[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Internal AirPort card and AirPort base station not working



On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:18:07PM -0400, Jeremy Radlow wrote:
> Has anyone gotten this combination working?  Here's my setup, and a
> description of my problems:
> 
> * Router
>     - IP address 192.168.1.1
> * AirPort base station
>     - IP address 192.168.1.100
>     - transparent bridging, no encryption, gateway == router
> * Laptop
>     - Internal AirPort card
>     - IP address 192.168.1.12, gateway == router
> * 2.4.6 benh kernel, airport/orinoco/hermes modules
> 
> To get things "working" I use:
> 
> # modprobe airport
> # ifup eth1
> # iwconfig eth1 mode managed
> 
> So at this point it should be like my laptop is on the local area network,
> right?  And if I ping other machines on the network and check their ARP
> caches, the laptop does show up.
> 
> I see activity lights on the base station when I try to ping other machines,
> but I get 100% packet loss.
> 
> iwconfig eth1 shows link quality 57/92, signal level -41 dBm, noise
> level -98 dBm.  The base station is five feet away.
> 
> tcpdump on the target machine shows dozens of arp who-has and arp is-at
> messages generated by the laptop and the target machine respectively, and
> nothing else.  The laptop's ARP cache shows <incomplete> for the ethernet
> hardware address of the machine(s) I'm trying to ping.
> 
> What am I doing wrong?

the laptop is on a seperate physical network to the gateway and other
machines, you need to use proxy arp (can the airport base stations even do
that?) or bridging.

Or use a seperate subnet for the laptop, and have the airport basestation
handle all routing to and from that subnet.

If you dont know what I am talking abotu here with all this go read the
networking howtos on www.linuxdoc.org

        See You
            Steve

-- 
sjh@wibble.net http://wibble.net/~sjh/
Look Up In The Sky
   Is it a bird?  No
      Is it a plane?  No
         Is it a small blue banana?
YES



Reply to: