On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 13:27 +1000, Jarne Cook wrote:
>On Tuesday 01 March 2005 12:35, you wrote:
>> On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
>> > > They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right.
>> >
On Mar 01, 2005, at 22:27, Jarne Cook wrote:
Damn
Having to configure the interfaces using bonding was not really the
answer I
was expecting.
I did not think linux would be that rigid. I figured if poodoze is
able to do
it (seamlessly mind you), surely linux (with some tinkering) would be
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 12:35, you wrote:
> On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
> > > They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right.
> > > Same network. They both end up with
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 12:35, you wrote:
> On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
> > > They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right.
> > > Same network. They both end up with
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 12:35, you wrote:
On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right.
Same network. They both end up with gateway=192.168.0.1,
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 12:35, you wrote:
On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right.
Same network. They both end up with gateway=192.168.0.1,
On Mar 01, 2005, at 22:27, Jarne Cook wrote:
Damn
Having to configure the interfaces using bonding was not really the
answer I
was expecting.
I did not think linux would be that rigid. I figured if poodoze is
able to do
it (seamlessly mind you), surely linux (with some tinkering) would be
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 13:27 +1000, Jarne Cook wrote:
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 12:35, you wrote:
On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right.
Same
On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
>
> > They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right. Same
> > network. They both end up with gateway=192.168.0.1, netmask=255.255.255.0.
> >
> > But
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
> They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right. Same
> network. They both end up with gateway=192.168.0.1, netmask=255.255.255.0.
> But ofcourse they do not have the same IP addresses.
I don't suppose your network
Jarne Cook wrote:
Is there a way to allow an application which has bound to wlan0
(192.168.0.202) and an application bound to eth0 (192.168.0.238) both have
access to the internet at the same time, and not require an application to
bind to a different local address?
I'm not sure exactly what
Jarne Cook wrote:
Is there a way to allow an application which has bound to wlan0
(192.168.0.202) and an application bound to eth0 (192.168.0.238) both have
access to the internet at the same time, and not require an application to
bind to a different local address?
I'm not sure exactly what
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right. Same
network. They both end up with gateway=192.168.0.1, netmask=255.255.255.0.
But ofcourse they do not have the same IP addresses.
I don't suppose your network
On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right. Same
network. They both end up with gateway=192.168.0.1, netmask=255.255.255.0.
But ofcourse they do
Hello all
(I am not subscribed. Please CC me)
Please forgive me if I have posed this message in the wrong place. I have
been searching for the answer for days with no resolve.
The question is:
How do I get eth0 and wlan0 both working together.
They are both using dhcp to the same simple
Hello all
(I am not subscribed. Please CC me)
Please forgive me if I have posed this message in the wrong place. I have
been searching for the answer for days with no resolve.
The question is:
How do I get eth0 and wlan0 both working together.
They are both using dhcp to the same simple
16 matches
Mail list logo
