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

Re: Networking probs, ifconfig?



Hi Derryck,

Your ifconfig status is definitely bad...
What type 3Com car you have? I have a 3c509 (Etherlink III) and
the driver kicks in fine.

On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Derryck Lamptey wrote:

> 	"loading device 'eth0'..."
> 
> Is it supposed to give the ethernet card number as well?
It should report stuff like the IRQ being used, which port (like BNC), and
should also report the card's HW address...


> 
> Also, When I do "ifconfig eth0", I get:
> 
> ----- Begin Included Message -----
> 
> eth0      Link encap:UNSPEC  HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
>           unspec addr:[NONE SET]  Bcast:[NONE SET]  Mask:[NONE SET]
>           [NO FLAGS]  MTU:0  Metric:1
>           RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
>           TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
>           Interrupt:5 Base address:0x280 
definitely bad...
encap should be something like "10Mbps Ethernet"
HWaddr should be the actual HW address of the card
your IP address is missing "NONE SET"
basically you're missing everything... :(
I think either your 3com card is bad or maybe not seated right in the slot?

Here's my entry from ifconfig from a machine at work:
eth0      Link encap:10Mbps Ethernet  HWaddr 00:00:E8:C8:D9:D2
          inet addr:137.79.17.41  Bcast:137.79.17.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:1755624 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
          TX packets:70666 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
          Interrupt:5 Base address:0x300

Check the card... Maybe try going into DOS and run a diagnostic on it...

Good luck!
Ricardo

> 
> I just noticed Ricardo's email:
> 
> ]I've just installed the base (5 disk install) plus the netbase and netstd
> ]packages. The setup is all A-OK. :) I can ping my main server fine, and
> ]vice versa. Now I tried telnetting from my other machine into the
> 
> I wish I was getting this far!
> 
> Help. Derryck
> 
> 


Reply to: