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

Re: Mi propio pc no contesta al ping ¿ porque?



El Sábado 15 Enero 2005 11:34, Jose Arcangel Salazar Delgado escribió:
> Intenta un "ifup lo" o un "ifconfig lo up" a ver si funciona, o
> mandanos lo que te salga
Esto es para flipar , cuando hago ifup lo , se me habre una nueva sesion de X 
en F8 , pero empieza a funcionar el ping, os copio aqui abajo y luego 
reinicio haber si lo mantiene.
root@domain:/# ifup lo   <-----aqui se me ha abierto una nueva sesion de X.
root@domain:/# ifconfig lo up
root@domain:/# ifup lo
ifup: interface lo already configured
root@domain:/# ifconfig
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:01:2F:45:AF:60
          inet addr:192.168.1.75  Bcast:192.168.1.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::211:2fff:fe45:df59/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:21301 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:19635 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:21106744 (20.1 MiB)  TX bytes:1781452 (1.6 MiB)
          Interrupt:22 Base address:0x6000

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
          RX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
          RX bytes:100 (100.0 b)  TX bytes:100 (100.0 b)

root@domain:/# ping 127.0.0.1
PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.110 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.061 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.062 ms
64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.060 ms

--- 127.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 2998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.060/0.073/0.110/0.022 ms

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Reply to: