Re: wireless on an old Thinkpad 600
Le Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:00:12 +0100, Clayton a écrit:
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:47:19 +0100
> Bernard <bdebreil@teaser.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hi Clayton, Hi to everyone,
>>
>> Le Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:40:07 +0100, Clayton a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> This should not appear spontaneously, perhaps grep /etc for "eth0:3"
> and see what might be causing this? Maybe try
> deleting /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and reboot? (I am
> grasping at straws, but I am recalling having a major headache
> with that persistent-net.rules during a past upgrade.....)
I have searched and not found any track of "eth0:3". There may be a
misunderstanding about what it really means. Now that I have installed PAN
on that Thinkpad 600, it becomes feasable to use copy/paste, so, here is
what I get, WHILE MY PCMCIA ETHERNET CARD IS CABLED TO MY DSL BOX/ROUTER :
begin copy/paste *******************
localhost:/home/bd# ifconfig
eth0 Lien encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:B9:FD:C5
inet adr:192.168.1.11 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Masque:255.255.255.0
adr inet6: fe80::280:c8ff:feb9:fdc5/64 Scope:Lien
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:14341 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:8987 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 lg file transmission:1000
RX bytes:19481548 (18.5 MiB) TX bytes:778010 (759.7 KiB)
Interruption:3 Adresse de base:0x300
lo Lien encap:Boucle locale
inet adr:127.0.0.1 Masque:255.0.0.0
adr inet6: ::1/128 Scope:Hôte
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING 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 lg file transmission:0
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
localhost:/home/bd# iwconfig
lo no wireless extensions.
irda0 no wireless extensions.
eth0 no wireless extensions.
sit0 no wireless extensions.
end copy/paste ******************************
Funny enough this 'sit0'. I don't now what it is ; it appears sometimes, I
thought it did happen only when the FONERA router was cabled in, but this
is not the case for now.
now, here were the contents of /etc/network/interfaces :
begin copy/paste ************
This file describes the network interfaces available on your system
# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).
# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
# The primary network interface
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet dhcp
localhost:/home/bd#
end copy/paste ********************
Now I just carried a new test. I unplugged the cable coming from the DSL
box/router that provides my internet connexion ; instead I plugged the
cable coming from the FONERA/routeur, that is, I plugged it onto the
pcmcia ethernet card slot. I changed the /etc/network/interfaces file,
which I made as follows :
# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
# The primary network interface
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 169.254.255.1
netmask 255.255.0.0
gateway 169.254.255.1
end copy/paste ******************
This being done, I launched a network restart:
/etc/init.d/networking restart :
localhost:/etc/network# /etc/init.d/networking restart
Reconfiguring network interfaces...done.
OK
Now : ifup eth0. No reply, just the shell back, which means 'OK'
Why 'ifup', not 'ifconfig' ? I have read a bit more of the document you
pointed to me yesterday. Amongst a lot of other things, it is being said
that it is unwise to play both with 'low level network configuration
tools' and 'high level tools', since several bugs may show, for instance
if you have configured once with ifconfig and then change something else
using ifup ou ifdown, the proper config files may have not been updated
allright and your system may show something that is gone or vice versa.
The 'eth0:3' may be due to such kind of messing around. So, from now on, I
still use 'ifconfig' with no argument so as to see what it says, but for
anything else I use 'ifupdown'. So, here is what I get with 'ifconfig'
alone :
start copy/paste ***************
localhost:/etc/network# ifconfig
eth0 Lien encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:B9:FD:C5
inet adr:169.254.255.1 Bcast:169.254.255.255 Masque:255.255.0.0
adr inet6: fe80::280:c8ff:feb9:fdc5/64 Scope:Lien
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:14415 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
localhost:/etc/network# iwconfig
lo no wireless extensions.
irda0 no wireless extensions.
eth0 no wireless extensions.
sit0 no wireless extensions.
localhost:/etc/network# ifconfig -a
eth0 Lien encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:B9:FD:C5
inet adr:169.254.255.1 Bcast:169.254.255.255 Masque:255.255.0.0
adr inet6: fe80::280:c8ff:feb9:fdc5/64 Scope:Lien
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:14415 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:9193 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 lg file transmission:1000
RX bytes:19491975 (18.5 MiB) TX bytes:793654 (775.0 KiB)
Interruption:3 Adresse de base:0x300
irda0 Lien encap:IrLAP HWaddr 00:00:00:00
NOARP MTU:2048 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 lg file transmission:8
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
lo Lien encap:Boucle locale
inet adr:127.0.0.1 Masque:255.0.0.0
adr inet6: ::1/128 Scope:Hôte
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:38 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:38 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 lg file transmission:0
RX bytes:3412 (3.3 KiB) TX bytes:3412 (3.3 KiB)
sit0 Lien encap:IPv6-dans-IPv4
NOARP MTU:1480 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 lg file transmission:0
RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
localhost:/etc/network#
end copy/paste *******************
Now, in this state, that is, with eth0 configured with the FONERA address,
what should I do so as to go further, I mean, to make sure that this
address - that pings all-right - really comes from the FONERA, and how can
I get that FONERA to wireless connect to my DSL box/router and bring an
internet connexion up ?
>
Reply to: