d-2.fw failed with error -2
> [8.573474] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: unable to load firmware patch 
> rtl_nic/rtl8168d-2.fw (-2)
> [8.596929] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
> [8.596942] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
> [8.600278] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): enp3s0: link is not ready
> [   16.181809] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
> [   16.181825] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): enp3s0: link becomes ready
> [   57.501798] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
> [   74.041344] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
> [   74.977952] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
> [   79.850298] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
> [  161.205363] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
> [  180.008520] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
> [  183.550534] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
> [  188.145323] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
> [  335.644775] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
> [  362.971011] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up

These are the pertinent lines.

Likely causes:

- the cable is bad
- the router's switch module is bad, perhaps overheating
- the NIC is bad

I googled for "TP-Link AC1750 ethernet drop" and found lots of
hits, so I would guess that you should complain to TP-Link. 

-dsr-

Re: Ethernet Connection Dropped Again

[Brian]

On Wed 14 Feb 2018 at 18:44:55 -0500, Thomas George wrote:

> Starting last month the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made
> atbootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I havefound
> to re-establish the connection is to turn the TP-Link AC1750 router off and
> on again.
> 
> The system is Debian Stretch.
> 
> The connection was just dropped and I recorded the attached last 60 lines of
> dmesg and syslog
> 
> Can anyone tell me why this happens or point me to references I must study
> to learn how to fix this?

Firmware (lack of)? firmware-realtek is the package.

-- 
Brian.

Ethernet Connection Dropped Again

[Thomas George]

Starting last month the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made 
atbootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I 
havefound to re-establish the connection is to turn the TP-Link AC1750 
router off and on again.


The system is Debian Stretch.

The connection was just dropped and I recorded the attached last 60 
lines of dmesg and syslog


Can anyone tell me why this happens or point me to references I must 
study to learn how to fix this?





[8.334070] input: HDA Creative Line Out CLFE as 
/devices/pci:00/:00:09.0/:02:00.0/sound/card2/input21
[8.334154] input: HDA Creative Front Headphone as 
/devices/pci:00/:00:09.0/:02:00.0/sound/card2/input22
[8.356352] kvm: disabled by bios
[8.363576] EDAC MC: Ver: 3.0.0
[8.447239] MCE: In-kernel MCE decoding enabled.
[8.463272] nouveau :01:00.0: bios: version 70.18.64.00.05
[8.474845] EDAC amd64: DRAM ECC disabled.
[8.474851] EDAC amd64: ECC disabled in the BIOS or no ECC capability, 
module will not load.
Either enable ECC checking or force module loading by setting 
'ecc_enable_override'.
(Note that use of the override may cause unknown side effects.)
[8.480184] nouveau :01:00.0: fb: 1024 MiB DDR3
[8.549169] [TTM] Zone  kernel: Available graphics memory: 2025204 kiB
[8.549170] [TTM] Initializing pool allocator
[8.549175] [TTM] Initializing DMA pool allocator
[8.549196] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: VRAM: 1024 MiB
[8.549197] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: GART: 1048576 MiB
[8.549201] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: TMDS table version 2.0
[8.549202] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB version 4.0
[8.549204] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 00: 01000302 00020030
[8.549205] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 01: 02000300 
[8.549207] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 02: 02011362 00020010
[8.549208] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB outp 03: 01022310 
[8.549209] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 00: 1030
[8.549210] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 01: 2161
[8.549211] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: DCB conn 02: 0200
[8.553873] [drm] Supports vblank timestamp caching Rev 2 (21.10.2013).
[8.553874] [drm] Driver supports precise vblank timestamp query.
[8.570339] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: MM: using COPY for buffer copies
[8.573411] r8169 :03:00.0: firmware: failed to load 
rtl_nic/rtl8168d-2.fw (-2)
[8.573471] r8169 :03:00.0: Direct firmware load for 
rtl_nic/rtl8168d-2.fw failed with error -2
[8.573474] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: unable to load firmware patch 
rtl_nic/rtl8168d-2.fw (-2)
[8.586684] Adding 4192252k swap on /dev/sdd5.  Priority:-1 extents:1 
across:4192252k SSFS
[8.596929] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
[8.596942] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
[8.600278] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): enp3s0: link is not ready
[8.736961] nouveau :01:00.0: DRM: allocated 1920x1080 fb: 0x7, bo 
9d6871b94000
[8.737221] fbcon: nouveaufb (fb0) is primary device
[8.898561] Bluetooth: BNEP (Ethernet Emulation) ver 1.3
[8.898561] Bluetooth: BNEP filters: protocol multicast
[8.898565] Bluetooth: BNEP socket layer initialized
[8.912321] Console: switching to colour frame buffer device 240x67
[8.914710] nouveau :01:00.0: fb0: nouveaufb frame buffer device
[8.934024] [drm] Initialized nouveau 1.3.1 20120801 for :01:00.0 on 
minor 0
[   10.782549] input: HDA NVidia HDMI/DP,pcm=3 as 
/devices/pci:00/:00:02.0/:01:00.1/sound/card1/input23
[   10.782624] input: HDA NVidia HDMI/DP,pcm=7 as 
/devices/pci:00/:00:02.0/:01:00.1/sound/card1/input24
[   10.782690] input: HDA NVidia HDMI/DP,pcm=8 as 
/devices/pci:00/:00:02.0/:01:00.1/sound/card1/input25
[   10.782756] input: HDA NVidia HDMI/DP,pcm=9 as 
/devices/pci:00/:00:02.0/:01:00.1/sound/card1/input26
[   11.160955] fuse init (API version 7.26)
[   16.181809] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
[   16.181825] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): enp3s0: link becomes ready
[   57.501798] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
[   74.041344] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
[   74.977952] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
[   79.850298] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
[  161.205363] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
[  180.008520] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
[  183.550534] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
[  188.145323] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
[  335.644775] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link down
[  362.971011] r8169 :03:00.0 enp3s0: link up
Feb 14 18:04:45 Dragonette systemd[1]: anacron.timer: Adding 37.021175s random 
time.
Feb 14 18:11:35 Dragonette dhclient[1355]: DHCPREQUEST of 192.168.1.100 on 
enp3s0 to 192.168.1.1 port 67
Feb 14 18:11:39 Dragonette dhclient[1355]: DHCPREQUEST of 192.168.1.100 on 
enp3s0 to 192.168.1.1 port 67
Feb 14 18:11:46 Dragonette dhclient[1355

Re: Ethernet connection dropped

[Henning Follmann]

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 02:08:10PM -0500, Thomas George wrote:
> Starting last week the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made at
> bootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I have found
> to re-establish the connection is to turn the router off and on again.
> 
> The system is Debian Stretch. I run apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade
> occasionally and this problem may have started after such an upgrade.
> 
> I use to be very familiar with setting /etc/network/interfaces for eth0 as
> either a static or dhcp connection and using ifconfig, ifdown eth0 and ifup
> eth0 but overtime this became unnecessary as the system automatically made
> the ethernet connection. Now with Stretch and the dist-upgrades all this has
> changed. Ifconfig now shows the connection as epn3s0 and Wicd Network
> Manager has been installed.
> 
> When the Ethernet connection is lost Wicd cannot restore it. The Ethernet
> cable connection light on so the wired connection is not lost.  Still the
> only way I have found to restore the system connection to turn off and
> restart the router.
> 
> Clearly I am very out of date with system changes and need to catch up. Any
> suggestions as to where to start?
> 
> 

Log or it didn't happen.

-H

-- 
Henning Follmann   | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com

Re: Ethernet connection dropped

[Brian]

On Tue 30 Jan 2018 at 14:08:10 -0500, Thomas George wrote:

> Starting last week the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made at
> bootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I have found
> to re-establish the connection is to turn the router off and on again.

Problems which occur "sometimes" or "occasionally" can be amongst the
most intractable to diagnose. Add in a possible flaky router or internet
connection and there are hours of endless fun ahead!

> The system is Debian Stretch. I run apt-get update and apt-get dist-upgrade
> occasionally and this problem may have started after such an upgrade.

Unlikely. (But you have logs to tell you whether anything related to
networking was updated).
 
> I use to be very familiar with setting /etc/network/interfaces for eth0 as
> either a static or dhcp connection and using ifconfig, ifdown eth0 and ifup
> eth0 but overtime this became unnecessary as the system automatically made
> the ethernet connection. Now with Stretch and the dist-upgrades all this has
> changed. Ifconfig now shows the connection as epn3s0 and Wicd Network
> Manager has been installed.

ifupdown also makes ethernet connections automatically. It all depends
on what your needs are whether it is a network management program you
wish to use.

> When the Ethernet connection is lost Wicd cannot restore it. The Ethernet
> cable connection light on so the wired connection is not lost.  Still the
> only way I have found to restore the system connection to turn off and
> restart the router.
>
> Clearly I am very out of date with system changes and need to catch up. Any
> suggestions as to where to start?

I would purge wicd and any other network management programs from the
system, apart from ifupdown and isc-dhcp-client. Comment out all lines
in /etc/network/interfaces and have just

allow-hotplug epn3s0
iface epn3s0 inet dhcp

Reboot and monitor.

-- 
Brian.

Ethernet connection dropped

[Thomas George]

Starting last week the PC Ethernet connection is sometimes not made at 
bootup or is occasionally lost. When this happens the only way I have 
found to re-establish the connection is to turn the router off and on again.


The system is Debian Stretch. I run apt-get update and apt-get 
dist-upgrade occasionally and this problem may have started after such 
an upgrade.


I use to be very familiar with setting /etc/network/interfaces for eth0 
as either a static or dhcp connection and using ifconfig, ifdown eth0 
and ifup eth0 but overtime this became unnecessary as the system 
automatically made the ethernet connection. Now with Stretch and the 
dist-upgrades all this has changed. Ifconfig now shows the connection as 
epn3s0 and Wicd Network Manager has been installed.


When the Ethernet connection is lost Wicd cannot restore it. The 
Ethernet cable connection light on so the wired connection is not lost.  
Still the only way I have found to restore the system connection to turn 
off and restart the router.


Clearly I am very out of date with system changes and need to catch up. 
Any suggestions as to where to start?

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Joel Rees]

One comment to the thread subject, rather than to any particular post.

We would do well to remember that trying to participate in a mailing
list or a newsgroup with an MUA is an inherent contradiction in
purpose.

Put another way, ordinary e-mail and postings to newsgroups and
mailing lists are two rather different kinds of things, even though
they share certain common features and have certain features that
appear the same but are not.

Joel Rees
--
http://defining-computers.blogspot.jp/p/what-on-earth-are-internet-service.html

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:37:40PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

[...]

> > I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so
> > if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead!
> 
> Thank you!  I accept.  Fortunately for you, and sadly for me, I'm not allowed 
> by my doctors to drink Chateau d'Yquem, so I shall have to toast you in fizzy 
> mineral water.

Wouh. Bad doctors, bad. In my case it's the bankers. No Yquem for us :-(

> > Believe me or not -- it was never my intention to troll. 
> 
> I do believe you!  Though how on earth you managed to sit through what we 
> were 
> saying, and especially what I was saying off list, without checking your 
> headers or settings, does somewhat bemuse me. :-/  
> 
> The trouble is, I know what I mean to type, so that is what I see.  
> Presumably 
> you knew what your settings were supposed to be, so that is what you saw.

Something like that, yes. Perhaps the root of most stubbornness.

> > Hanlon's razor [...]

> The older I get, the truer I see that that is.
> 
> I apologise for misspelling your name.  That is something I try to be 
> meticulous about, but I had never till now noticed the accent.  Though I had 
> noticed that you do not use an initial capital.

No worries. I moved a couple of times across Europe and my spelling changed
accordingly. I don't consider it a part of my personality :-)

regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYl5M8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaOOQCeL8hBQsfhVc+je5xopmSUPXKu
g/AAniqGQIyMarS2lC6gd3/goV4CJrZh
=5XNB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Joe]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +1300
Chris Bannister  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > tomas said:
> > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky
> > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do
> > > his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for
> > > this purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*)  
> > 
> > Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we
> > should try to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as
> > possible on our sides).  
> 
> So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out
> of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code?
> 

A little way, not too far.

It's not really a matter of getting one more unsolicited email in
this day and age, the point of this kind of list is to stand as an
archive, so that the various answers to the questions, and just as
importantly, the wanderings down the byways, remain to help others in
the future.

-- 
Joe

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Lisi Reisz]

On Monday 19 October 2015 08:28:16 Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +1300
>
> Chris Bannister  wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > tomas said:
> > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky
> > > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do
> > > > his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for
> > > > this purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*)
> > >
> > > Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we
> > > should try to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as
> > > possible on our sides).
> >
> > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out
> > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code?
>
> A little way, not too far.
>
> It's not really a matter of getting one more unsolicited email in
> this day and age, the point of this kind of list is to stand as an
> archive, so that the various answers to the questions, and just as
> importantly, the wanderings down the byways, remain to help others in
> the future.

Quite.  And that will only work if people reply to list and do not break the 
threads.

Lisi

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:41:38PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 21:17:46 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

[...]

> > You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible.
> 
> I know it is, but not with a simple three or four line procmail recipe
> alone.

[...]

> > That's right. But you can catch most of it.
> 
> Even if "most" is possible it is not good enough.
> 
> A thread of more recent vintage is at
> 
>   https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00012.html
> 
> There is a technique (and an implementation of it) described which
> ensures list mails get to a list folder and CCs are deleted. See what
> you think.

Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should
be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this
CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all.

regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEUEARECAAYFAlYklFoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kawxACdF6eGPwGAm1jjH8MSmB883nlX
b2sAmJtoDg2KS/TFhvKhnIFFn8z79So=
=z8v8
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Lisi Reisz]

On Monday 19 October 2015 07:47:53 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:47:02PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > tomas said:
> > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky
> > > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do
> > > > his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for this
> > > > purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*)
>
> [...]
>
> > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out
> > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code?
>
> *sigh*
>
> I give up. Do whatever you want.

Of course Chris will do what he wants, and not what you want.  Why should he 
do anything else?  

But you are *still* not following the code.  You have addressed that to Chris 
with a cc to the list.  You seem to think that you should dictate how the 
list behaves and that the CoC is an aberration that OUGHT to be ignored. 

As I said to you, "you are sending them (these double copies)
deliberately, and being a nuisance deliberately.  Another word  for that is 
trolling."

Lisi

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Lisi Reisz]

On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should
> be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this
> CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all.

Hallelujah!  Thank you, tomas.  That went to the list only, with nary a sign 
of a copy to Brian.

Lisi

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:47:02PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > tomas said:
> > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about 
> > > *not*
> > > being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and 
> > > express
> > > this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* 
> > > scolding
> > > others <:*)

[...]

> So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out
> of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code?

*sigh*

I give up. Do whatever you want.
- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYkkhkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZiuACfaw5Orylpi4kMM9V5R4HU/srp
SLUAni7p9umRSJgIH5NlLhS0GQ3PGnUV
=Dqk6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 18 October 2015 20:21:49 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote:
> > > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > tomas said:
> > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about
> > *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and
> > express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least
> > *before* scolding others <:*)
> >
> > Well, I am picky about not being cc'ed.  I have tried to be polite.  I
> > have asked tomas, who thinks I should do something in my headers, how to
> > do it. He tells me I can't.  So now I feel free to "scold others".
>
> Well, be fair :-) I said you can in most of the cases.

No you didn't.  You said that I should be polite and "express this wish with 
the headers in use for this purpose", but you have no idea how this can be 
done.  See above.

Lisi

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Chris Bannister]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:57:30AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should
> be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this
> CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all.

As in a another post of mine where I mentioned that because the list is
open then it makes sense to CC a poster if they appear to be newbie and
you're not sure if they're subscribed.

Also I've seen some posts where the OP has asked to be CC'd and
subsequent replies have been to the list only.

It may seem like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm suggesting that
discretion is required. I have seen some threads where the OP has
requested help installing Debian and there's been about 10 replies with
requests for more information and the OP hasn't replied to any of them,
doesn't it make sense to CC the OP in that case, just to at least ensure
that no one is 'talking to a brick wall'?

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Lisi Reisz]

On Monday 19 October 2015 09:44:56 Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:57:30AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should
> > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this
> > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all.
>
> As in a another post of mine where I mentioned that because the list is
> open then it makes sense to CC a poster if they appear to be newbie and
> you're not sure if they're subscribed.
>
> Also I've seen some posts where the OP has asked to be CC'd and
> subsequent replies have been to the list only.
>
> It may seem like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm suggesting that
> discretion is required. I have seen some threads where the OP has
> requested help installing Debian and there's been about 10 replies with
> requests for more information and the OP hasn't replied to any of them,
> doesn't it make sense to CC the OP in that case, just to at least ensure
> that no one is 'talking to a brick wall'?

At the risk of also seeming to contradict myself, I (almost) agree.  I was 
recently cc'ing someone who was having trouble with emails from the list (as 
were several other people).  

But that is quite different from replying personally to everyone who posts to 
the list, with a cc only to the list because ...   Because what?  the whole 
point of a mailing list is that it sends copies to everybody.

But the one point where I disagree is the sending a personal copy to anyone 
who appears to be a newbie.  I would want some sort of evidence that it was 
required.  Replying to the list from a personal copy is actually not easy in 
some email clients.  A newbie especially needs access to all the resources of 
the list.

Not replying to requests for information is a common occurrence, that has as 
much to do with personality as with the destination of emails.

And yes, people do sometimes forget to cc someone who has requested it.  Kind 
people then sometimes forward the replies.

Lisi

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:39:13AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should
> > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this
> > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all.
> 
> Hallelujah!  Thank you, tomas.  That went to the list only, with nary a sign 
> of a copy to Brian.

Well, that's embarrasing. Turns out I had a mistake in my setup.

I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so
if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead!

Believe me or not -- it was never my intention to troll. Hanlon's razor[1]
applies.

[1] "Never attribute to malice what can appropriately be explained by
 stupidity"

Regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYlDacACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY2wACfQEW4VB/TJhhn352KnlNWHPyZ
b+kAn1GjEDCP8wCJ2L2vTUhDB7nNixLE
=V4re
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Lisi Reisz]

On Monday 19 October 2015 16:35:03 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:39:13AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should
> > > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this
> > > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's
> > > all.
> >
> > Hallelujah!  Thank you, tomas.  That went to the list only, with nary a
> > sign of a copy to Brian.
>
> Well, that's embarrasing. Turns out I had a mistake in my setup.
>
> I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so
> if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead!

Thank you!  I accept.  Fortunately for you, and sadly for me, I'm not allowed 
by my doctors to drink Chateau d'Yquem, so I shall have to toast you in fizzy 
mineral water.

> Believe me or not -- it was never my intention to troll. 

I do believe you!  Though how on earth you managed to sit through what we were 
saying, and especially what I was saying off list, without checking your 
headers or settings, does somewhat bemuse me. :-/  

The trouble is, I know what I mean to type, so that is what I see.  Presumably 
you knew what your settings were supposed to be, so that is what you saw.

> Hanlon's razor[1] 
> applies.
>
> [1] "Never attribute to malice what can appropriately be explained by
>  stupidity"

The older I get, the truer I see that that is.

I apologise for misspelling your name.  That is something I try to be 
meticulous about, but I had never till now noticed the accent.  Though I had 
noticed that you do not use an initial capital.

Lisi

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > 
> > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be 
> > > discarded.
> > 
> > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of
> > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably
> > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will
> > arrive earlier.
> 
> Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail
> will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list
> mail will probably be disposed of.

You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible.

> > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where
> > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if
> > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself).
> > 
> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html
> 
> There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in
> the list folder,

That's right. But you can catch most of it.

Regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYj8FoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaONgCdEBjXM/jVsRNwIf1aCAWf1j1U
IzoAn33qRNJSjs+zO7luvgu2zX2zp/hU
=6UtH
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Brian]

On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 21:17:46 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be 
> > > > discarded.
> > > 
> > > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of
> > > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably
> > > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will
> > > arrive earlier.
> > 
> > Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail
> > will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list
> > mail will probably be disposed of.
> 
> You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible.

I know it is, but not with a simple three or four line procmail recipe
alone.

> > > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where
> > > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if
> > > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself).
> > > 
> > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html
> > 
> > There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in
> > the list folder,
> 
> That's right. But you can catch most of it.

Even if "most" is possible it is not good enough.

A thread of more recent vintage is at

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00012.html

There is a technique (and an implementation of it) described which
ensures list mails get to a list folder and CCs are deleted. See what
you think.

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Chris Bannister]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > tomas said:
> > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about 
> > *not*
> > being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express
> > this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* 
> > scolding
> > others <:*)
> 
> Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we should try
> to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as possible on our sides).

So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out
of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code?

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote:
> > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

[...]

> tomas said:
> Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not*
> being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express
> this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding
> others <:*)
> 
> Well, I am picky about not being cc'ed.  I have tried to be polite.  I have 
> asked tomas, who thinks I should do something in my headers, how to do it.   
> He tells me I can't.  So now I feel free to "scold others". 

Well, be fair :-) I said you can in most of the cases.

> The CoC says not to send cc's unless specifically requested.  It is not a lot 
> to ask that people should follow the CoC.  And I shall start following the 
> CoC and complaining, off list, every time, to everyone who cc's me.  Perhaps 
> then they will stop this pain of a practice.
> 
> It is perfectly reasonable that people should be asked to do one of three 
> things:
> 1) subscribe 
> or
> 2) read the archives 
> or
> 3) request a copy.

Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we should try
to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as possible on our sides).

That's all.

Regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYj8U0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaY+QCfbQKkq5Id5FpKRTrqtEmHfDTq
yoYAnAhMGs4Z+UiAfsz9sK4X2N1Ls2Zr
=rY1A
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Brian]

On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be 
> > discarded.
> 
> The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of
> procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably
> using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will
> arrive earlier.

Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail
will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list
mail will probably be disposed of.
 
> See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where
> our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if
> you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself).
> 
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html

There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in
the list folder,

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote:
> On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be
> > > discarded.
> >
> > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of
> > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably
> > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will
> > arrive earlier.
>
> Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail
> will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list
> mail will probably be disposed of.

Yes, it is.

> > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where
> > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if
> > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself).
> >
> > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html
>
> There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in
> the list folder,

tomas said:
Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not*
being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express
this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding
others <:*)

Well, I am picky about not being cc'ed.  I have tried to be polite.  I have 
asked tomas, who thinks I should do something in my headers, how to do it.   
He tells me I can't.  So now I feel free to "scold others". 

The CoC says not to send cc's unless specifically requested.  It is not a lot 
to ask that people should follow the CoC.  And I shall start following the 
CoC and complaining, off list, every time, to everyone who cc's me.  Perhaps 
then they will stop this pain of a practice.

It is perfectly reasonable that people should be asked to do one of three 
things:
1) subscribe 
or
2) read the archives 
or
3) request a copy.

Lisi

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Chris Bannister]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works
> > like a charm.
> 
> No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a * 
> nuisance.  It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list.  
> This is a confounded nuisance.  And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC .  We 
> are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so.

Yeah, but the silly thing is that the list is open; anyone can post to
it, but you only get a reply if you are subscribed.

It's been discussed before, and it seems the consensus is that the onus
is on the original poster to hunt down the replies via the archives or
via google. I honestly don't think many people would do that and more
likely think they are being ignored which means ditching Debian for
something else particularly if it was an installation problem.

Most of us tend to know the regulars on this list and know not to CC
them on replies but in the case of where you are not sure and the post
seems like it's comming from a newcomer it makes more sense to CC them.

-- 
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the 
oppressing." --- Malcolm X

Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0300, Reco wrote:

[...]

We are seriously off-topic by now. I'd propose to take this off-list.
It has been hashed out to death numerous times and the result has
always been well, duh, opinions differ.

> You mean *this* Mail-Followup-To?
> 
> http://paul.jakma.org/2009/07/08/mail-followup-to-considered-harmful/
> 
> Thanks, but no. Reply-To should be sufficient.

Just because some bloke on the Internet shares your taste it doesn't
mean he shares mine.

Regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYjO8kACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY7zgCggYwb0/c5wGcAfTXLExraYBOO
6skAniU4E0mD2S6GR/6hNtbY+IofLcy5
=+PQ6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works
> > like a charm.
> 
> No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a * 
> nuisance.  It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list.  
> This is a confounded nuisance.  And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC .  We 
> are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so.

Procmail does a wonderful job of that.

Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not*
being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express
this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding
others <:*)

But harmful and that.

Regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYjPaIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaZ/QCfdZq+IeVtnEbS6NINvxF6EOiK
V1oAni8WIydYt6WXxbjPuU5ltqr1Eohe
=EHPh
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Reco]

Hi.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:27:21 +0200
 wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> We are seriously off-topic by now. I'd propose to take this off-list.
> It has been hashed out to death numerous times and the result has
> always been well, duh, opinions differ.
> 
> > You mean *this* Mail-Followup-To?
> > 
> > http://paul.jakma.org/2009/07/08/mail-followup-to-considered-harmful/
> > 
> > Thanks, but no. Reply-To should be sufficient.
> 
> Just because some bloke on the Internet shares your taste it doesn't
> mean he shares mine.

True. The only problem is - this very e-mail I'm replying to does not
contain Mail-Followup-To nor Followup-To :) Without a doubt it must be
related to your mutt or postfix configuration somehow.

Recp

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:12:53PM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:
> On Sat, October 17, 2015 4:58 pm, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC ...
> 
> Speaking of the Code of Conduct, a matter of much greater import is a
> severe constraint which is being forced upon e-mail users in general by
> the stupid and widespread practice of (1) associating an e-mail account
> with a cellular telephone number and (2) configuring so-called
> "smartphones" to sound an alert when a e-mail is received.

E-mail has never been in the interest of Big Corp: it's fairly
decentralized, has stable, open standards which are not totally
decommoditized[1] and it kinda works. Can't be really monetized
(at least not with a high margin).

You'll see Big Corp trying to (and perhaps succeeding in) kill e-mail,
starting by implementing horrendous clients (Outlook, anyone) and
MTAs (won't name names here). This very company is running around
my employer (a biggish company too) croaking "Mail is dead!" "Use Tah
Cloud!". Well, duh.

The case you mention above is just another brick in this wall.

Regards

[1] http://www.levien.com/free/decommoditizing.html

- -- tomas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYjP6oACgkQBcgs9XrR2kawCACeKeTSZq40fNQ7CRwX/TfQyTT6
c+cAnRDEqkivMEx/qbhjoDsEGYxnDHwo
=0lkq
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 01:07:45PM +0300, Reco wrote:

[Mail-Followup-T]

> True. The only problem is - this very e-mail I'm replying to does not
> contain Mail-Followup-To nor Followup-To :) Without a doubt it must be
> related to your mutt or postfix configuration somehow.

This is not a problem: *I* don't mind receiving CC. This header is a hint
by the sender (in the context of a mailing list) to where (s)he expects
the answers to go to. With a sensible mail reader, the responder just
has to choose "respond to list" and all is well.

So *you* may cc me or not, as stated in my headers (no ...followup-to).

Regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYjtQ8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb6ogCfUkv7hBOa0ZHSGnYRR2wy+5qH
y/4An3V7MB+NEoJUmNiSxHiifjv3dZXN
=diuq
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[Lisi Reisz]

On Sunday 18 October 2015 16:04:47 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>  With a sensible mail reader, the responder just
> has to choose "respond to list" and all is well.

Yes.  That is not the problem.  The problem is responders who *deliberately* 
don't respond to list.

You claim to know how to set one's email client to stop people responding 
personally.   My email in response to your last doesn't seem to have got 
through to the list; perhaps because of the screenshot.  So here it is 
without.

On Sunday 18 October 2015 07:35:14 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works
> > > like a charm.
> >
> > No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a *
> > nuisance.  It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list.
> > This is a confounded nuisance.  And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC .
> >  We are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so.
>
> Procmail does a wonderful job of that.
>
> Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about
> *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and
> express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least
> *before* scolding others <:*)

Taking that as personally aimed, nothing would give me greater pleasure.  I am 
simply not technically competent enough.  I refer above to  "my inability to 
configure KMail correctly".

I have a blank page in which to  " define custom mime header fields", and an 
opportunity to use a custom message-id suffix. (See attachment.)

What do I put, where, to achieve stopping these wretched cc's from landing in 
my private mail??

I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be 
discarded.

Lisi

Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Sunday 18 October 2015 16:04:47 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >  With a sensible mail reader, the responder just
> > has to choose "respond to list" and all is well.
> 
> Yes.  That is not the problem.  The problem is responders who *deliberately* 
> don't respond to list.

You can't stop those. (OK, the best you can do is "social engineering", aka
persuasion :)

> You claim to know how to set one's email client to stop people responding 
> personally.   My email in response to your last doesn't seem to have got 
> through to the list; perhaps because of the screenshot.  So here it is 
> without.

[...]

> > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about
> > *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and
> > express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least
> > *before* scolding others <:*)
> 
> Taking that as personally aimed, nothing would give me greater pleasure.  I 
> am 
> simply not technically competent enough.  I refer above to  "my inability to 
> configure KMail correctly".
> 
> I have a blank page in which to  " define custom mime header fields", and an 
> opportunity to use a custom message-id suffix. (See attachment.)
> 
> What do I put, where, to achieve stopping these wretched cc's from landing in 
> my private mail??

What you can do is, if you care, to set

  Mail-Followup-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org

This should convince most polite MUAs to do the right thing when the user
"replies to list". A more drastic measure would be to set

  Reply-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org

That won't kill all cc's: if someone does a "group reply" and/or if the
MUA is nasty enough...

> I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be 
> discarded.

The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of
procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably
using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will
arrive earlier.

See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where
our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if
you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself).

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html

Regards
- -- tomás







> 
> Lisi
> 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYjvncACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZzaACdG9kkfwxs8ACGV64XYcEL8Gvr
LoMAn2MkLSUsP9ShxFnrRnUbcOnplO4J
=KS/O
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Sat, October 17, 2015 4:58 pm, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC ...

Speaking of the Code of Conduct, a matter of much greater import is a
severe constraint which is being forced upon e-mail users in general by
the stupid and widespread practice of (1) associating an e-mail account
with a cellular telephone number and (2) configuring so-called
"smartphones" to sound an alert when a e-mail is received.

One of the great advantages of e-mail is that it allows each party to work
at his own convenience.  Each party composes messages, reads messages, and
replies to messages at a time which is convenient for him, taking little
or no thought as to the time zone or time of day of the recipient.

But with the advent of the absurd concept by which the smartphone rings
whenever an e-mail message is received, some of those with whom I
correspond are angered because I frequently dispatch e-mail messages in
the wee hours of the morning -- such as 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock, and 4
o'clock -- with the result that the smartphone awakens them from sleep.

I received a complaint from an associate who happens to be a
computer-illiterate physician.  When I explained the matter to him, he
protested that professional responsibility demands that he answer his
telephone whenever it rings, day or night.  I replied that he is acting
stupidly to have e-mail messages ring a number on which he habitually
receives emergency phone calls; and that, moreover, he is acting stupidly
to configure his smartphone ring at an inopportune time to announce every
e-mail which arrives, unless he has implemented a mechanism to block spam
as well as non-critical messages received late-night and early-morning.

But the one who complains of being awakened in the middle of the night by
an e-mail message is the same one who is fascinated by the ability of
"Siri" to recognize simple voice commands.  So I see little hope for
remedy, other than a routine, daily deluge of e-mail spam which is sent
between the hours of midnight and five A.M. until such time as smartphone
users tire of being awakened from sleep.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:51:22PM +0300, Reco wrote:

> PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to
> send CC on this list.

Reco,

before scolding someone on this, consider setting the "Followup-To" or
the "Mail-Followup-To" header. In a "no subscription required" mailing
list it makes some sense to cc the original posters, as one doesn't know
whether they'll receive a copy otherwise.

Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works
like a charm.

Regards
- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlYilYoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kah4ACfZk9sjZIPREest0ESTwuTmjOW
uDAAn38+yPQCQMhxmCMrBP7ooMysWMw+
=Glj+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Brian]

On Sat 17 Oct 2015 at 18:51:22 +0300, Reco wrote:

> Inability to read OP's mail carefully and in detail did you a
> disservice. You see, OP's problem was not about printer configuration.
> It was about Debian's network configuration.

It would be nice if the OP issued a disclaimer that Debian was at all
involved in his problem. In the absence of one I'll state that, although
the amount of help he received from -user was considerable, Debian had
nothing to do with the issue.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Reco]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:38:02 +0200
 wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:51:22PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> 
> > PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to
> > send CC on this list.
> 
> Reco,
> 
> before scolding someone on this, consider setting the "Followup-To" or
> the "Mail-Followup-To" header. In a "no subscription required" mailing
> list it makes some sense to cc the original posters, as one doesn't know
> whether they'll receive a copy otherwise.

You mean *this* Mail-Followup-To?

http://paul.jakma.org/2009/07/08/mail-followup-to-considered-harmful/

Thanks, but no. Reply-To should be sufficient.

Reco

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Reco]

Hi.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:09:11 -0400
"John D. Hendrickson"  wrote:

> Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> > 
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500
> > rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:
> > 
> >> Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to
> >> install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN)
> >> consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think
> >> also is router) and an ethernet switch.
> >>
> >> Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address
> >> 192.168.100.3.  The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated
> >> an ip address of 192.168.1.201.
> > 
> > Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer?
> > What about printer's MAC?
> > 
> > 
> >> It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the
> >> ip address.  But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet".
> >>
> >> Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie
> >> (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable.  NetworkManager Applet
> >> (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection.
> > 
> > NetworkManager is unnecessary complex tool for such simple task.
> > A simple sequence of 'ip link set' and 'ip address add' is sufficient
> > for such things.
> > 
> >  
> >> And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer. 
> >> If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I
> >> think that the printer should utilize DHCP.
> > 
> > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle
> > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the
> > printer uses DHCP for configuration.
> 
> oh this new model supports DHCP has no security

A security of a printer is a novel concept indeed. For HP, at least.


> all you have to do is print a test page

It's not my printer. I would never waste my money for this model. Or
any printer made by HP, for that matter.


> all questions are answered in the user and serviee manuals

Inability to read OP's mail carefully and in detail did you a
disservice. You see, OP's problem was not about printer configuration.
It was about Debian's network configuration.

 
> which makes me wonder if this is not a fake question posted by and then 
> supposedly solved by the same person

Dear John. While a good conspiracy theory should contain at least some
wild accusations, it should also answer "who benefits" question and
contain at least one eclectic assertion. Yours in kind of lacking in
that regard.

PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to
send CC on this list.

Reco

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Lisi Reisz]

On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works
> like a charm.

No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a * 
nuisance.  It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list.  
This is a confounded nuisance.  And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC .  We 
are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so.

Lisi

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Brian]

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 17:40:57 -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

> On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:11 pm, Brian wrote:
> > An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to the
> > external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know I have
> > much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the offing?
> 
> No; in the present (original) installation, the address (192.168.100.3) is
> assigned to the (Windows desktop) computer, and there is no router.
> 
> But, conceptually, is there anything wrong with assigning a private IP
> address to the WAN port of a router?

I don't get out much :). Thanks to David Wright for introducing me to
WISP and Joe for the clear explanation.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote:
> Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting
> the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original
> printer's address.

That, and not understanding that the ip address reported by Windows was
assigned by the DHCP server of the ISP.

> Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if
> not, you know what it is.

If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble.  The
day I was there, the address corresponding to the radio link happened to
be 192.168.100.3, but tomorrow it could be 192.168.100.123 or anything
else.

However, in another network about a year ago I plugged the WAN port of a
Wi-Fi router into the BLUE port of IPCop, and was using NAT and DHCP of
the Wi-Fi router together with a wired network on BLUE, so I am confident
that this setup is going to work.

For me, this has been an enlightening experience; and, from the standpoint
of time expended, expensive.

I am grateful to have received help from you and the others who frequent
this list.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Joe]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:11:45 +0100
Brian  wrote:


> 
> An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to
> the external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know
> I have much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the
> offing?
> 

That's an easy one. An ISP unwilling or unable to lease public addresses
for all his customers. In the old days, there was just a modem pool,
much smaller than the number of customers, but now everyone is online
all the time. It's not unusual with the really big domestic ISPs who
came to the game too late (or were in the wrong country) to get enough
addresses.

It also ensures that nobody runs any kind of service, and the other
side of that coin is that nobody can try to break in apart from other
customers on the same broadcast domain. Less helpdesk hassle. The moral
is that if you're changing ISP and you want a public address, make sure
first that you'll be getting one.

-- 
Joe

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Joe]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:47:22 -0500
rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

> On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:27 pm, Felix Miata wrote:
> > An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a
> > WAN nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it
> > should function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned
> > in your OP.  
> 
> Perhaps I do not understand, but I (in my revised plan) I intend to
> connect the WAN port of the WRT110 to the ethernet port of the
> ISP-supplied radio (DHCP ip address 192.168.100.3) and to plug the
> computer and printer into the LAN ports of the WRT110.
> 
> My goal is to allow the computer to communicate on the one hand with
> the ISP, and, on the other hand, with the printer.
> 

Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting
the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the
original printer's address.

Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if
not, you know what it is.

-- 
Joe

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Joe]

On 16/10/2015 09:13, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote:



Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if
not, you know what it is.


If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble.  The
day I was there, the address corresponding to the radio link happened to
be 192.168.100.3, but tomorrow it could be 192.168.100.123 or anything
else.



If Windows can do it, so can a router with a DHCP client. My Linksys 
router is not currently used and is somewhere in my loft, and I can't 
recall the model number, but it certainly picked up the WAN address by 
DHCP. I still have a reservation in my DHCP server for it.


--
Joe

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[David Wright]

Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net):
> On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote:
> > Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting
> > the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original
> > printer's address.
> 
> That, and not understanding that the ip address reported by Windows was
> assigned by the DHCP server of the ISP.
> 
> > Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if
> > not, you know what it is.
> 
> If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble.  The
> day I was there, the address corresponding to the radio link happened to
> be 192.168.100.3, but tomorrow it could be 192.168.100.123 or anything
> else.

One of the first configuration screens in the router will be the
WAN/Internet configuration where the router will need to know if you
have to login to the ISP (copy credentials from the Windows machine)
and how to get its IP address. Most people will get theirs dynamically
from the ISP. The fact that the address they issue is in a private
range doesn't make any difference to you if you're not running an
external service for the Internet.

On the LAN side of the router, it (the router) will run another
private network. If you run it on 192.168.100.xx then the fact that
it's the same range as the WAN is really no more than a coincidence.
They are separate private networks.

Personally, I would run 192.168.1.xx on the LAN because (a) I suspect
more than half the world does and (b) my router has no DNS server
built into it, so I have to maintain /etc/hosts on my machines. I
like the numbers there to be instantly and instinctively recognisable
as host IP#s. One less thing to remember.

Cheers,
David.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Reco]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:
> On Thu, October 15, 2015 1:30 am, Reco wrote:
> > Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer?
> > What about printer's MAC?
> 
> Yes; the title is "JetDirect Configuration Page", which provides the
> following:
> 
> IP ADDRESS: 192.168.1.210
> SUBNET MASK: 255.255.255.0
> DEF. GATEWAY: 192.168.1.1
> LAN HW ADDRESS: 0010835D432B
> 
> I presume that the "LAN HW ADDRESS:" is the mac address.

So do I.

> > NetworkManager is unnecessary complex tool for such simple task.
> > A simple sequence of 'ip link set' and 'ip address add' is sufficient
> > for such things.
> 
> Understood; but NetWorkManager is installed by default by the Debian
> installer when Xfce is specified in Jessie.  Can I make use of
> NetworkManager, or ignore it?

Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch.

Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface
(eth0 for simplicity).

Run (as root):

ip l s dev eth0 up
ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24

"ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed.
"arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B.

If you see all this - you're good and can proceed with:

telnet 192.168.1.210


> > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle
> > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the
> > printer uses DHCP for configuration.
> 
> I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here.  I installed tcpdump.  I
> see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67.

So the printer uses statically assinged IP. This simplifies things :)

Reco

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 1:30 am, Reco wrote:
> Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer?
> What about printer's MAC?

Yes; the title is "JetDirect Configuration Page", which provides the
following:

IP ADDRESS: 192.168.1.210
SUBNET MASK: 255.255.255.0
DEF. GATEWAY: 192.168.1.1
LAN HW ADDRESS: 0010835D432B

I presume that the "LAN HW ADDRESS:" is the mac address.


> NetworkManager is unnecessary complex tool for such simple task.
> A simple sequence of 'ip link set' and 'ip address add' is sufficient
> for such things.

Understood; but NetWorkManager is installed by default by the Debian
installer when Xfce is specified in Jessie.  Can I make use of
NetworkManager, or ignore it?


> You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle
> the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the
> printer uses DHCP for configuration.

I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here.  I installed tcpdump.  I
see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Joe]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500
rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

> Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to
> install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN)
> consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I
> think also is router) and an ethernet switch.
> 
> Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address
> 192.168.100.3.  The HP2100 printed a configuration report which
> indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201.
> 
> It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure
> the ip address.  But the Windows command prompt did not understand
> "telnet".

I think you just missed it, until Win7 there was a Telnet client. You
can install/enable one (genuine MS) on 8, I have done it but a while
ago, the details are out there somewhere.
> 
> Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie
> (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable.  NetworkManager Applet
> (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection.
> 
> I though that perhaps a "cross-over" ethernet cable might be
> required, so I placed an ethernet switch and two "straight" cables
> between the laptop and the printer; but again NetworkManager Applet
> (0.9.10.0) failed to make a connection.

Either way should work, only 10Mbit Ethernet connections cannot do this
without a crossover cable, and are usually the best ways of talking to a
new network device, without other devices adding confusion. Network
Manager can be persuaded to create a new fixed IP address configuration
to set your laptop to something in the 192.168.1. network. If you do
not mark it 'Auto', NM will not attempt to use it without explicitly
being told to, or of course you can delete the connection after use.

Yes, there are simpler ways to set a fixed address, but if you already
have NM running, it is easier to work with it than against it.

You can, just about, persuade Win8 to use a fixed address, but NM is
far easier.
> 
> So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to
> connect a computer directly to a printer without a router to manage
> the connection.

Yes.
> 
> And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this
> printer. If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP
> server, then I think that the printer should utilize DHCP.
> 
A printer, being a server, generally has a fixed IP address, and
Windows will need to be given it. Modern printers often have an LCD
display through which configurations can be made. I'd expect one with
an Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration.

> At the moment I am ignorant concerning the modem and/or router,
> because they are hidden behind desks and boxes, so that visual
> inspection is going to necessitate moving things in the office, which
> my associate is not going to enjoy.
> 
Best not go there... you shouldn't need to disturb anything. If the
router is indeed running DHCP, and that would be expected in this sort
of network, then you do really need to know its IP address range, for
which you will need to login with the admin password, but you don't
need to see it physically. If this password is unavailable, and it may
well still be whatever Google tells you is the factory default for
this model, then try setting the printer to the address adjacent to the
router's. The chances are that the router address pool has a gap of
several addresses around that of the router.

If you really want to get fancy and you have admin access to the
router, you can set the printer to DHCP, note its MAC address and then
tell the router DHCP server to make a reservation for a particular
address for the printer within its pool. It will then always give this
address to the printer, but by DHCP.

-- 
Joe

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Martin Smith]

On 15/10/2015 06:34, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to
install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN)
consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think
also is router) and an ethernet switch.

Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address
192.168.100.3.  The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated
an ip address of 192.168.1.201.

It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the
ip address.  But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet".


with most laser printers you can access their control interface with a 
browser,
just connect your laptop directly to it and point your browser at the 
address the printer gives,
this is assuming it does not have a front panel you can access, I dont 
off hand know the 2100.
You will need to adjust the subnet on your laptop of course, but that is 
all.




Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie
(with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable.  NetworkManager Applet
(0.9.10.0) did not make a connection.

I though that perhaps a "cross-over" ethernet cable might be required, so
I placed an ethernet switch and two "straight" cables between the laptop
and the printer; but again NetworkManager Applet (0.9.10.0) failed to make
a connection.

So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to connect a
computer directly to a printer without a router to manage the connection.

And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer.
If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I
think that the printer should utilize DHCP.

At the moment I am ignorant concerning the modem and/or router, because
they are hidden behind desks and boxes, so that visual inspection is going
to necessitate moving things in the office, which my associate is not
going to enjoy.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 2:33 am, Martin Smith wrote:
> with most laser printers you can access their control interface with a
> browser, just connect your laptop directly to it and point your browser at
> the address the printer gives, this is assuming it does not have a front
> panel you can access, I dont off hand know the 2100. You will need to
> adjust the subnet on your laptop of course, but that is all.

No, the hp2100tn has no panel; only a pair of buttons and a few LEDs.

And the 2100 may be a little old to have a web administrative interface. 
I did, after much searching, finally find some information regarding
changing parameters using telnet.

Using the browser also occurred to me.  But the little icon of the
NetworkManager Applet kept spinning, so no connection was made.

And I tried to create a new network connection in NetworkManager Applet,
using 192.168.100.x, but at that point it was getting too late in a long
day for me to think clearly.

So I am thinking now that my real need is to learn enough about
NetworkManager Applet that I can create a new network connection.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Reco]

Hi.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500
rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

> Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to
> install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN)
> consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think
> also is router) and an ethernet switch.
> 
> Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address
> 192.168.100.3.  The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated
> an ip address of 192.168.1.201.

Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer?
What about printer's MAC?


> It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the
> ip address.  But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet".
> 
> Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie
> (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable.  NetworkManager Applet
> (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection.

NetworkManager is unnecessary complex tool for such simple task.
A simple sequence of 'ip link set' and 'ip address add' is sufficient
for such things.

 
> And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer. 
> If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I
> think that the printer should utilize DHCP.

You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle
the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the
printer uses DHCP for configuration.

Reco

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:18 am, Joe wrote:
> I think you just missed it, until Win7 there was a Telnet client. You
> can install/enable one (genuine MS) on 8, I have done it but a while ago,
> the details are out there somewhere.

Installing anything on the other guy's machine is asking for trouble; that
is why I brought along my own laptop.

And now I have the printer here.  I plan not to go back until it is
configured.


> Either way should work, only 10Mbit Ethernet connections cannot do this
> without a crossover cable

That is good to know.

> Network
> Manager can be persuaded to create a new fixed IP address configuration
> to set your laptop to something in the 192.168.1. network. If you do not
> mark it 'Auto', NM will not attempt to use it without explicitly being
> told to, or of course you can delete the connection after use.

Understood.  That is my project after I get a bit of sleep.


>> So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to
>> connect a computer directly to a printer without a router to manage the
>> connection.
>
> Yes.

That is good to know.

> A printer, being a server, generally has a fixed IP address, and
> Windows will need to be given it.

At the moment, the office has one computer and a USB inkjet printer. It
appears to me that not many people today have a laser printer.

> Modern printers often have an LCD
> display through which configurations can be made.

But not the hp2100tn.

> I'd expect one with an
> Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration.

I have not yet found mention of one regarding the hp2100tn.

> Best not go there... you shouldn't need to disturb anything. If the
> router is indeed running DHCP, and that would be expected in this sort of
> network, then you do really need to know its IP address range, for which
> you will need to login with the admin password, but you don't need to see
> it physically.

I am beginning to regret that I got into this.  The modem or modem-router
is supplied by a small ISP which serves a rural region.  The ISP may not
allow the customer to change the configuration.


> If this password is unavailable, ...
> then try
> setting the printer to the address adjacent to the router's.

I though that likely is the case; the computer is 192.168.100.3, so the
router likely is 192.168.100.1, so my plan was to try 192.168.100.2 for
the printer.


> If you really want to get fancy and you have admin access to the
> router, you can set the printer to DHCP, note its MAC address and then
> tell
> the router DHCP server to make a reservation for a particular address for
> the printer within its pool. It will then always give this address to the
> printer, but by DHCP.

Understood; I have done that from time to time.

Thanks, Joe.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Brian]

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 03:45:24 -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

> On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:18 am, Joe wrote:
> 
> > I'd expect one with an
> > Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration.
> 
> I have not yet found mention of one regarding the hp2100tn.

nmap 
 
> > Best not go there... you shouldn't need to disturb anything. If the
> > router is indeed running DHCP, and that would be expected in this sort of
> > network, then you do really need to know its IP address range, for which
> > you will need to login with the admin password, but you don't need to see
> > it physically.
> 
> I am beginning to regret that I got into this.  The modem or modem-router
> is supplied by a small ISP which serves a rural region.  The ISP may not
> allow the customer to change the configuration.

Fit the printer to the router - not the router to the printer.

> > If this password is unavailable, ...
> > then try
> > setting the printer to the address adjacent to the router's.
> 
> I though that likely is the case; the computer is 192.168.100.3, so the
> router likely is 192.168.100.1, so my plan was to try 192.168.100.2 for
> the printer.

The factory defaults for the printer will use DHCP. Let it and the
router sort out an address. This involves much less expenditure of
time.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[David Wright]

Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk):
> On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 14:53:16 +0300, Reco wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:
> > > 
> > > I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here.  I installed tcpdump.  I
> > > see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67.
> > 
> > So the printer uses statically assinged IP. This simplifies things :)
> 
> Revert the printer to its factory defaults, which will use DHCP. [1] At
> the office it will pick up an address from the network it is on.
> 
> [1] HP have instructions on how to do this.

If you don't have a manual, download one from
https://archive.org/details/printermanual-hp-laserjet-2100-service-manual
and read chapters 3 (printer) and 6 (comms troubleshooting).

The other page that's useful is
http://h20564.www2.hp.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-bpj05678

Before you reset anything, get it to print the current configuration
that your colleagues may be relying on. Make sure you've got the page-
count: were you to hold the Job Cancel button *too* long when you do
your factory reset, you would clear this number. There's also a
separate network configuration page.

The reason I mentioned printing is that the web page above mentions
holding a button (Test in this instance) for anything up to 30
seconds. On your printer, that *would* clear your page count.

Then do your reset and see whether, when you switch it on and connect
it to the router, it automatically finds out what network it's on and
what it's address is. Assuming the network card has reset, it *could*
come up as 192.0.0.192 (but it shouldn't: DHCP should work).

Cheers,
David.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Brian]

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 14:53:16 +0300, Reco wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:
> > 
> > I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here.  I installed tcpdump.  I
> > see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67.
> 
> So the printer uses statically assinged IP. This simplifies things :)

Revert the printer to its factory defaults, which will use DHCP. [1] At
the office it will pick up an address from the network it is on.

[1] HP have instructions on how to do this.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:01 pm, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:
> My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but I
> understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I suppose
> include a firewall and DHCP server.  Have you any recommendations as to
> brand and model?

Is there anything wrong with using an old Wi-Fi router and turning off the
radio?  (My associate does not care for Wi-Fi.)

In my junkbox is a Cisco Linksys WRT110 which can serve four ethernet
devices.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Brian]

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote:
> > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the
> > network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet.
> 
> Brian -
> 
> Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share one IP 
> without some sort of routing?

It isn't a matter of sharing one IP but of being on the same network in
order to communicate. From an earlier post we have

  Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address
  192.168.100.3.  The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated
  an ip address of 192.168.1.201

It seems that the consensus is that 192.168.1.201 is a fixed IP for the
printer. We will go with that.

If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an
IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Reco]

 Hi.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:01:01 -0500
rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

> On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote:
> > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch.
> >
> > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface
> > (eth0 for simplicity).
> >
> > Run (as root):
> >
> > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24
> >
> > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed.
> > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B.
> >
> > telnet 192.168.1.210
> 
> Reco, this works perfectly.  Many thanks for including all the details.

You're welcome.


> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is
> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP
> server of the ISP.
> 
> So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and
> configure a router.

And force it to obtain that lease from ISP's DHCP, I presume.


> My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but I
> understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I suppose
> include a firewall and DHCP server.  Have you any recommendations as to
> brand and model?

Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as
 (and require special training). Cheap
models are spyware-ridden. 
Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to
design anything remotely good even if someone's life would depend on
it.
Which leaves us with … Trendnet or Asus, I suppose. Or anything
else you can re-flash with openwrt with minimal hassle.

Last point is crucial. Do not trust router vendor 'firmware' unless
necessary. In the case of the doubt you put openwrt on it, and if you
are unable to do so - stay away from that hardware.

Of course, you can do it old-fachioned style too - just get another
conventional PC with several NICs, and put Debian on it. But
reliability of such "solution" is something that's left to be desired
(and not because of Debian, of course :).

Reco

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Joe]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:57:13 +0300
Reco  wrote:


> Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as
>  (and require special training). Cheap
> models are spyware-ridden. 
> Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to
> design anything remotely good even if someone's life would depend on
> it.
> Which leaves us with … Trendnet or Asus, I suppose. Or anything
> else you can re-flash with openwrt with minimal hassle.
> 
> Last point is crucial. Do not trust router vendor 'firmware' unless
> necessary. In the case of the doubt you put openwrt on it, and if you
> are unable to do so - stay away from that hardware.
> 

Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing
between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more
spyware-ridden than Windows?

-- 
Joe

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:11 pm, Brian wrote:
> An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to the
> external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know I have
> much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the offing?

No; in the present (original) installation, the address (192.168.100.3) is
assigned to the (Windows desktop) computer, and there is no router.

But, conceptually, is there anything wrong with assigning a private IP
address to the WAN port of a router?

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:27 pm, Felix Miata wrote:
> An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a WAN
> nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it should
> function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned in your OP.

Perhaps I do not understand, but I (in my revised plan) I intend to
connect the WAN port of the WRT110 to the ethernet port of the
ISP-supplied radio (DHCP ip address 192.168.100.3) and to plug the
computer and printer into the LAN ports of the WRT110.

My goal is to allow the computer to communicate on the one hand with the
ISP, and, on the other hand, with the printer.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Pascal Hambourg]

Reco a écrit :
> 
> You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle
> the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the
> printer uses DHCP for configuration.

/To/ 0.0.0.0 ? AFAIK, 0.0.0.0 is not a valid destination address, and
DHCP requests are sent to the broadcast address 255.255.255.255.

0.0.0.0 is the client source address until it obtains an IP address from
the server.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Brian]

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 22:10:43 +0100, Joe wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100
> Brian  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote:  
> > > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match
> > > > the network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet.  
> > > 
> > > Brian -
> > > 
> > > Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share
> > > one IP without some sort of routing?  
> > 
> > It isn't a matter of sharing one IP but of being on the same network
> > in order to communicate. From an earlier post we have
> > 
> >   Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address
> >   192.168.100.3.  The HP2100 printed a configuration report which
> > indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201
> > 
> > It seems that the consensus is that 192.168.1.201 is a fixed IP for
> > the printer. We will go with that.
> > 
> > If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an
> > IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job.
> > 
> 
> I assume that was a typo. I believe Windows does allow multiple IP
> addresses on one adaptor, but I haven't tried it, and I suspect MS
> would describe it as 'unsupported'. If you move the printer into the
> 192.168.3. network there must be a risk than another customer of the
> same ISP will be given whatever address you choose.

Yes. 192.168.100.201

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 4:03 pm, Joe wrote:
> Pretty much any of the well-known names should be OK,
...

Thanks, Joe.  I am saving this email for the next time I need a router.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Lisi Reisz]

On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote:
> No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the
> network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet.

Brian -

Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share one IP 
without some sort of routing?

Lisi

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:59 pm, David Wright wrote:
> Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net):
>> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is
>> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the
>> DHCP server of the ISP.
> If you really mean this, then what are the devices that "are hidden
> behind desks and boxes ... in the office"?
...
> If, as seems more likely, there's some sort of router back there

I have no idea what is behind the desks and boxes, except that which I
have been told by the ISP.  According to the ISP, there is one device
connected to an external antenna.  The device is a radio receiver (not
Wi-Fi) which has a single ethernet jack and delivers a single IP address.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 2:42 pm, Doug wrote:
> It should be easy to change, following instructions that came
> with the printer.

But that is the essence of the problem!  The instructions which came with
the printer (which are buried in a HP2100TN user manual which I found on
line) end with the instruction to insert the HP administration utility CD,
which CD I do not have and have not yet found.  But even if I had the CD,
it almost surely is for an early version of Windows.

However, the good news is that when I access the hp2100tn with telnet, the
printer advertises several commands, including a listing of current
parameter settings and instructions on how to change individual
parameters.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Lisi Reisz]

On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:58:21 Brian wrote:
> On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote:
> > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the
> > > network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet.
> >
> > Brian -
> >
> > Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share one IP
> > without some sort of routing?
>
> It isn't a matter of sharing one IP but of being on the same network in
> order to communicate. From an earlier post we have
>
>   Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address
>   192.168.100.3.  The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated
>   an ip address of 192.168.1.201
>
> It seems that the consensus is that 192.168.1.201 is a fixed IP for the
> printer. We will go with that.
>
> If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an
> IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job.

Thanks.

Lisi

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Felix Miata]

rlhar...@oplink.net composed on 2015-10-15 17:06 (UTC-0500):

> I have read numerous articles on security and I think that I understand
> the issues.  However, I need a solution, if possible, by tomorrow.  The
> WRT110 is here on my desk; it works and costs me nothing.

An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a WAN
nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it should
function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned in your OP. Why
you failed with that switch I have no idea. It should have worked, unless one
of the ethernet cables was in fact a crossover cable or otherwise a bad
cable. With two regular ethernet cables, either original switch or the WRT110
should behave just like a crossover cable connection directly between printer
and PC's NIC.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Brian]

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 15:01:01 -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

> On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote:
> > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch.
> >
> > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface
> > (eth0 for simplicity).
> >
> > Run (as root):
> >
> > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24
> >
> > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed.
> > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B.
> >
> > telnet 192.168.1.210
> 
> Reco, this works perfectly.  Many thanks for including all the details.
> 
> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is
> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP
> server of the ISP.
> 
> So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and
> configure a router.

No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the
network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet.

(Martin Smith has already alluded to the same principle).

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Reco]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:53:29 +0200
Pascal Hambourg  wrote:

> Reco a écrit :
> > 
> > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle
> > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the
> > printer uses DHCP for configuration.
> 
> /To/ 0.0.0.0 ? AFAIK, 0.0.0.0 is not a valid destination address, and
> DHCP requests are sent to the broadcast address 255.255.255.255.
> 
> 0.0.0.0 is the client source address until it obtains an IP address from
> the server.

My mistake, thank you for the correction.

Reco

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[David Wright]

Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net):
> On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote:
> > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch.
> >
> > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface
> > (eth0 for simplicity).
> >
> > Run (as root):
> >
> > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24
> >
> > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed.
> > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B.
> >
> > telnet 192.168.1.210
> 
> Reco, this works perfectly.  Many thanks for including all the details.
> 
> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is
> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP
> server of the ISP.

If you really mean this, then what are the devices that "are hidden
behind desks and boxes ... in the office"?

If, as seems more likely, there's some sort of router back there, and
your colleague is using wireless, then there's likely to be an
unused ethernet socket on it which you should be able to connect to
your colleague's computer.

If that computer doesn't have one, does it have a plain old parallel
port? Bit old-fashioned but there we go.

Cheers,
David.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote:
> Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch.
>
> Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface
> (eth0 for simplicity).
>
> Run (as root):
>
> ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24
>
> "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed.
> "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B.
>
> telnet 192.168.1.210

Reco, this works perfectly.  Many thanks for including all the details.

And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is
receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP
server of the ISP.

So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and
configure a router.

My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but I
understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I suppose
include a firewall and DHCP server.  Have you any recommendations as to
brand and model?

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Joe]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100
Brian  wrote:

> On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote:  
> > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match
> > > the network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet.  
> > 
> > Brian -
> > 
> > Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share
> > one IP without some sort of routing?  
> 
> It isn't a matter of sharing one IP but of being on the same network
> in order to communicate. From an earlier post we have
> 
>   Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address
>   192.168.100.3.  The HP2100 printed a configuration report which
> indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201
> 
> It seems that the consensus is that 192.168.1.201 is a fixed IP for
> the printer. We will go with that.
> 
> If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an
> IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job.
> 

I assume that was a typo. I believe Windows does allow multiple IP
addresses on one adaptor, but I haven't tried it, and I suspect MS
would describe it as 'unsupported'. If you move the printer into the
192.168.3. network there must be a risk than another customer of the
same ISP will be given whatever address you choose.

-- 
Joe

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

On Thu, October 15, 2015 4:24 pm, Reco wrote:
>> Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing
>> between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more
>> spyware-ridden than Windows?
> But since OP has a freedom to choose,
> why not choose a good thing instead of known bad one?

I have read numerous articles on security and I think that I understand
the issues.  However, I need a solution, if possible, by tomorrow.  The
WRT110 is here on my desk; it works and costs me nothing.  And I plan to
turn off the Wi-Fi radio.

Russ

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Joe]

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:01:01 -0500
rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

> On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote:
> > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch.
> >
> > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface
> > (eth0 for simplicity).
> >
> > Run (as root):
> >
> > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24
> >
> > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed.
> > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B.
> >
> > telnet 192.168.1.210  
> 
> Reco, this works perfectly.  Many thanks for including all the
> details.
> 
> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is
> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the
> DHCP server of the ISP.
> 
> So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and
> configure a router.
> 
> My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but
> I understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I
> suppose include a firewall and DHCP server.  Have you any
> recommendations as to brand and model?
> 

Pretty much any of the well-known names should be OK, though I've seen
many people speak ill of Belkin. TP-Link probably do the widest range
of low-cost network gear. I have a Linksys/Cisco cable router/WAP
that's OK apart from flaky firmware concerning RADIUS, but few small
networks go there. I picked it for being the cheapest RADIUS-capable
WAP I could find...

Just make sure it's a cable router i.e. that the WAN connection isn't a
DSL modem, they're probably more common in some parts of the world than
in the UK, where there's little call for them. You will certainly want
NAT and DHCP, but I'd expect all cable routers to do those, and once you
have NAT there's no point in leaving out a packet-filtering firewall.
It's probably a good idea to have a bit more control of what goes in
and out than whatever the ISP provides, which may be nothing.

You start getting picky about routers when you need to handle the more
exotic protocols, such as VPN and some online games. If your associate
is likely to need anything of that kind, you'll need to study the specs
and reviews for supported protocols.

Something to consider is that the Windows computer can do simple NAT
routing, with an additional network card (assuming it's a tower). Last
time I tried that was with XP, but it still seems to exist:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows-8/using-ics-internet-connection-sharing

The Windows machine will do DHCP, but I think it's hard-coded to one
network. This should not be a problem, it used to be 192.168.1.0 in XP
days.

-- 
Joe

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Reco]

Hi.

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:12:58 +0100
Joe  wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:57:13 +0300
> Reco  wrote:
> 
> 
> > Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as
> >  (and require special training). Cheap
> > models are spyware-ridden. 
> > Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to
> > design anything remotely good even if someone's life would depend on
> > it.
> > Which leaves us with … Trendnet or Asus, I suppose. Or anything
> > else you can re-flash with openwrt with minimal hassle.
> > 
> > Last point is crucial. Do not trust router vendor 'firmware' unless
> > necessary. In the case of the doubt you put openwrt on it, and if you
> > are unable to do so - stay away from that hardware.
> > 
> 
> Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing
> between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more
> spyware-ridden than Windows?

