Re: Missed something setting up second nic
afaik the 3com 905 nic is not default supported by the debian kernel. You
have to load a module for it and if i'm right it is 3c59x which you have to
load and then it should work fine.
Remco.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cage" <cage47@vonl.com>
To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 20:30
Subject: Missed something setting up second nic
> I took my 3com 3c905 nic out when I installed Woody. Tried it in another
> box. I'm presently trying to get it reinstalled in my Woody install but
> can't get it to register in the network. First off this is going in
> alongside a KTI ne2k-pci compat nic. The kti nic is working fine in
> eth0. And I'm using linuxconf to setup the nics. But when I set the 3com
> nic up it won't go. I have the box connected to a win95 machine through
> Samba and it connects fine through the kti nic on eth0 but the 3com
> won't register in eth1 or eth0. Also my Woody machine is a dual boot
> with my old Mandrake 8.2 install (on hda2) Now in Mandy I run linuxconf
> and setup the kti nic in eth0 and the 3com in eth1 and it works fine. I
> can connect to both eth0 or eth1 when I have the address set in the
> WIn95 box, so I know the card works. And in Woody, when I bring up the
> KDE control panel and bring up the pci information it lists the 3com nic
> as well as my kti nic and my sb16 pci and my agp ATI Rage II. So it is
> there. So what Am I missing? When I type route -n it only lists the kti
> nic route. It is also listed by lspci. So I know it's there. So it must
> be a configuration issue. But for the life of me I can't think what I'm
> missing. I know it works fine in Mandy and I'm sure I had this setup
> once upon a time when I first setup Woody, but can't remember what was
> different. I'll keep plugging away at this but would like some objective
> ideas or places to check.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: