On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 05:21:20PM -0500, Michael Jinks wrote:
> I have a Pi 4 machine where I've installed two OS's, the "house supplied",
> and Ubuntu, both worked fine so I'm sure the hardware is good. Now I'd
> like to install Debian.
>
> I've found one very slim image of that, which ran
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:08:58AM -0400, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:22 PM Michael Jinks
> wrote:
>
> > I have a Pi 4 machine where I've installed two OS's, the "house supplied",
> > and Ubuntu, both worked fine so I'm sure the hardware is good. Now I'd
> > like to
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:22 PM Michael Jinks
wrote:
> I have a Pi 4 machine where I've installed two OS's, the "house supplied",
> and Ubuntu, both worked fine so I'm sure the hardware is good. Now I'd
> like to install Debian.
>
> I've found one very slim image of that, which ran without
On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 05:21:20PM -0500, Michael Jinks wrote:
> I have a Pi 4 machine where I've installed two OS's, the "house supplied",
> and Ubuntu, both worked fine so I'm sure the hardware is good. Now I'd
> like to install Debian.
>
> I've found one very slim image of that, which ran
I have a Pi 4 machine where I've installed two OS's, the "house supplied",
and Ubuntu, both worked fine so I'm sure the hardware is good. Now I'd
like to install Debian.
I've found one very slim image of that, which ran without issue, but left
nothing in the way of a network. So now I'm trying
[Some rampant snipping, I'm afraid. Hope that is ok.]
On Thu 01 Feb 2018 at 09:41:36 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 01 Feb 2018 at 10:55:35 (+), Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > Intended to do what?
> >
> > To leave the user without network connectivity after first boot? There
> > are at
On Thu 01 Feb 2018 at 10:55:35 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Wed 31 Jan 2018 at 20:05:17 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Wed 31 Jan 2018 at 23:13:52 (+), Brian wrote:
> > > On Wed 31 Jan 2018 at 12:29:38 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 19:09:27 (+), Brian
On Wed 31 Jan 2018 at 20:05:17 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 31 Jan 2018 at 23:13:52 (+), Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 31 Jan 2018 at 12:29:38 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 19:09:27 (+), Brian wrote:
> > > > On Sat 20 Jan 2018 at 03:25:00 +0900, Mark
On Wed 31 Jan 2018 at 23:13:52 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Wed 31 Jan 2018 at 12:29:38 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 19:09:27 (+), Brian wrote:
> > > On Sat 20 Jan 2018 at 03:25:00 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:33:23PM +, Brian
On Wed 31 Jan 2018 at 12:29:38 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 19:09:27 (+), Brian wrote:
> > On Sat 20 Jan 2018 at 03:25:00 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:33:23PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > > On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 22:10:39 +0900, Mark Fletcher
On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 19:09:27 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Sat 20 Jan 2018 at 03:25:00 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:33:23PM +, Brian wrote:
> > > On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 22:10:39 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > > > So, I return to the essential question, which I led
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 10:59:31AM +, Brian wrote:
>
> The technique just replaces installing over a wireless link from the
> start. I've been wondering why you chose not to do that and avoid the
> extra work.
Sorry for the delay in replying. An early draft of one of my previous
mails in
On Sat 20 Jan 2018 at 12:18:45 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 15:21:31 (+), Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 08:27:22 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > > With wireless, there's no real equivalent to the wire
> > > being connected. Even when installed and configured
On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 15:21:31 (+), Brian wrote:
> On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 08:27:22 -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 22:10:39 (+0900), Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:43:10AM +0100, john doe wrote:
> > > > On 1/19/2018 12:45 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
>
On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 19:09:27 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 20 Jan 2018 at 03:25:00 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
>
> > To get out of the situation I'm in on those two machines, I just need to
> > hand-craft the interfaces file to something like what you have above,
> > with appropriate device,
On Sat 20 Jan 2018 at 03:25:00 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:33:23PM +, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 22:10:39 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:43:10AM +0100, john doe wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > So, I return to the
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 02:33:23PM +, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 22:10:39 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:43:10AM +0100, john doe wrote:
> > >
> >
> > So, I return to the essential question, which I led with in my original
> > post, which is which
On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 08:27:22 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 22:10:39 (+0900), Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:43:10AM +0100, john doe wrote:
> > > On 1/19/2018 12:45 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > > > Hello the list
> > > >
> > > > Can anyone point me at
On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 22:10:39 +0900, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:43:10AM +0100, john doe wrote:
> >
> > It is unclear to me why you can't configure the wireless interface using ssh
> > through the wired interface?
>
> Thanks for replying. I am not sure what problem you
On Fri 19 Jan 2018 at 22:10:39 (+0900), Mark Fletcher wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:43:10AM +0100, john doe wrote:
> > On 1/19/2018 12:45 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > > Hello the list
> > >
> > > Can anyone point me at documentation of how the installer sets up
> > > network interfaces, out
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:43:10AM +0100, john doe wrote:
> On 1/19/2018 12:45 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
> > Hello the list
> >
> > Can anyone point me at documentation of how the installer sets up
> > network interfaces, out of the several ways there are to do it?
> >
> > I've done a couple of
On 1/19/2018 12:45 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Hello the list
Can anyone point me at documentation of how the installer sets up
network interfaces, out of the several ways there are to do it?
I've done a couple of installs of Stretch, one when it was still testing
and one recently, on different
Hello the list
Can anyone point me at documentation of how the installer sets up
network interfaces, out of the several ways there are to do it?
I've done a couple of installs of Stretch, one when it was still testing
and one recently, on different hardware that both had both wired and
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:14:57PM +, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 14 Dec 2016 at 14:03:09 +0100, David Jardine wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:54:07PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > When I ran machines containing two identical ethernet cards, it
> > > was lucky dip as to
.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016, Erwan David wrote:
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 02:49:24
From: Erwan David <er...@rail.eu.org>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: network setup
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 07:49:43 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at
2016 07:55:26
From: Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: network setup
Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:55:43 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
If all you want is a single wireless connection which is activated when
the machine boots
On Wed 14 Dec 2016 at 14:03:09 +0100, David Jardine wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:54:07PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > When I ran machines containing two identical ethernet cards, it
> > was lucky dip as to which card got which name. That alone would
> > have made the new
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:54:07PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
[...]
>
> When I ran machines containing two identical ethernet cards, it
> was lucky dip as to which card got which name. That alone would
> have made the new method far preferable, had it been available at
> the time.
But don't
On Wednesday 14 December 2016 11:33:21 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> David's answer illustrated my point so beautifully that i had to
> say thanks.
What point???
Lisi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:14:30AM +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 December 2016 09:13:49 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:54:07PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
On Wednesday 14 December 2016 09:13:49 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:54:07PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Eh? How does calling something by the string "wlx00c0ca364bd2" instead
> > of "wlan0" make it less
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 08:54:07PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
[...]
> Eh? How does calling something by the string "wlx00c0ca364bd2" instead
> of "wlan0" make it less accessible?
Thank you! You just highlighted why I'm not staying for long in that
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:08:01PM CET, Greg Wooledge
said:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:02:45PM +, Brian wrote:
> > On Tue 13 Dec 2016 at 20:48:46 +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> > > Do you think eno167778 will be more useful than eth0 to a new user ?
>
> > My God, why
On Tue 13 Dec 2016 at 21:52:15 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:44:39PM +, Brian wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > For someone who has been using Debian for many years the position you
> > expound is understandable and viable to support [...]
>
> > But remember new users;
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:02:45PM +, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 13 Dec 2016 at 20:48:46 +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> > Do you think eno167778 will be more useful than eth0 to a new user ?
> My God, why must I use eno167778, he will say? I must change
> this to something I like. connection0 looks
On Tue 13 Dec 2016 at 20:48:46 +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 12/13/2016 à 20:44, Brian a écrit :
> > On Tue 13 Dec 2016 at 14:40:47 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 01:36:05PM +, Darac Marjal wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:44:39PM +, Brian wrote:
[...]
> For someone who has been using Debian for many years the position you
> expound is understandable and viable to support [...]
> But remember new users; does it really matter to them?
Le 12/13/2016 à 20:44, Brian a écrit :
> On Tue 13 Dec 2016 at 14:40:47 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 01:36:05PM +, Darac Marjal wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames/
>>> lists three options:
On Tue 13 Dec 2016 at 14:40:47 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 01:36:05PM +, Darac Marjal wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames/
> > lists three options:
>
> Thanks!
For someone who has been using
That is one network access point, yes. However, where I am, I get about
10 of those, and must then read down to
ESSID:
to find the name. Each access point grouping starts with
Cell 0?
so by skipping to each new Cell number, I can find the next access
point to verify if it is mine.
--
Charlie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 01:36:05PM +, Darac Marjal wrote:
[...]
> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames/
> lists three options:
Thanks!
regards
- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:18:11PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 07:43:06PM -0500, Jude DaShiell wrote:
I tried manual network configuration and debian renamed wlan0 to
wlx00c0ca364bd2 for some reason.
This is (somewhat ironically) called a "predictable interface
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 07:43:06PM -0500, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> I tried manual network configuration and debian renamed wlan0 to
> wlx00c0ca364bd2 for some reason.
This is (somewhat ironically) called a "predictable interface name".
I don't know
If all you want is a single wireless connection which is activated when
the machine boots you do not need a wpa_supplicant.conf. Everything can
be done in /etc/network/interfaces. It is the simplest, most hassle-free
and most straightforward way to proceed.
First check that network-manager is not
:
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 07:42:01
From: Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: network setup
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:42:18 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On Sun 11 Dec 2016 at 19:43:06 -0500, Jude DaShiell wrote:
I tried
:43:06
From: Jude DaShiell <jdash...@panix.com>
To: Charlie Kravetz <c...@teamcharliesangels.com>, debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: network setup
Resent-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 00:43:25 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
I tried manual network configura
On Sun 11 Dec 2016 at 19:43:06 -0500, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> I tried manual network configuration and debian renamed wlan0 to
> wlx00c0ca364bd2 for some reason. If I do ip a that shows up as possible
> wifi connection. Unfortunately ifup doesn't recognize that device name.
It is unclear (to
Dec 2016, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:47:08
From: Charlie Kravetz <c...@teamcharliesangels.com>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: network setup
Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:35:08 + (UTC)
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP
On Sun 11 Dec 2016 at 10:47:08 -0800, Charlie Kravetz wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:13:33 -0500 (EST)
> Jude DaShiell wrote:
>
> >When I used wpa_passphrase I put about 5 lines into
> >/etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf which wasn't the original from the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 13:13:33 -0500 (EST)
Jude DaShiell wrote:
>When I used wpa_passphrase I put about 5 lines into
>/etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf which wasn't the original from the
>documentation but a new file.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 01:13:33PM -0500, Jude DaShiell wrote:
> When I used wpa_passphrase I put about 5 lines into
> /etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf which wasn't the original from the
> documentation but a new file. The first line said network= and that was
> all. For a wifi
When I used wpa_passphrase I put about 5 lines into
/etc/wpa_supplicant/wpa_supplicant.conf which wasn't the original from the
documentation but a new file. The first line said network= and that was
all. For a wifi connection, what should go in that network= field?
--
Henning Follmann, 7.02.2014:
Hello,
I just setup a laptop for development.
I usually have multiple XEN instances for development purposes. My previous
setup was a desktop with e static ethernet setup. that was fairly easy.
I had one iface br0 instance in my /etc/network/interfaces
With
Hello,
I just setup a laptop for development.
I usually have multiple XEN instances for development purposes. My previous
setup was a desktop with e static ethernet setup. that was fairly easy.
I had one iface br0 instance in my /etc/network/interfaces
With the laptop it is different. Most of the
For laptops you need two networks. A nat network and a host only network.
On Feb 7, 2014 5:51 AM, Henning Follmann hfollm...@itcfollmann.com
wrote:
Hello,
I just setup a laptop for development.
I usually have multiple XEN instances for development purposes. My previous
setup was a desktop
On 05/27/11 at 08:03pm, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 16:56:39 + (UTC), Camaleón writes:
ifdown/ifup and maybe /etc/init.d/networking restart just to be
sure :-)
My /etc/network/interfaces is empty, but loopback device. I'm just
issuing plain old ifconfig, and IMHO it
On Mon, 30 May 2011 03:13:16 -0400, William Hopkins writes:
On 05/27/11 at 08:03pm, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 16:56:39 + (UTC), Camaleón writes:
ifdown/ifup and maybe /etc/init.d/networking restart just to be
sure :-)
My /etc/network/interfaces is empty, but loopback
Hi,
I'm trying to setup an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network, but having trouble to get
it working. Below are the steps I follow.
foo# iwconfig wlan0 mode ad-hoc chan 11 essid inci
foo# ifconfig wlan0 192.168.1.1
bar# iwconfig wlan0 mode ad-hoc chan 11 essid inci
bar# ifconfig wlan0 192.168.1.2
On Fri, 27 May 2011 17:44:36 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
I'm trying to setup an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network, but having trouble to get
it working. Below are the steps I follow.
foo# iwconfig wlan0 mode ad-hoc chan 11 essid inci
foo# ifconfig wlan0 192.168.1.1
bar# iwconfig wlan0 mode
On Fri, 27 May 2011 15:49:39 + (UTC), Camaleón writes:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 17:44:36 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
I'm trying to setup an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network, but having trouble to get
it working. Below are the steps I follow.
foo# iwconfig wlan0 mode ad-hoc chan 11 essid inci
foo#
On Fri, 27 May 2011 19:17:06 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 15:49:39 + (UTC), Camaleón writes:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 17:44:36 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
I'm trying to setup an ad-hoc Wi-Fi network, but having trouble to get
it working. Below are the steps I follow.
Maybe a look at http://wiki.debian.org/WiFi/AdHoc can be helpful.
--
Regards,
Jörg-Volker.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 16:40:48 + (UTC), Camaleón writes:
It can be trivial but did you also restart the wlan0 interfaces?
While I was issuing iwconfig commands, wlan0 was already set down; after
iwconfig I waked up the wlan0 via ifconfig. What do you mean by
restarting an interface?
Best.
On Fri, 27 May 2011 19:51:59 +0300, Volkan YAZICI wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2011 16:40:48 + (UTC), Camaleón writes:
It can be trivial but did you also restart the wlan0 interfaces?
While I was issuing iwconfig commands, wlan0 was already set down; after
iwconfig I waked up the wlan0 via
On Fri, 27 May 2011 16:56:39 + (UTC), Camaleón writes:
ifdown/ifup and maybe /etc/init.d/networking restart just to be
sure :-)
My /etc/network/interfaces is empty, but loopback device. I'm just
issuing plain old ifconfig, and IMHO it should be working. I need to
find a way to get more
Hi, Miles:
On Thursday 06 May 2010 14:12:56 Miles Fidelman wrote:
Thanks to all who replied. I'm starting to zero in on this now.
A few more details:
To follow up with a few more details:
server1 -- hub (switch) --- server 2
datacenter's router
The hub is a
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 22:25 -0700, Kevin Ross wrote:
On 5/5/2010 9:11 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:55 -0700, Kevin Ross wrote:
On 5/5/2010 6:06 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[snip]
- I have two network /27 network blocks that are NOT contiguous - I
if I change the netmask of the server it can no longer talk to the
router because it is in a different ip network ie 192.168.11.55/22 can't
talk to 192.168.11.1/24 (you can fake it on linux with iproute - see my
other answer to this thread).
That does not look correct. Just to see how it works,
On 5/6/2010 12:05 AM, Alex Samad wrote:
well think about it, if we are talking about network 192.168.11.0/24
(for my example I will use 24 instead of 27)
the server would have an address 192.168.11.55/24 (for example) and the
router would have 192.168.11.1/24
if I change the netmask of the
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 13:35, Kevin Ross ke...@familyross.net wrote:
On 5/6/2010 12:05 AM, Alex Samad wrote:
well think about it, if we are talking about network 192.168.11.0/24
(for my example I will use 24 instead of 27)
the server would have an address 192.168.11.55/24 (for example) and
On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 01:05 -0700, Kevin Ross wrote:
On 5/6/2010 12:05 AM, Alex Samad wrote:
[snip]
What am I missing?
nothing in your case it work, but they are supposed to be hosts in
different networks. Which was the point I was trying to get at. And to
be carefully - especially if
Anand Sivaram wrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 06:36, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
details ommitted
http://lists.debian.org/4be2162b.8050...@meetinghouse.net
Are you using static IP or using dhcp? If you are using static, then
Thanks to all who replied. I'm starting to zero in on this now.
A few more details:
To follow up with a few more details:
server1 -- hub (switch) --- server 2
|
|
datacenter's router
The hub is a basic $40 gigE switch (not
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Thanks to all who replied. I'm starting to zero in on this now.
A few more details:
[snip]
on server 1:
eth0: inet addr:207.154.13.48 Bcast:207.154.13.63 Mask:255.255.255.224
(first netblock)
the inter-box traffic go directly
through the gigE switch, and not reach the datacenter's router. Which
leaves me with some questions that are just a bit beyond my general
network setup knowledge:
1. Yes, I have a cross-over cable plugged directly between the 2nd
ethernet card in each box. I plan
there to be a
lot of inter-box traffic. So
I'm now looking for a way to have the inter-box traffic go directly through
the gigE switch, and not reach the datacenter's router. Which leaves me
with some questions that are just a bit beyond my general network setup
knowledge:
1. Yes, I have a cross
On 5/5/2010 6:06 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Not sure if this is the right list, sort of a general linux networking
question (pointers to a more appropriate list welcomed)
Setup:
- I have two servers in a datacenter, currently used for different things
- I have one gigE cable coming in
there to be
a lot of inter-box traffic. So
I'm now looking for a way to have the inter-box traffic go directly
through the gigE switch, and not reach the datacenter's router. Which
leaves me with some questions that are just a bit beyond my general
network setup knowledge:
1. Yes, I have a cross
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:55 -0700, Kevin Ross wrote:
On 5/5/2010 6:06 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[snip]
- I have two network /27 network blocks that are NOT contiguous - I
use one for each box
I'm not a networking expert, but this part seems wrong to me. I don't
think you're
On 5/5/2010 9:11 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:55 -0700, Kevin Ross wrote:
On 5/5/2010 6:06 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[snip]
- I have two network /27 network blocks that are NOT contiguous - I
use one for each box
I'm not a networking expert, but this
--- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 2999ms
What could be wrong with my network setup?
$ head -1 /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 helios.dnsalias.com localhost
$ ifconfig -a
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:11:2f:be:4b:ba
% packet loss, time 2999ms
What could be wrong with my network setup?
$ head -1 /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 helios.dnsalias.com localhost
$ ifconfig -a
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:11:2f:be:4b:ba
inet addr:192.168.0.100 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
T o n g wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:09:38 +, T o n g wrote:
I can't get any of the proxy server working on my newly installed lenny,
just realize that I can't make any network connection to localhost,
[snip]
What could be wrong with my network setup?
$ head -1 /etc/hosts
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:41:42 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
$ ifconfig -a
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:11:2f:be:4b:ba
inet addr:192.168.0.100 Bcast:192.168.0.255
Mask:255.255.255.0
Is that all? What's up with the lo(opback) interface?
Ah, there it is:
$
T o n g wrote:
Is the 'lo' normal? I never actually look into its output -- was just
making sure the lo was there...
You should up it.
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, Ukrainian C++ developer.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 10/09/08 14:05, T o n g wrote:
[snip]
loLink encap:Local Loopback
LOOPBACK MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:13:18 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
You should up it.
yep, it works. thanks
--
Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply)
http://xpt.sourceforge.net/techdocs/
http://xpt.sourceforge.net/tools/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Hi, sorry if this is too basic or offtopic a question,
but i didnt see a debian-newbie list or anything.
Im running Etch on an IBM ThinkPad T60. I need to run
a Windows application on it, so i installed VMWare
Server
following some detailed instructions i found on
HowToForge and then installed
Dr. Jennifer Nussbaum wrote:
Hi, sorry if this is too basic or offtopic a question,
but i didnt see a debian-newbie list or anything.
Im running Etch on an IBM ThinkPad T60. I need to run
a Windows application on it, so i installed VMWare
Server
following some detailed instructions i found
On Thursday 16 August 2007, Dr. Jennifer Nussbaum wrote:
Hi, sorry if this is too basic or offtopic a question,
but i didnt see a debian-newbie list or anything.
Im running Etch on an IBM ThinkPad T60. I need to run
a Windows application on it, so i installed VMWare
Server
following some
]
|
|
outside(WAN)
All network interfaces should be Gigabit-interfaces.
So, my questions are:
1. Is this network setup realisable?
I have the same exact setup as that diagram. My Debian Router is running
Debian (duh) Sarge
[DSL-Modem]
outside(WAN)
All network interfaces should be Gigabit-interfaces.
So, my questions are:
1. Is this network setup realisable?
I have the same exact setup as that diagram.
Snap
My Debian Router is
running Debian (duh
Peter Teunissen schrieb:
2. Is it correct to place the WiFi Access Point connected to the switch,
or better directly to the Debian Router?
Best would be to have another NIC on the router for the WAP (or use a
PCI WLAN card), so you can have stricter rules in the FW for wireless
clients. For
On 1/30/07, Kristian Lampen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Teunissen schrieb:
2. Is it correct to place the WiFi Access Point connected to the switch,
or better directly to the Debian Router?
Best would be to have another NIC on the router for the WAP (or use a
PCI WLAN card), so you can
On 1/29/07, Peter Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29-jan-2007, at 21:57, Kristian Lampen wrote:
[snip]
3. I want to have the possibility to see the whole network traffic
with
the router. Not only the traffic from the PC's through the router
to the
outside world. How can I manage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/30/07 08:31, celejar wrote:
On 1/29/07, Peter Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29-jan-2007, at 21:57, Kristian Lampen wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
I've read something about using an old non-switching hub
attached to your network and an
On 1/30/07, Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/30/07 08:31, celejar wrote:
On 1/29/07, Peter Teunissen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29-jan-2007, at 21:57, Kristian Lampen wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
I've read something about using an old
celejar schrieb:
On 29-jan-2007, at 21:57, Kristian Lampen wrote:
[snip]
3. I want to have the possibility to see the whole network traffic
with
the router. Not only the traffic from the PC's through the router
to the
outside world. How can I manage this? Do I have to buy a switch
Kristian Lampen wrote:
Another problem is that using a hub will give all connected clients the
possibility to sniff the traffic. That is not what I want.
Of course, sniffing is the point, as described, but as you observe,
not for everyone.
So, does anyone make a switch with a
On 1/30/07, Max Hyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kristian Lampen wrote:
Another problem is that using a hub will give all connected clients the
possibility to sniff the traffic. That is not what I want.
Of course, sniffing is the point, as described, but as you observe,
not for everyone.
1 - 100 of 224 matches
Mail list logo