On Sat 30 Jul 2016 at 12:45:50 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 29 Jul 2016 at 16:44:43 -0600, ghe wrote:
>
> > When I set up a static IP, wicd fills in the net mask and the default router
> > automatically. I don't know where it gets the info, but the values and the
> > table are the same as the tab
On Thu 28 Jul 2016 at 15:15:52 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
>
> > On Jul 28, 2016, at 1:27 PM, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > 2016/07/28 07:35:36 :: Flushing the routing table...
>
> And that's when wicd deletes the routes. But if the table had been set
> up by wicd to use the eth0 interface, it w
On Fri 29 Jul 2016 at 16:44:43 -0600, ghe wrote:
> On 07/29/2016 07:22 AM, Brian wrote:
>
> >It obviously wasn't a reasonable routing table. :) The control socket in
> >/run probably disappeared too.
>
> Yes it was. Same as I've been using on that net forever.
Not much thought went into my rema
On Friday 29 July 2016 18:07:43 Glenn English wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2016, at 5:18 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 29 July 2016 01:01:07 Glenn English wrote:
> >> But. When I tried again after telling wicd to use DHCP instead of a
> >> static IP, it successfully connected. It even got the I
On 07/29/2016 07:22 AM, Brian wrote:
It obviously wasn't a reasonable routing table. :) The control socket in
/run probably disappeared too.
Yes it was. Same as I've been using on that net forever.
When I set up a static IP, wicd fills in the net mask and the default
router automatically. I
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Brian wrote:
>
> You really intended to delete my perceptive and informative mail and not
> reply to it? I'm in a state of shock and will have to leave this
> conversation and have a lie down.
No, Brian. What I was trying to do was to delete my half-thought-out r
On Fri 29 Jul 2016 at 12:08:16 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Glenn English wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Brian wrote:
> >>
> >> The client surely doesn't need an IP address to communicate with a dhcp
> >> server? With a wired connection a
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Glenn English wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 29, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Brian wrote:
>>
>> The client surely doesn't need an IP address to communicate with a dhcp
>> server? With a wired connection association is automatically present and
>> I suspect the initial communicati
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Brian wrote:
>
> The client surely doesn't need an IP address to communicate with a dhcp
> server? With a wired connection association is automatically present and
> I suspect the initial communication involves a MAC and not an IP address.
>
> With WiFi the purpo
On Thu 28 Jul 2016 at 15:15:52 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 2016, at 1:27 PM, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > The answer may lie in the logs. Mine contains the lines
> >
> > 2016/07/28 07:35:36 :: Setting false IP... ←--
>
> Ah! They set an IP that will get to the
> On Jul 29, 2016, at 5:18 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>
> On Friday 29 July 2016 01:01:07 Glenn English wrote:
>> But. When I tried again after telling wicd to use DHCP instead of a static
>> IP, it successfully connected. It even got the IP I'd set up for the laptop
>> over on the DHCP server's conf
On Thu 28 Jul 2016 at 18:01:07 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Brian wrote:
> >
> > Indeed; presumably it has decided association and authentication with
> > the access point has successfully taken place and the interface has got
> > an IP number. However, there does
On Friday 29 July 2016 01:01:07 Glenn English wrote:
> But. When I tried again after telling wicd to use DHCP instead of a static
> IP, it successfully connected. It even got the IP I'd set up for the laptop
> over on the DHCP server's config.
Ah! There's the clue, I would guess. You had reserve
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Brian wrote:
>
> Indeed; presumably it has decided association and authentication with
> the access point has successfully taken place and the interface has got
> an IP number. However, there does not appear to be routing between the
> interface and the AP.
When I
On Thursday 28 July 2016 22:15:52 Glenn English wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 2016, at 1:27 PM, David Wright
> > wrote:
> >
> > The answer may lie in the logs. Mine contains the lines
> >
> > 2016/07/28 07:35:36 :: Setting false IP... ←--
>
> Ah! They set an IP that will get to the DHC
On Thursday 28 July 2016 20:18:38 Brian wrote:
> And if they did it could just as well be wicd (NM) as NM (wicd).
Indeed. I take as much care not to have NM on the computer with wicd as vice
versa. In that saga you helped with so signally, you may have noticed that I
tried both several times -
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 1:27 PM, David Wright wrote:
>
> The answer may lie in the logs. Mine contains the lines
>
> 2016/07/28 07:35:36 :: Setting false IP... ←--
Ah! They set an IP that will get to the DHCP server. I assume that the AP will
send out something on the Ethern
On 2016-07-25 18:53, Glenn English wrote:
> What does "Verifying access point association" mean, and what do you
> do to make it OK?
On Thu 28 Jul 2016 at 13:03:13 (-0600), Glenn English wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Brian wrote:
> > It is wpa_supplicant which does the association and a
On Thu 28 Jul 2016 at 15:01:14 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Thursday 28 July 2016 14:35:09 Mike McGinn wrote:
> >
> > I had some trouble with wicd which I cured by making sure that network
> > manager was not running. Make sure NM is stopped and does not start.
>
> ... by uninstalling it.
No, b
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>
>> Don't think so. NM, IIRC, implies Gnome, […]
>
> NACK
>
> I run NM without any of the big desktop environments.
OK. I remember incorrectly, or I got some bad info.
But I still think that's not the problem -- there's no NM around her
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Brian wrote:
>
> Indeed; presumably it has decided association and authentication with
> the access point has successfully taken place and the interface has got
> an IP number. However, there does not appear to be routing between the
> interface and the AP.
Wicd '
Glenn English:
> > On Jul 28, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Mike McGinn
> > wrote:
> >
> > I had some trouble with wicd which I cured by making sure that
> > network manager was not running. Make sure NM is stopped and does
> > not start.
>
> Don't think so. NM, IIRC, implies Gnome, […]
NACK
I run NM with
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Mike McGinn wrote:
>
> I had some trouble with wicd which I cured by making sure that network
> manager was not running. Make sure NM is stopped and does not start.
Don't think so. NM, IIRC, implies Gnome, and my GUI is XFCD. There's already no
NM anywhere.
--
On Thursday 28 July 2016 14:35:09 Mike McGinn wrote:
> On 07/28/2016 07:36 AM, Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 27 Jul 2016 at 22:36:01 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
> >>> On Jul 25, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Glenn English wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What does "Verifying access point association" mean
> >>
> >> After some lo
On 07/28/2016 07:36 AM, Brian wrote:
On Wed 27 Jul 2016 at 22:36:01 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
On Jul 25, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Glenn English wrote:
What does "Verifying access point association" mean
After some looking around, I found that a failure in that phase of
connecting means that wi
On Wed 27 Jul 2016 at 22:36:01 -0600, Glenn English wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Glenn English wrote:
> >
> > What does "Verifying access point association" mean
>
> After some looking around, I found that a failure in that phase of
> connecting means that wicd tried to ping the AP 1
> On Jul 25, 2016, at 5:53 PM, Glenn English wrote:
>
> What does "Verifying access point association" mean
After some looking around, I found that a failure in that phase of connecting
means that wicd tried to ping the AP 10 times, and failed.
> what do you do to make it OK?
I still have no
27 matches
Mail list logo
