Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-18 Thread Bryan W. Maxwell
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 07:45:43AM -0700 I heard the voice of > Bryan W. Maxwell, and lo! it spake thus: >> >> Thanks everyone! I fixed the local address with the eth0 now so thats >> all good. But my serial line only allows me to ping 192.168.2.2, the >> otherside is connected to a micropic w

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-18 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 07:45:43AM -0700 I heard the voice of Bryan W. Maxwell, and lo! it spake thus: > > Thanks everyone! I fixed the local address with the eth0 now so thats all > good. But my serial line only allows me to ping 192.168.2.2, the otherside > is connected to a micropic web serve

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-18 Thread Shantanu Mahajan
+-- Bryan W. Maxwell [18-06-03 07:45 -0700]: | Thanks everyone! I fixed the local address with the eth0 now so thats all | good. eth0? AFAIK, eth0 is not used in FreeBSD. It is used in Linux. Which OS are you using? Regards, Shantanu -- Want to know how many wor

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-18 Thread Bryan W. Maxwell
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Shantanu Mahajan wrote: >> +-- Jaime [freebsd] [17-06-03 19:42 -0400]: >> | On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Bryan W. Maxwell wrote: >> | > Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, but somehow the >> local | > loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1. >> | >> |This is by definition.

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-18 Thread jaime
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Bryan W. Maxwell wrote: > But my serial line only allows me to ping 192.168.2.2, the otherside > is connected to a micropic web server and its address is 192.168.2.3. Thats > when it returns, the ping: sendto: Network dropped connection on reset. I believe that a reset

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-18 Thread jaime
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Shantanu Mahajan wrote: > +-- Jaime [freebsd] [17-06-03 19:42 -0400]: > | On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Bryan W. Maxwell wrote: > | > Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, but somehow the local > | > loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1. > | > | This is by definition. lo0 sh

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-18 Thread Bill Moran
Shantanu Mahajan wrote: +-- Jaime [freebsd] [17-06-03 19:42 -0400]: | On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Bryan W. Maxwell wrote: | > Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, but somehow the local | > loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1. | | This is by definition. lo0 shouldn't ever be anything but | 127.

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-18 Thread Shantanu Mahajan
+-- Jaime [freebsd] [17-06-03 19:42 -0400]: | On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Bryan W. Maxwell wrote: | > Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, but somehow the local | > loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1. | | This is by definition. lo0 shouldn't ever be anything but | 127.0.0.1. l

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-17 Thread Matthew D. Fuller
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:51:59PM -0400 I heard the voice of Bill Moran, and lo! it spake thus: > > 192.168.2.0 is not a valid IP address. The last number must be somewhere > between 1 and 254 (inclusive). Well, just to be anal about it... false. 192.168.2.0 is a perfectly valid IP address in

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-17 Thread Jaime
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Bryan W. Maxwell wrote: > Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, but somehow the local > loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1. This is by definition. lo0 shouldn't ever be anything but 127.0.0.1. Also, you might want to use 192.168.0.2 instead of 192.168.2.0.

Re: Networking/Routing

2003-06-17 Thread Bill Moran
Bryan W. Maxwell wrote: Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, 192.168.2.0 is not a valid IP address. The last number must be somewhere between 1 and 254 (inclusive). but somehow the local loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1. The loopback address is always 127.0.0.1. It's not supposed to