I agree that anything including D-Link instead of a router would be an
improvement over a current situation. But since OP has a freedom to
choose, why not choose a good thing instead of known bad one?

Reco

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Brian]

On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 22:10:43 +0100, Joe wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100
> Brian  wrote:
> > 
> > If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an
> > IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job.
> > 
> 
> I assume that was a typo. I believe Windows does allow multiple IP
> addresses on one adaptor, but I haven't tried it, and I suspect MS
> would describe it as 'unsupported'. If you move the printer into the
> 192.168.3. network there must be a risk than another customer of the
> same ISP will be given whatever address you choose.

It is related in

 https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/10/msg00722.html

that

  ... it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is
  receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP
  server of the ISP.

An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to the
external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know I have
much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the offing?

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[David Wright]

Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net):
> On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:59 pm, David Wright wrote:
> > Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net):
> >> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is
> >> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the
> >> DHCP server of the ISP.
> > If you really mean this, then what are the devices that "are hidden
> > behind desks and boxes ... in the office"?
> ...
> > If, as seems more likely, there's some sort of router back there
> 
> I have no idea what is behind the desks and boxes, except that which I
> have been told by the ISP.  According to the ISP, there is one device
> connected to an external antenna.  The device is a radio receiver (not
> Wi-Fi) which has a single ethernet jack and delivers a single IP address.

Ah, I misunderstood your first post as you wrote they. It sounds a bit
like my uncle in Virginia where the local computer shop transmits a
signal to the few people in the village who have the internet. It
might be what they call Wisp.

Sounds to me like your spare router is a good solution. As it's just a
router, not one of those combined modem/routers (which I don't like),
it's easy to disconnect your colleague's computer and attach the
router's WAN in its place. You might want to configure the wireless
anyway so that you can use it yourself when you're there, turning it
off when you leave.

Cheers,
David.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[Doug]

On 10/15/2015 07:53 AM, Reco wrote:

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote:

On Thu, October 15, 2015 1:30 am, Reco wrote:

Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer?
What about printer's MAC?


Yes; the title is "JetDirect Configuration Page", which provides the
following:

IP ADDRESS: 192.168.1.210
SUBNET MASK: 255.255.255.0
DEF. GATEWAY: 192.168.1.1
LAN HW ADDRESS: 0010835D432B

I presume that the "LAN HW ADDRESS:" is the mac address.


So do I.



/snip/


So the printer uses statically assinged IP. This simplifies things :)

Reco



I have experience with two HP LaserJets and one Epson All-in-One inkjet, and all

came with fixed IP addresses from the factory, in the range above 192.168.1.100.

One came with .130, one with .147. one with .120. In your case, the fixed IP

is .210. It should be easy to change, following instructions that came with the

printer. Set the new IP address somewhere betwween .5 and .29 and all will be 
well.

(Then you need to set the computer to look for that address when asked to 
print.)

--dm

direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

[rlharris]

Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to
install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN)
consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think
also is router) and an ethernet switch.

Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address
192.168.100.3.  The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated
an ip address of 192.168.1.201.

It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the
ip address.  But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet".

Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie
(with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable.  NetworkManager Applet
(0.9.10.0) did not make a connection.

I though that perhaps a "cross-over" ethernet cable might be required, so
I placed an ethernet switch and two "straight" cables between the laptop
and the printer; but again NetworkManager Applet (0.9.10.0) failed to make
a connection.

So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to connect a
computer directly to a printer without a router to manage the connection.

And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer. 
If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I
think that the printer should utilize DHCP.

At the moment I am ignorant concerning the modem and/or router, because
they are hidden behind desks and boxes, so that visual inspection is going
to necessitate moving things in the office, which my associate is not
going to enjoy.

Russ

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[John Magolske]

Appologies for taking so long to follow up on this thread,
life got busy.

* Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk [110630 07:11]:
 On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 21:09:18 -0700, John Magolske wrote:
  And now the ethernet-challenged machine is not connecting
  in the evening either [...]
 
 Can we discount the time of day factor?

Yes.
 
  00:19.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82567LM Gigabit Network 
  Connection (rev 03)
  03:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Ultimate N WiFi Link 5300
 
 The 82567LM appears to be supported in the kernel by the e1000 module.
 Is it on the system?
 
locate e1000
 
 Is it loaded on booting?
 
lsmod | grep e1000

The e1000e module is loaded on booting:

~ % lsmod | grep e1000
e1000e113198  0

This does appear to be a module-related problem. When I find the
ethernet won't come up, I do:

# rmmod -f e1000e
# modprobe e1000e

And the problem goes away. It's also possible that going through many
cyles of suspend-to-ram could exacerbate the problem, but I'm not
entirely sure.

Thanks for the help,

John

-- 
John Magolske
http://B79.net/contact


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110817060755.gb25...@s70206.gridserver.com

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

Since the system don't uses /run right now, the link /etc/network/run is o.k.
This can not be the reason for your problem.
-- 
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/iuhdja$je4$1...@dough.gmane.org

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

By the way, it should be

   auto eth0

in /etc/network/interfaces. allow-hotplug makes only sense, if the network
card is removable like, e.g., a pcmcia ethernet adapter.

Maybe, Scott Ferguson is right: the DHCP server could have just run out of 
leases.
-- 
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/iuhe22$ms5$1...@dough.gmane.org

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Brian]

On Wed 29 Jun 2011 at 21:09:18 -0700, John Magolske wrote:

 Thanks for the replies all. I feel the issue must have to do with how
 this particular ThinkPad is set up, as my other Debian laptop has
 no problem connecting via ethernet. And now the ethernet-challenged
 machine is not connecting in the evening either (well, this evening
 anyhow...), only the wifi connection works ATM.

Can we discount the time of day factor?

 Neither interface is brought up.

We expect that for wlan0 because neither auto nor allow-hotplug is used
with it. But . . .

 % ifconfig -a
 eth0  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr **:**:**:**:**:**
   BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1

At the very least the second line should read

UP BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1

The eth0 interface is not being activated. There is no chance of getting
an address via dhcp or statically. Could this be a driver problem?

 00:19.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82567LM Gigabit Network 
 Connection (rev 03)
 03:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Ultimate N WiFi Link 5300

The 82567LM appears to be supported in the kernel by the e1000 module.
Is it on the system?

   locate e1000

Is it loaded on booting?

   lsmod | grep e1000

Anyone else on the Net with the same machine as you and having no problem with
eth0?  


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110630131257.GD15615@desktop

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Brian]

On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 11:02:18 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:

 By the way, it should be
 
auto eth0
 
 in /etc/network/interfaces. allow-hotplug makes only sense, if the network
 card is removable like, e.g., a pcmcia ethernet adapter.

No, it needn't be. Both run 'ifup eth0'. But there would be no harm done
in using it, unless you are bothered about the length of time to boot.

 Maybe, Scott Ferguson is right: the DHCP server could have just run out of 
 leases.

It's an intriguing idea. So why does wlan0 get an address?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110630132028.GE15615@desktop

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Tom H]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
 On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 11:02:18 +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote:

 By the way, it should be

    auto eth0

 in /etc/network/interfaces. allow-hotplug makes only sense, if the network
 card is removable like, e.g., a pcmcia ethernet adapter.

 No, it needn't be. Both run 'ifup eth0'. But there would be no harm done
 in using it, unless you are bothered about the length of time to boot.

No.

auto eth0 (or allow-auto eth0) is brought up by ifup -a through
/etc/init.d/networking.

allow-hotplug eth0 is brought up by /lib/udev/net.agent through
/lib/udev/rules.d/80-drivers.rules in Squeeze and
/lib/udev/rules.d/80-networking.rules in Wheezy.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Swki+U09fzC=nx7iuDe7YOXRftjgMSmC_JBSnW=xzg...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Brian]

On Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 10:07:32 -0400, Tom H wrote:

 No.

Yes.

 auto eth0 (or allow-auto eth0) is brought up by ifup -a through
 /etc/init.d/networking.

Fine.

 allow-hotplug eth0 is brought up by /lib/udev/net.agent through
 /lib/udev/rules.d/80-drivers.rules in Squeeze and
 /lib/udev/rules.d/80-networking.rules in Wheezy.

Also fine.

As net.agent has it

   exec ifup --allow=hotplug $INTERFACE

Coupled with ifup(8)

   --allow=CLASS
  Only allow interfaces listed in an allow-CLASS line in
  /etc/network/interfaces to be acted upon.

net.agent sees 'allow-hotplug eth0' in /e/n/i and does 'ifup eth0'.

This is an incorrect interpretation?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110630144222.GG15615@desktop

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Enno Gröper]

Hello,

Am 29.06.2011 07:03, schrieb John Magolske:
 Since switching to a new machine and upgrading to the latest Sid, I've
 been having some weird problems getting a wired connection to the net.
 
 Running `ifup eth0` brings up a net connection -- but not in the
 morning for some reasontimes out with a No DHCPOFFERS received
 message. Repeatedly. I've been trying this every day for over a week,
 and like clockwork, morning = no connection, evening = connection.
 
 BUT, even though the ethernet connection doesn't work in the mornings,
 `ifup wlan0` will bring up a wireless connection in the morning just
 fine. This I'm not a morning-type ethernet is coming out of the very
 same NETGEAR wifi router that successfully provides a wifi connection
 any time of day.
 
 And when I try my old laptop (running a not-as-up-to-date Sid), it
 works fine, gets that ethernet connection in the mornings every time.
To bring light into this issue you shut sniff your ethernet traffic,
when bringing your interface up.
This could be done using wireshark or tcpdump.

Issuing
tcpdump -i eth0 -s 0 -w outfile

before ifup eth0, should give some valuable information.
You can kill tcpdump (Ctrl+C) after the DHCP timeout.

If you can't interpret the resulting capture yourself, you could post it
here.
Then we should be able to see the communication between the dhcp server
und your box.
Of course looking into the server logfile would be a good alternative to
this, but I suppose, that this isn't possible (with a reasonable amount
of effort) for a dhcp server running on a wifi router box.

Another idea: Could there be some kind of child protection running on
the wifi router preventing the access at some time interval for
specified computers?

HTH,
Enno



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Scott Ferguson]

On 29/06/11 20:09, � wrote:
 Hello,
 
 Am 29.06.2011 07:03, schrieb John Magolske:
 Since switching to a new machine and upgrading to the latest Sid, I've
 been having some weird problems getting a wired connection to the net.

 Running `ifup eth0` brings up a net connection -- but not in the
 morning for some reasontimes out with a No DHCPOFFERS received
 message. Repeatedly. I've been trying this every day for over a week,
 and like clockwork, morning = no connection, evening = connection.

