Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

> This looks strange for me, as I would think, the AP on the computer > would also need some processing time for recognition, correction and > routing to the host. Try it! If you notice an important performance penalty, *then* come back with the numbers and the details of your setup, so someone c

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Hans writes: > This looks strange for me, as I would think, the AP on the computer > would also need some processing time for recognition, correction and > routing to the host. Every packet is routed by the kernel. There is no seperate "AP". How much delay matters? Ping should be under a millis

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:40:07 +0200 Hans wrote: > > Then use NGINX with RTMP-module listening on its standard port and > streaming with RTMP from Computer A to Computer B to the standard > port. > > Everything without any AP or router between. > > The stream can then

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Hans writes: > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will be then > again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, a software router is > sklower than a hardware device). I haven't tried this, but take a look at: https://wiki.debian.org/Wi

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On 2025-03-30, John Hasler wrote: > Hans writes: >> This looks strange for me, as I would think, the AP on the computer >> would also need some processing time for recognition, correction and >> routing to the host. > > Every packet is routed by the kernel. There is no seperate "AP". > > How much

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Am Sonntag, 30. März 2025, 21:41:30 CEST schrieb debian-u...@howorth.org.uk: > Timothy M Butterworth wrote: > > [snip] > > > If you make the storage server the access point > > What storage server? > I thought this was about live video display from a drone? Oh sorry, maybe I did the wrong expr

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

ill > > > be then again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, > > > a software router is sklower than a hardware device). > > > > No, if one of the PCs is the AP, then communication between the two PCs > > is direct without "extra hop". > >

[SOLVED] Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Hi folks, thank you very much for all your respose! It was so hepfull amnd I have again again a lot. You showed me different ways using software AP, ad-hoc and gave me many informations. I will test all these things now, what will take me some time. All my questions are fully answered and so

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Timothy M Butterworth wrote: [snip] > If you make the storage server the access point What storage server? I thought this was about live video display from a drone?

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ∋≡hostB > > That is, what I wanted to do. > Then use NGINX with RTMP-module listening on its standard port and streaming > with RTMP from Computer A to Computer B to the standard port. > > Everything without any AP or router between. > > The stream

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

; Computer B > IP: 192.168.1.20 > GW: 192.168.1.1 > > Then use NGINX with RTMP-module listening on its standard port and > streaming with RTMP from Computer A to Computer B to the standard > port. > > Everything without any AP or router between. > >

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

the standard port. Everything without any AP or router between. The stream can then be made visible with VLC or OBS on Computer B. That is the plan, and as litle as possible between the two computers. > > where ∈ and ∋ are antennae, and hostB connects to the AP > as it would to

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

d I suppose, > > a software router is sklower than a hardware device). > > No, if one of the PCs is the AP, then communication between the two PCs > is direct without "extra hop". > > Similarly, if you use a separate AP/router box, any service you run on > the AP/rou

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

hat. > > > > Example at: > > > > http://souktha.github.io/misc/create-ap-linuxpc/ > > > > Cheers, > > David. > > Hi David, > > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will > be then again a new hop, which c

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

>> You need to make one PC an access point. I think most guides are > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will > be then again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, > a software router is sklower than a hardware device). No, if one of the PCs

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

hat. > > > > Example at: > > > > http://souktha.github.io/misc/create-ap-linuxpc/ > > yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will be then > again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, a software router is > sklower than a hardware

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

-ap-linuxpc/ > > Cheers, > David. Hi David, yes, I already am aware of this, but this I wanted to avoid. It will be then again a new hop, which causes delay (and I suppose, a software router is sklower than a hardware device). Cheers Hans

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On 29/3/25 23:41, Hans wrote: It is not important, if a router is givng the devices an IP-address. So I do not need any dhcp. The IP-addresses can of course be set manually by me. The more problem I see, will be the encryption and passkey-exchange, if needed. However, I do not need encryption

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

To clarify the access point will typically assign a subset of a class-C > range for DHCP. It will usually be O.K. to assign static addresses in > the same class C but out of the DHCP range > > An alternative depending on the router is to configure the router to > have fixed DHCP

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

been worked). The WiFi router usually assigns dynamic addresses in a configured range. That does not stop you assigning additional static addresses, I think in any range, but to be safe in the router DHCP range. With fixed static addresses you can do the point to point and gateway stuff

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On 29/3/25 22:53, Hans wrote: But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed IP`s and give computer A the IP-address from computer B as gateway, and the other way round. Of course I my thinking was wrong (otherwise it would have been worked). The WiFi router usually

Re: OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

On Sat 29 Mar 2025 at 15:53:01 (+0100), Hans wrote: > > just a question: Is it possible, to connect two computers with linux via wlan > without any router? > > I know, it is working with ethernet cable and crossover-cable. > > But is this possible with wifi, too? My

OT: Connect two computers with linux with wlan, but without any router

Dear list, just a question: Is it possible, to connect two computers with linux via wlan without any router? I know, it is working with ethernet cable and crossover-cable. But is this possible with wifi, too? My idea was working with fixed IP`s and give computer A the IP-address from

Re: ISP's router being helpful

mick.crane wrote: > > Things seem to be working normally. This started as I wondered why I got a > captcha page with cloudflare in the browser address bar the first time after > changing the ISP router. > I think I see what this Doh is about and will fiddle about with the o

Re: ISP's router being helpful

ostic page similar to about:networking#dns in Firefox. Things seem to be working normally. This started as I wondered why I got a captcha page with cloudflare in the browser address bar the first time after changing the ISP router. I think I see what this Doh is about and will fiddle about with th

