On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 00:08, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
Well, this runs afoul of one of the annoyances with IP. That is, IP
addresses don't belong to the host; they belong to the interface. Even on a
cisco router, to assign the router itself an interface requires a loopback
On Sunday, November 14, 2010 08:28:40 am Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 00:08, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
I'll have to admit to some curiosity in how to do this myself; I might lab
it up one day and see, when I have more time to spend on it.
Thank you Lamar, I have spent
On Monday, November 08, 2010 04:34:00 am Dotan Cohen wrote:
Both those conditions are met in this use case, however the machine in
question is on two networks:
|--Network1--|--Network2--|
ACB
A: router on the wireless network
B: router on the wired network
C:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 23:19, Bob McConnell rmcco...@lightlink.com wrote:
To amplify this just a little bit, by the rules of IP routing, every
machine must:
A) Have a unique address.
B) Be attached to the proper subnet for that address as defined by the
local netmask.
Once those are true,
On 8 November 2010 09:34, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote:
Both those conditions are met in this use case, however the machine in
question is on two networks:
|--Network1--|--Network2--|
A C B
A: router on the wireless network
B: router on the wired network
C:
From: Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com
This is on the Internet-connected interface:
wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:18:de:98:c7:34
inet addr:192.168.0.26 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
inet6 addr: fe80::218:deff:fe98:c734/64 Scope:Link
UP
Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 23:19, Bob McConnell rmcco...@lightlink.com wrote:
To amplify this just a little bit, by the rules of IP routing, every
machine must:
A) Have a unique address.
B) Be attached to the proper subnet for that address as defined by the
local netmask.
On Nov 6, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote:
On a CentOS 5.5 laptop (Dell Inspiron, dual boot with a Debian-based
distro) I have a cable plugged into eth0 which is on a LAN with no
internet connection. Additionally, I connect wirelessly on wlan0 to
the internet. Both
On 11/8/2010 3:34 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 23:19, Bob McConnellrmcco...@lightlink.com wrote:
To amplify this just a little bit, by the rules of IP routing, every
machine must:
A) Have a unique address.
B) Be attached to the proper subnet for that address as defined by
On a CentOS 5.5 laptop (Dell Inspiron, dual boot with a Debian-based
distro) I have a cable plugged into eth0 which is on a LAN with no
internet connection. Additionally, I connect wirelessly on wlan0 to
the internet. Both connections have router on the 192.168.0.1
address.
Although I need to
Dotan,
On 6 November 2010 13:04, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote:
Although I need to stay connected to the wireless router, can I still
access the address 192.168.0.1 on the wired interface? Some googling
led me to the keyword loopback but I am at a loss as how to
configure it, or if
On 6 November 2010 13:04, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote:
Although I need to stay connected to the wireless router, can I still
access the address 192.168.0.1 on the wired interface? Some googling
led me to the keyword loopback but I am at a loss as how to
configure it, or if this is
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 15:52, Hakan Koseoglu ha...@koseoglu.org wrote:
You want to use both network cards at the same time. Yes, it's doable.
The easiest method would be bonding.
Yes, both cards at the same time. They are on different networks: eth0
is connected to an internet-less LAN, and
It seems that bonding is aggregating multiple ethernet channels
together to form a single channel, not quite what I am looking for.
To be more specific: I am connected to the internet via wlan0. When I
type 192.168.0.1 into my web browser, I get the web control panel of
the Linksys router that
On 06.11.10 15:13, Dotan Cohen wrote:
To be more specific: I am connected to the internet via wlan0. When I
type 192.168.0.1 into my web browser, I get the web control panel of
the Linksys router that manages that wireless network. However, at the
moment I need to access the web control panel
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 16:29, Markus Falb markus.f...@fasel.at wrote:
Set a temporary additional route
#$ ip ro add 192.168.0.1/32 dev eth0
You can get rid of it again with
#$ ip ro del 192.168.0.1
Thanks, that is what I need to know! I should be able to google it from here.
However,
On 11/06/10 7:29 AM, Markus Falb wrote:
On 06.11.10 15:13, Dotan Cohen wrote:
To be more specific: I am connected to the internet via wlan0. When I
type 192.168.0.1 into my web browser, I get the web control panel of
the Linksys router that manages that wireless network. However, at the
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 19:10, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
that temporary route will break his internet access, since 192.168.0.1
is ALSO his internet gateway on the W-LAN side.
there's no way around this. if you can readdress one or the other LAN,
then this would just work all
On 6 November 2010 14:13, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote:
To be more specific: I am connected to the internet via wlan0. When I
type 192.168.0.1 into my web browser, I get the web control panel of
the Linksys router that manages that wireless network. However, at the
moment I need to
On 11/06/2010 10:29 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
Surely I am not the
first person who is connected to two separate LANs and needs to access
addresses on both of them.
No. You're just one of the first to want to do it with both sub-nets set up
with
THE SAME NETWORK ADDRESS.
Move one. Both are
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 19:35, Hakan Koseoglu ha...@koseoglu.org wrote:
OK, I got it wrong earlier. Not possible without breaking your WLan network.
It's much easier to move the D-Link router to 192.168.0.2 or something
else, in most cases it doesn't matter where the router sits. Better,
move
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 20:05, KevinO ke...@kevino.org wrote:
No. You're just one of the first to want to do it with both sub-nets set up
with
THE SAME NETWORK ADDRESS.
Move one. Both are adjustable.
I see! Is there no way to do specify which interface (eth0 / wlan0) to
use for the rest of
On 11/06/2010 11:10 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 20:05, KevinOke...@kevino.org wrote:
No. You're just one of the first to want to do it with both sub-nets set up
with
THE SAME NETWORK ADDRESS.
Move one. Both are adjustable.
I see! Is there no way to do specify which
On 11/06/2010 11:10 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 20:05, KevinOke...@kevino.org wrote:
No. You're just one of the first to want to do it with both sub-nets set up
with
THE SAME NETWORK ADDRESS.
Move one. Both are adjustable.
I see! Is there no way to do specify which
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 20:14, KevinO ke...@kevino.org wrote:
It boils down to the routing table, which is based on IP address, and this
table
is system wide.
I see, thanks.
--
Dotan Cohen
http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com
___
CentOS
On Nov 6, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
Both connections have router on the 192.168.0.1
address.
Although I need to stay connected to the wireless router, can I still
access the address 192.168.0.1 on the wired interface?
What you want is a NAT to take, say, 192.168.1.0/24 and
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 20:51, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
Both connections have router on the 192.168.0.1
address.
Although I need to stay connected to the wireless router, can I still
access the address 192.168.0.1 on the wired
On Nov 6, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 20:51, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
But at the end you would access 192.168.1.1 and it would get
translated to 192.168.0.1 at the eth0 point and wouldn't interfere
with the wlan0 version of the 192.168.0.1 address.
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Dotan Cohen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 20:51, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
But at the end you would access 192.168.1.1 and it would get
translated to 192.168.0.1 at the eth0 point and wouldn't interfere
with the wlan0 version of the
On Nov 6, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Bob McConnell wrote:
But I still wonder if you are unique in finding this address
collision,
or do others also have the same problem? If it is widespread, then it
should be solved by the people managing those devices.
Nah; one of the prominent use cases for NAT
On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 17:19 -0400, Bob McConnell wrote:
So what you need is a way to insert a router between your software and
one of your devices with the duplicated address. That router would then
translate the addresses in one of those subnets into a unique address
that won't conflict
31 matches
Mail list logo
