Brandon,
Sorry... I was hoping you didn't have the *internal* card... If so, you won't
see a physical ethernet appearance; it's builtin... Like this:
DSL---[uplink]router[PNA]---phone-wiring---[PNA]card[PCIbus]:CPU
^^^^^^ (virtual ethernet)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (ethernet wannabe)
If the card uses the Tulip or other supported chip, then it *might* look like a
regular ethernet adapter... However, it is also possible that the card is a
"WinEther", in which case you are out of luck.
My golden rule: NEVER buy a *communications* product which a) plugs into a CPU
bus AND b) does not support well established and fully published standards.
Some examples...
WinModem: resource wasting junk
WinSCSI: crappy scanner interfaces which rarely work
WinEther: what you may have purchased (sorry).
BTW, thanks for the question... I didn't realize there was a market in products
solely targeted at squeezing bits through crappy phone wire in lieu of
installing a short** run of CAT-5 (even a long jumper)... Hmmmm.... I wonder
how long before LinkSys tries to do this over the AC wiring like my crappy
intercom...? :^P
** For $99 (1000' of CAT-5 wire), I've fully re-wired 2 homes and eliminated all
the crappy phone wires, virtually eliminated noise and crosstalk on the lines,
and increased my connectivity options. I'd guess you spent the same amount
trying to bypass less than 25' of JKT (RGYB colors) cable.
Suggestion: if you can, swap the LinkSys for a regular router and real ethernet
card and replace (at least the related part of) your wiring... you'll be much
happier in the long run.
Does my initial comment ('expensive "no effort" alternative to running CAT-5
wire') make more sense now...? :>
HTH,
Pierre
Brandon Caudle wrote:
>
> No pierre i am buying the router w/ ethernet & homepna and a homepna adapter
>
> dsl
> |
> router(linksys)
> upstairs homepna > / \ <downstairs ethernet
> / \
> linux box linuxbox $ 2000
> (homepna) (bothethernet)
>
> this setup requires NO! conversion except for the router the rest of the
> cabling runs over the phone line
>
> brandon caudle
>
> >From: Pierre Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Brandon Caudle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [expert] NICs
> >Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:46:42 -0400
> >
> >Brandon Caudle wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: Pierre Fortin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: Brandon Caudle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Subject: Re: [expert] NICs
> > > >Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:54:07 -0400
> > > >
> > > >Brandon Caudle wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > I recently got a dsl and then a linksys router (the one
> >with
> > > >the
> > > > > ethernet and HomePNA adapter) and I want to buy a home pna adapter
> >for
> > > >my
> > > > > linux box up stairs. Is there any home pna currentky supported?
> > > > >
> > > > > brandon caudle
> > > >
> > > >HomePNA is an expensive "no effort" alternative to running CAT-5 wire.
> >It
> > > >presents an ethernet port to the PC so there should be no compatability
> > > >issues.
> > > >
> > > >Pierre
> > >
> > > Pierre it doesn;t have a ethernet port it has a regular telephone plug
> >in
> > > the back (i wish it was ethernet)
> >
> >Precisely why I called it:
> > 'an expensive "no effort" alternative to running CAT-5 wire'...
> > ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >I assUmed you were familiar with the product since you bought *half* the
> >solution... the device actually requires another box to convert the
> >phone-wire
> >signals back to ethernet. See
> >http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?prid=161&grid=3 and download
> >the
> >User Guide.... therein, you will see that these products allow you to
> >spend big
> >bucks to re-use your existing (and very low quality) phone wires rather
> >than
> >spend much less to install CAT-5 and use a single LinkSys BEFSR41 (I have
> >one of
> >these and am relatively satisfied with it).
> >
> >When you buy and install an HPB200, you will have the remote ethernet
> >connector
> >you seek...
> >
> >The phone wiring will be the "weakest link"... if you go this way, let us
> >know
> >if you are seeing 10Mbps-like speeds between your two systems as claimed.
> >Oops... I'm assUming you have 2 systems (you were not explicit about
> >this). If
> >you only have one Linux box, then a BEFSR11 would have been sufficient.
> >
> >HTH,
> >Pierre
> >
> >
> > > brandon caudle
> >
> >--
> >Support Linux development: http://www.linux-mandrake.com/donations/
