I guess this thread is dead by now. Just thought I should tell all of you
who have tried to help me that I bought a new NIC yesterday with a different
chipset. Everything works like a charm!
I am not going to bother further testing with the Cnet-card- even though it
was brand new. If anyone
Stacey Roberts wrote:
Here you go.., You have given the same IP Addr / netmasks information to
both rl0 rl1 - this is not right.
In your earlier message, you mentioned that rl0 is connected to a cable
modem and rl1 is connected to a lan. rl0 should have a different IP
address.., indeed a
Stacey Roberts wrote:
Just one more question.
How do I list the second card in /etc/hosts?
atm I have
127.0.0.1 localhost.gihon.org.au
localhost
192.168.1.100 BAPhD.gihon.org.au
BAPhD
Hi,
Glad to hear that you've understood, and that you've made progress.
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 12:01, Brian Astill wrote:
Stacey Roberts wrote:
Just one more question.
How do I list the second card in /etc/hosts?
atm I have
127.0.0.1 localhost.gihon.org.au
localhost
I was very sad to see this thread die, just as (for me) it was getting
interesting.
My setup and experience is almost identical to Nicola's.
bra@BAPhD ~ ifconfig -au
rl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.100 netmask 0xff00 broadcast
Hi Brian,
On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 23:43, Brian Astill wrote:
I was very sad to see this thread die, just as (for me) it was getting
interesting.
My setup and experience is almost identical to Nicola's.
bra@BAPhD ~ ifconfig -au
rl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500
Brian Astill wrote:
snip
bra@BAPhD ~ ifconfig -a
rl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.100 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
inet6 fe80::200:21ff:fed5:c670%rl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1
ether 00:00:21:d5:c6:70
media:
Stacey Roberts wrote:
It appears that rl1 is not configured here. Two things of note:
1] Have you actually configured rl1?
2] If so, what IP addr configurations is supposed to have?
The reasoning behind my questions is the fact that you mentioned that
*both* rl0 rl1 are connected to the same
Hi Brian,
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 02:48, Brian Astill wrote:
Stacey Roberts wrote:
It appears that rl1 is not configured here. Two things of note:
1] Have you actually configured rl1?
2] If so, what IP addr configurations is supposed to have?
The reasoning behind my questions is the fact
Hi,
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 07:00, Brian Astill wrote:
Stacey Roberts and Bill Moran wrote stuff:
Wot I dun:
root@BAPhD ~ #ifconfig rl1 inet 192.168.1.100 netmask 255.255.255.0
ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): File exists
This is a problem. ifconfig is complaining about duplicate entries for
IP
My NIC is found during boot-up and everything appears to be correct
setup, except the darn thing won't work.
ifconfig:
dc0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500
inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
inet6 fe80::208:a1ff:fe2c:28fa%dc0 prefixlen 64
Help...
My NIC is found during boot-up and everything appears to be correct setup,
except the darn thing won't work. I can ping 192.168.0.1 (computers local
ip - see below), but no other computers on my LAN. However, from other
computers on my LAN, I can ping this computer and get a response.
What does a netstat -finet -rn show? It sound like you don't have a
default
route set up.
Matt
Routing tables
Internet:
DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire
default192.168.0.2UGSc10dc0
127.0.0.1
Hi,
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 16:02, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
What does a netstat -finet -rn show? It sound like you don't have a
default
route set up.
Matt
Routing tables
Internet:
DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire
default
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 06:03:16PM +0100, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
snip
and the ping outputs:
# ping 192.168.0.2
PING 192.168.0.2 (192.168.0.2): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: Host is down
... repeated ..
--- 192.168.0.2 ping statistics ---
7 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet
The fact that the other machines on the LAN cannot ping 192.168.0.1 is a
big difference. At this point I would start checking you network
cabling and possibly the hub/switch.
Nathan
well yes, but as stated before this machine is a dual-boot and works
perfectly in the
other OS, so cables and
Hi,
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 16:25, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
Are the other hosts (with which you are testing) defined in /etc/hosts
(on this box) or the BSD-router?
They should appear here, if only when switched on. What does
/var/log/messages /var/log/sedurity show?
Regards,
Stacey
Perhaps at this point, it's a good point for you to give us a
descriptive picture of what the network layout is like there.
What is between each host, and they are logically.
Regards,
Stacey
Okidoki ;)
Basically I have a home network connected to a DSL. The connection is
negotiated by a
Hi,
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:15, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
The fact that the other machines on the LAN cannot ping 192.168.0.1 is a
big difference. At this point I would start checking you network
cabling and possibly the hub/switch.
Nathan
well yes, but as stated before this machine is
Yes, right. Sorry, I somehow missed that point in the original post!
When you ping, do you see any activity at all on your hub/switch? I
suppose that this would minimally let you know that the card is
transmittig something.
Nathan
No, I have a small light on the hub that says packet. This
On Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 06:15:34PM +0100, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
The fact that the other machines on the LAN cannot ping 192.168.0.1 is a
big difference. At this point I would start checking you network
cabling and possibly the hub/switch.
Nathan
well yes, but as stated before this
Please post:-
/etc/hosts
/etc/rc.conf
Actual output from:
ping other_host_by_name
ping other_host_by_IP
Regards,
Stacey
/etc/hosts:
127.0.0.1 localhost.mydomain.se localhost
192.168.0.1 athlon.mydomain.se athlon
192.168.0.1 athlon.mydomain.se.
192.168.0.2 speedy.mydomain.se speedy
Do you have IPFW or IPFilter compiled into the kernel? If so what do
`ipfw list` and/or `ipfstat -ion` show?
--
Benmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Saturday, January 11, 2003, 12:53:49 PM, you wrote:
Yes, right. Sorry, I somehow missed that point in the original post!
When
Hi,
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 17:48, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
Perhaps at this point, it's a good point for you to give us a
descriptive picture of what the network layout is like there.
What is between each host, and they are logically.
Regards,
Stacey
Okidoki ;)
Basically I
Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
Yes, right. Sorry, I somehow missed that point in the original post!
When you ping, do you see any activity at all on your hub/switch? I
suppose that this would minimally let you know that the card is
transmittig something.
No, I have a small light on the hub that says
HI,
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 22:46, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
Hello again everyone, I will try to clearify below;
Thanks for getting back with the funky art:-)
Question on the network though, you mentioned:
but the idea is that all machines except .0.2 have one NIC connected to
the hub
Could well be. You say that it works fine under another OS? What other
OS?
What, also, is the make/model of the NIC?
Check ifconfig and compare the media line to the actual capibilities of
the
system. If it's not negiotiating properly (could a driver cause that?)
you
might be able to get
Thanks for clarifying things.
I think I understand now. Here's what I (and others as well) believe is
the root of the problem - its ipfw.
By default its got a rule that reads DENY EVERYTHING. If you run ipfw
show then it'll be right at the bottom. Unless you expressly allow
traffic with
Yeah, this is a classic example of ipfw enabled but not configured. Since
the default rule is 'Deny all', you need to add allow statements to the
config to see the network, or build a non-ipfw config (Being the internal
box, you have no need for ipfw on it)
--Adam
Nope. Kernel compiled
Hi,
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 22:57, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
Thanks for clarifying things.
I think I understand now. Here's what I (and others as well) believe is
the root of the problem - its ipfw.
By default its got a rule that reads DENY EVERYTHING. If you run ipfw
show then it'll be
So, you're saying that with this configuration, you:
1] Cannot ping any hosts on the internal network
2] No internal hosts can ping the internal IP address of the g'way.
Do this for me:-
1] tail /var/log/security
2] Back-up your current ipfw ruleset - and disconnect (physically) from
the
Hi,
Perhaps I misunderstood here.
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 23:59, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
So, you're saying that with this configuration, you:
1] Cannot ping any hosts on the internal network
2] No internal hosts can ping the internal IP address of the g'way.
Do this for me:-
1] tail
]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Problems w NIC
So, you're saying that with this configuration, you:
1] Cannot ping any hosts on the internal network
2] No internal hosts can ping the internal IP address of the g'way.
Do this for me:-
1] tail /var/log/security
I see. So there's this machine hanging off the hub that no-one else can
see, and he cannot see anyone else. Yet when booted to WinXP, he is
fine?
Forgive me and post what you get from ifconfig -au, please.
Regards,
Stacey
Actually, I have to apologize. I shouldn't have answered with
Hi,
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 00:17, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
I see. So there's this machine hanging off the hub that no-one else can
see, and he cannot see anyone else. Yet when booted to WinXP, he is
fine?
Forgive me and post what you get from ifconfig -au, please.
Regards,
Stacey
But I do have to ask again if there is a firewall running on the problem
box itself. My reasons for asking again, is the fact that nothing
hitting the hub, as you say, does indeed indicate that nothing leaves
the box. In cases like this, its usually because data was not *allowed*
to leave the
Hi,
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 00:43, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
snipped
See below for details, I just want to point out that the computer has a
clean install from cd-rom. I have not compiled the kernel and AFAIK ipfw is
not set default in the GENERIC kernel. And I would never intentionally
Okay.., I see that there's no firewall support in the kernel. Well., at
the end I'd ask for you to try reloading the nic (ifconfig dc0 down /
ifconfig dc0 up) to see if that makes any difference - maybe booting to
other OS leaves the nic is some sort of state.., but that's grasping at
Hi,
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 00:58, Nikolaj Farrell wrote:
Okay.., I see that there's no firewall support in the kernel. Well., at
the end I'd ask for you to try reloading the nic (ifconfig dc0 down /
ifconfig dc0 up) to see if that makes any difference - maybe booting to
other OS leaves the
for 3Mbit DSL.
--Adam
- Original Message -
From: Nikolaj Farrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: FreeBSD Questions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Problems w NIC
Okay.., I see that there's no firewall support in the kernel. Well
40 matches
Mail list logo
