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

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

Re: Ethernet Connection Dropped Again

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 r

Re: Ethernet Connection Dropped Again

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 &

Ethernet Connection Dropped Again

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

Re: Ethernet connection dropped

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

Re: Ethernet connection dropped

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.

Ethernet connection dropped

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

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

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

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

-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

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

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

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

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

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

-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

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

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

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

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

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

-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* > > >

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

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: > > >

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

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

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

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

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

-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

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

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

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

-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

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

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

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

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

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

-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: [...] >

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

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 >

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

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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 * >

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

-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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

-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

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

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

-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 >

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

-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

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

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

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

-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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

-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"

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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? >

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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 >

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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:

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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)

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

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

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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.

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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. >

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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): > > > >

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

direct ethernet connection between computer and printer

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

-- 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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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.

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

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

Re: Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

* 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

Ethernet connection weirdly not working mornings

. 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

Re: Ethernet connection

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

Re: Ethernet connection

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

Re: Ethernet connection

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

  1   2   >