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

Re: Directly connecting two computers



On Saturday 26 April 2014 19:36:31 Martin wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have two computer that I want to connect directly, similarly as I did
> long time ago with Null-Modem cable ( or LapLink cable).
> 
> I have obtained a crossover ethernet cable that I plug in network card
> of each computer. Now the problem is how to configure eth0 on both
> computer so they can communicate.
> 
> In /etc/hosts on both computers I have
> 192.168.231.2   neolit
> 192.168.231.3   paleolit
> 
> On one computer I have this entry in /etc/network/interfaces
> auto eth0
> iface eth0 inet static
>     address 192.168.231.3
>     pointopoint 192.168.231.2
>     netmask 255.255.255.255
> 
> When I run command route on this computer I get
> # route
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use
> Iface neolit          *               255.255.255.255 UH    0      0       
> 0 eth0
Nothing you have shown us in either hosts or interfaces should have generated
this routing table.  Could you please list your /etc/resolv.conf.

David
> 
> I can ping paleolit on this computer.
> But ping neolit does not work as expected.
> 
> On other computer I have this
> auto eth0
> iface eth0 inet static
>     address 192.168.231.2
>     pointopoint 192.168.231.3
>     netmask 255.255.255.255
> 
> Same command on this computer gives me
> # route
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use
> Iface paleolit          *               255.255.255.255 UH    0      0     
>   0 eth0
> 
> On this computer I can successfully run ping neolit
> but not ping paleolit.
> 
> Anyway on each computer I can use eth0 interface for any local service
> (smtp, http ...) but I can not connect to other side of the cable.
> 
> Can somebody tell what I need to change in /etc/network/interfaces entry
> for eth0 or is there some other setting that need to be done?
> 
> Thanks
> Martin


Reply to: