Re: Tulip network card not working
which driver(s) have you tried? i am using 2 of those cards using the
tulip driver on kernel 2.0.36 for about a year now with no trouble.
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:40:05:30:FF:19
inet addr:208.222.179.31 Bcast:208.222.179.255
Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:67998432 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:67994540 errors:6 dropped:0 overruns:2 carrier:4
Collisions:0
Interrupt:12 Base address:0xd000
I can't tell you exactly what chipset it is because I have only laid eyes
on this machine once since it came online, but i grep'd the drivers for
DC21142 and it looks as if tulip is the driver you should be using. Have
not tested on kernel 2.1/2.2/2.3 dont trust em yet.
nate
On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Jose Roberto de Chermont Teixeira wrote:
jrober >Hi!
jrober >
jrober >Does someone have already had problems with the DEC PCI Ethernet DC21142
jrober >network card? I thought it was defective, but on Nt it works. I have
jrober >isntalled Debian and FreeBSD to see what was the problem but both can't
jrober >use them. The card is detected and the module correctly loads, but I
jrober >have no network access. On a FreeBSD it displayed a message like "cable
jrober >problem?". Only on NT it has worked, so it does not seem that the card
jrober >is broken. Is there any parameter that I can insert in some file?
jrober >
jrober >Thank you very much!
jrober >
jrober >Jose Roberto
jrober >
jrober >
jrober >--
jrober >Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
jrober >
----------------------------------------[mailto:aphro@aphroland.org ]--
Vice President Network Operations http://www.firetrail.com/
Firetrail Internet Services Limited http://www.aphroland.org/
Everett, WA 425-348-7336 http://www.linuxpowered.net/
Powered By: http://comedy.aphroland.org/
Debian 2.1 Linux 2.0.36 SMP http://yahoo.aphroland.org/
-----------------------------------------[mailto:aphro@netquest.net ]--
3:08pm up 111 days, 2:52, 3 users, load average: 1.48, 1.62, 1.63
Reply to: