More: Network card can parse and reply packets, but can not send
Sorry about the reply to my own message, but I have more. Apparently I
had my routing table wrong - adding a few static routes worked. How do
I have these routes be saved across reboots? And, also, now ping works
fine. I can ping my local machine, and google.com as well. But,
anything higher than that fails. I can't ssh into my other machine -
it hangs in the middle. Lynx fails, waiting for a response
indefinitely. I ran 'telnet google.com 80' to try to see if anything
worked. I got the usual connected, ^] is the escape character stuff.
When I typed GET /index.html, it closed the connection immediately.
Any ideas? Thanks again,
Steven
On Jan 19, 2004, at 9:14 PM, Steven Schlansker wrote:
I'm still having trouble with my Performa 6360 w/ Ethernet card. I
just upgraded to 2.6.1 (from a working 2.4.x) and have this trouble.
I have assigned a static configuration for now - ip 192.168.0.4 (DHCP
does not work.)
When I ping from it to my other machine here (192.168.0.3), it does
not reply but the light on my home router begins to flicker,
indicating some sort of traffic.
When I ping from .3 to .4, everything works perfectly.
Therefore, I'm guessing that my 2.6.1 machine can read incoming and
reply to ECHO packets, but can't create them itself...
I've searched with Google and have been unsuccessful. Anyone know
anything about how I might solve this?
Thanks,
------------------
Steven Schlansker
Tech Support & Programming
Flamin' Ghost Software
http://www.fgsoft.net/
steven@fgsoft.net
techsupport@fgsoft.net
>Windows 98: n.
> useless extension to a minor patch release for 32-bit extensions and
> a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
> originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit
> company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
------------------
Steven Schlansker
Tech Support & Programming
Flamin' Ghost Software
http://www.fgsoft.net/
steven@fgsoft.net
techsupport@fgsoft.net
>Windows 98: n.
> useless extension to a minor patch release for 32-bit extensions and
> a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
> originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit
> company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
Reply to: