On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 04:57:06PM -0600, ktb wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:41:57PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:47:00PM -0700, JD Kitch wrote: > > > iface eth1 inet static > > > address 192.168.1.1 > > > netmask 255.255.255.0 > > > network 192.168.0.0 > > > broadcast 192.168.1.255 > > > > This is wrong. Well, I don't have experience that indicates that it > > doesn't *work*, but it's still wrong. Look closely at the values...one > > of them doesn't match the others. Network is not compatible with the > > rest of the values. You say you're on network 192.168.0.0, but your IP > > address is 192.168.1.1 with a netmask of 255.255.255.0. You should > > change network to 192.168.0.0 > > > > Did you mean change the network to 192.168.1.0 ?
OK, I did make this change and it seemed to make some difference, but the connectivity is VERY "iffy", meaning most everything times out. I'm now showing a TRUCKLOAD of errors on eth1 if I run an ifconfig. ---- eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:E8:2A:BD inet addr:192.168.1.1 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:682 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:15 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:30 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 Interrupt:10 Base address:0xe800 ---- Any more ideas. Intersting that with only the one other PC on a crossover cable, that the "Network" setting did not seem to make a difference... Are there route commands that need to be issued?(That's a wild guess, based on answers I've seen to similar questions) I'm clueless about route, and the man page went right over my head. :( jdk