 BUT, even though the ethernet connection doesn't work in the mornings,
 `ifup wlan0` will bring up a wireless connection in the morning just
 fine. This I'm not a morning-type ethernet is coming out of the very
 same NETGEAR wifi router that successfully provides a wifi connection
 any time of day.

 And when I try my old laptop (running a not-as-up-to-date Sid), it
 works fine, gets that ethernet connection in the mornings every time.
 To bring light into this issue you shut sniff your ethernet traffic,
 when bringing your interface up.
 This could be done using wireshark or tcpdump.
 
 Issuing
 tcpdump -i eth0 -s 0 -w outfile
 
 before ifup eth0, should give some valuable information.
 You can kill tcpdump (Ctrl+C) after the DHCP timeout.
 
 If you can't interpret the resulting capture yourself, you could post it
 here.
 Then we should be able to see the communication between the dhcp server
 und your box.
 Of course looking into the server logfile would be a good alternative to
 this, but I suppose, that this isn't possible (with a reasonable amount
 of effort) for a dhcp server running on a wifi router box.
 
 Another idea: Could there be some kind of child protection running on
 the wifi router preventing the access at some time interval for
 specified computers?
 
 HTH,
 Enno
 

Sounds like the DHCP server could have just run out of leases and
needs to wait until some expire (from last night). In which case shorten
the lease life and/or increase the number of available leases.
Login to your router and look at the DHCP server section for lease history.

Cheers

-- 
I just have one of those faces.
People come up to me and say, What's wrong?
Nothing.
Well, it takes more energy to frown than it does to smile.
Yeah, you know it takes more energy to point that out than it does to
leave me alone?
~ Bill Hicks


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e0b09fd.5030...@gmail.com

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Jörg-Volker Peetz]

Please show the output of the following commands when ordered in the morning
session:

ls -lFa /etc/network /run
df -k

Maybe the link /etc/network/run is broken.

-- 
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/iuf3cb$l7g$1...@dough.gmane.org

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Brian]

On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 22:03:30 -0700, John Magolske wrote:

   allow-hotplug eth0
   iface eth0 inet dhcp

This should bring up the interface and configure it when the machine is
booted.

   iface wlan0 inet dhcp
   pre-up wpa_supplicant -iwlan0 -Dwext -B -c /home/john/.wpa_supplicant.conf
   post-down killall -q wpa_supplicant

This should not bring up the interface when the machine is booted.

What does happen on booting? The output of the command 'ifconfig -a'
would be useful to see, While you are at it, We may as well know which
card is in the machine. 'lspci' for that.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110629133635.GZ19572@desktop

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[Pascal Hambourg]

Hello,

Enno Gröper a écrit :
 
 Issuing
 tcpdump -i eth0 -s 0 -w outfile
 
 before ifup eth0

will result in an error. tcpdump won't work if the interface is not UP.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e0b7fb2.1080...@plouf.fr.eu.org

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[John Magolske]

Thanks for the replies all. I feel the issue must have to do with how
this particular ThinkPad is set up, as my other Debian laptop has
no problem connecting via ethernet. And now the ethernet-challenged
machine is not connecting in the evening either (well, this evening
anyhow...), only the wifi connection works ATM.

* Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk [110629 10:29]:
 On Tue 28 Jun 2011 at 22:03:30 -0700, John Magolske wrote:
 
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet dhcp
 
 This should bring up the interface and configure it when the machine is
 booted.
 
iface wlan0 inet dhcp
pre-up wpa_supplicant -iwlan0 -Dwext -B -c /home/john/.wpa_supplicant.conf
post-down killall -q wpa_supplicant
 
 This should not bring up the interface when the machine is booted.
 
 What does happen on booting? 

Neither interface is brought up.

 The output of the command 'ifconfig -a' would be useful to see

% ifconfig -a
eth0  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr **:**:**:**:**:**
  BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
  RX packets:35600 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:23582 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
  RX bytes:41162613 (39.2 MiB)  TX bytes:1674330 (1.5 MiB)
  Interrupt:20 Memory:f260-f262

loLink encap:Local Loopback
  inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
  inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
  UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
  RX packets:1394 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:1394 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
  RX bytes:96020 (93.7 KiB)  TX bytes:96020 (93.7 KiB)

wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr **:**:**:**:**:**
  BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
  RX packets:6194 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:6526 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
  RX bytes:3346109 (3.1 MiB)  TX bytes:726467 (709.4 KiB)

 which card is in the machine. 'lspci' for that.

% lspci
[...]
00:19.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 82567LM Gigabit Network 
Connection (rev 03)
03:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation Ultimate N WiFi Link 5300

Regards,

John

-- 
John Magolske
http://B79.net/contact


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110630040918.ga5...@s70206.gridserver.com

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[John Magolske]

* Jörg-Volker Peetz jvpe...@web.de [110629 06:25]:
 Please show the output of the following commands when ordered in the morning
 session:
 
 ls -lFa /etc/network /run
 df -k

% ls -lFa /etc/network/run
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 16 2011-05-09 08:31 /etc/network/run - /dev/shm/network/

% df -k
Filesystem   1K-blocks  Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda5271422932 148959344 108676100  58% /
udev   1497148 0   1497148   0% /dev
 
Regards,

John

-- 
John Magolske
http://B79.net/contact


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110630041053.gb5...@s70206.gridserver.com

Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

[John Magolske]

Since switching to a new machine and upgrading to the latest Sid, I've
been having some weird problems getting a wired connection to the net.

Running `ifup eth0` brings up a net connection -- but not in the
morning for some reasontimes out with a No DHCPOFFERS received
message. Repeatedly. I've been trying this every day for over a week,
and like clockwork, morning = no connection, evening = connection.

BUT, even though the ethernet connection doesn't work in the mornings,
`ifup wlan0` will bring up a wireless connection in the morning just
fine. This I'm not a morning-type ethernet is coming out of the very
same NETGEAR wifi router that successfully provides a wifi connection
any time of day.

And when I try my old laptop (running a not-as-up-to-date Sid), it
works fine, gets that ethernet connection in the mornings every time.

My /etc/network/interfaces file looks like this:

  auto lo
  iface lo inet loopback
  allow-hotplug eth0
  iface eth0 inet dhcp
  iface wlan0 inet dhcp
  pre-up wpa_supplicant -iwlan0 -Dwext -B -c /home/john/.wpa_supplicant.conf
  post-down killall -q wpa_supplicant

And my ~/.wpa_supplicant.conf looks like this:

  ctrl_interface=/var/run/wpa_supplicant
  network={
   ssid=mynet
   psk=
  }
 
Thanks for any help sorting this out,

John

-- 
John Magolske
http://B79.net/contact


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110629050330.gc3...@s70206.gridserver.com

Re: Ethernet connection

[Camaleón]

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:22:26 +0200, Rodolfo Medina wrote:

 With the help coming from the present mailing list, I managed to connect
 my laptop with my old desktop PC via a cross ethernet cable, and to make
 them communicate via ping and transfer files using rsync.

(...)

Check that the computers you are connecting have properly configured the 
ethernet adapter.

Run /sbin/ifconfig command in both.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.09.05.13.59...@gmail.com

Re: Ethernet connection

[Rodolfo Medina]

With the help coming from the present mailing list, I managed to connect my
laptop with my old desktop PC via a cross ethernet cable, and to make them
communicate via ping and transfer files using rsync.

Today, strangely, on the laptop, instead of

# ifconfig
eth1  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:03:0D:33:02:17
  inet addr:192.168.0.1  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
  inet6 addr: fe80::203:dff:fe33:217/64 Scope:Link
  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
  RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
  RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:468 (468.0 b)
  Interrupt:201 Base address:0xd800

loLink encap:Local Loopback
  inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
  inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
  UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
  RX packets:86 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:86 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
  RX bytes:9358 (9.1 KiB)  TX bytes:9358 (9.1 KiB)

I got:

loLink encap:Local Loopback
  inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
  inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
  UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
  RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
  RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)

, and any connection with the cross cable was impossible.  Also, the command
`ifconfig eth1 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 up' gave:

# ifconfig eth1 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 up
SIOCSIFADDR: No such device
eth1: ERROR while getting interface flags: No such device
SIOCSIFNETMASK: No such device
eth1: ERROR while getting interface flags: No such device


Then I did:

 # ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 up

, and then `ifconfig' gives:

# ifconfig
eth0  Link encap:UNSPEC  HWaddr 
00-03-0D-53-25-5C-86-16-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
  inet addr:192.168.0.1  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
  RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:84 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
  RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:3024 (2.9 KiB)

loLink encap:Local Loopback
  inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
  inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
  UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
  RX packets:75 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:75 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
  RX bytes:8352 (8.1 KiB)  TX bytes:8352 (8.1 KiB)

, but the connection fails:

$ ping 192.168.0.3
PING 192.168.0.3 (192.168.0.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.0.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.0.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.0.1 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.0.1 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.0.1 icmp_seq=5 Destination Host Unreachable


$ rsync -vr test 192.168.0.3:/home/rodolfo
ssh: connect to host 192.168.0.3 port 22: No route to host
rsync: connection unexpectedly closed (0 bytes received so far) [sender]
rsync error: unexplained error (code 255) at io.c(453) [sender=2.6.9]



, where 192.168.0.3 is the PC's address.

Please help with issue

Thanks
Rodolfo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878w3hbvnx@gmail.com

Re: Ethernet connection

[yuanwei xu]

2010/9/4 Rodolfo Medina rodolfo.med...@gmail.com


 Today, strangely, on the laptop, instead of

 # ifconfig
 eth1  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:03:0D:33:02:17
  inet addr:192.168.0.1  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
  inet6 addr: fe80::203:dff:fe33:217/64 Scope:Link
  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
  RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
  RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:468 (468.0 b)
  Interrupt:201 Base address:0xd800

 loLink encap:Local Loopback
  inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
  inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
  UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
  RX packets:86 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:86 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
  RX bytes:9358 (9.1 KiB)  TX bytes:9358 (9.1 KiB)

 I got:

 loLink encap:Local Loopback
  inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
  inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
  UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
  RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
  RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)

 , and any connection with the cross cable was impossible.  Also, the
 command
 `ifconfig eth1 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 up' gave:

 # ifconfig eth1 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 up
 SIOCSIFADDR: No such device
 eth1: ERROR while getting interface flags: No such device
 SIOCSIFNETMASK: No such device
 eth1: ERROR while getting interface flags: No such device


 Then I did:

  # ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 up

 , and then `ifconfig' gives:

 # ifconfig
 eth0  Link encap:UNSPEC  HWaddr
 00-03-0D-53-25-5C-86-16-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00

 Strange MAC address, and device name is changed to be eth0.
Have you upgraded your system or NIC driver or something else?
May /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules have some info.