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 23/01/2025 16:42, mick.crane wrote: Selected "OS default DNS ( when available)", as selecting the pfsense pc by address for this DoH was not accepted. I believe pfsense creates a DNS cache and wondered if pfsense can be configured to do DoH. Was curious where requests were going. I do not

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 10:03:09 +0700 Max Nikulin wrote: > > You do not need to recompile Firefox. You can even set IP of your DoH > provider to avoid querying local DNS to resolve provider's hostname: > JFTR: it looks like Chromium offers some

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 2025-01-23 03:03, Max Nikulin wrote: Mick, I am confused if you have solved you issue since you mentioned that you found DoH setting in Vivaldi, but asked concerning DNS debugging. I'm still considering a variant that the issue caused by the new router, not by a browser update

Re: ISP's router being helpful

;https://github.com/curl/curl/wiki/DNS-over-HTTPS> Mick, I am confused if you have solved you issue since you mentioned that you found DoH setting in Vivaldi, but asked concerning DNS debugging. I'm still considering a variant that the issue caused by the new router, not by a browser update.

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 2025-01-22 13:50, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 01:26:23PM +, mick.crane wrote: Would traceroute show any DNS queries? That's what tcpdump/wireshark are for. Eeeek!

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 02:30:58PM +0100, Frank Guthausen wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 12:42:20 +0100 > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 12:34:20PM +0100, Frank Guthausen wrote: > > > > > > [...] DoH can circumvent manipulation by the ISP [...] > > > > It just replaces one bully by another bul

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 01:26:23PM +, mick.crane wrote: > On 2025-01-22 13:08, Joe wrote: > > > > When Verizon started doing that, I switched to OpenDNS. I also use > > > Google's DNS on occasion. > > > > > > > An example: > > > > https://uk.linkedin.com/company/barefruit > > When I select

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 12:42:20 +0100 wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 12:34:20PM +0100, Frank Guthausen wrote: > > > > [...] DoH can circumvent manipulation by the ISP [...] > > It just replaces one bully by another bully. I won't bet on Google not > manipulating its DoH lookups once that starts i

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 2025-01-22 13:08, Joe wrote: When Verizon started doing that, I switched to OpenDNS. I also use Google's DNS on occasion. An example: https://uk.linkedin.com/company/barefruit When I selected cloudflair as DNS provider in chrome:settings/security Going to https://chat.openai.com cloudfl

Re: ISP's router being helpful

about completely > > > different things. DoH has absolutely nothing to do with your router's > > > (or any other local network's, or your provider's) DNS. It bypasses > > > it. That's its job. > > > > > How can it do that in reality?

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 07:16:07 -0500 Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 6:35 AM Frank Guthausen > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:46:16 + > > Chris Green wrote: > > > > > > How can it do that in reality? It's connecting

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 6:35 AM Frank Guthausen wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:46:16 + > Chris Green wrote: > > > > How can it do that in reality? It's connecting to the outside world > > via the router. It would have to 'tunnel' through the r

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 12:34:20PM +0100, Frank Guthausen wrote: [...] > Yes, the protocol used here is DoH or ``DNS over HTTPS''[1] which is > specified in RFC 8484[2]. This is a bypass for local network settings > which might not allow to ask external DNS servers as in the example > above. Sinc

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:46:16 + Chris Green wrote: > > How can it do that in reality? It's connecting to the outside world > via the router. It would have to 'tunnel' through the router somehow > wouldn't it as otherwise the router will 'see' any

Re: ISP's router being helpful

work's, or your provider's) DNS. It bypasses > > it. That's its job. > > > How can it do that in reality? It's connecting to the outside world > via the router. It would have to 'tunnel' through the router somehow > wouldn't it as otherwise the r

Re: ISP's router being helpful

most probably not in the way the OP expects, since they can't read > > > (?) their local /etc/hosts... > > > > > Surely in many cases DNS gets farmed out to a router to which the web > > browser (whether Chromium based or not) doesn't have any sort of > &

Re: ISP's router being helpful

and google do not resolve the host name (other DoH > > > provider may behave in a different way) > > > > But most probably not in the way the OP expects, since they can't read > > (?) their local /etc/hosts... > > > Surely in many cases DNS gets farmed ou

Re: ISP's router being helpful

wrote: > > > > On 19/01/2025 17:21, mick.crane wrote: > > > > > The other day changed the ISP's (Sky) router to have fibre connection. > > > > Maybe the previous router was configured to serve .home DNS zone. > > > Judging by the other symptoms (pi

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 09:48:30AM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 21/01/2025 23:31, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:38:51PM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > > > On 19/01/2025 17:21, mick.crane wrote: > > > > The other day changed the ISP's (S

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 2025-01-21 21:34, George at Clug wrote: To set a custom DNS server in Vivaldi, you can do the following: Open the Vivaldi menu Select Settings Select Privacy and Security Select Use secure DNS Select Custom Enter the URL of your preferred DNS provider Seems this opt

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 21/01/2025 23:31, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:38:51PM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: On 19/01/2025 17:21, mick.crane wrote: The other day changed the ISP's (Sky) router to have fibre connection. Maybe the previous router was configured to serve .home DNS zone. Judgi

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Wednesday, 22-01-2025 at 02:13 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 07:17:53AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > [...] > > > E.g. > > Ah, oh -- I overlooked (or forgot) that OP's brower is Vivaldi. https://help.vivaldi

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:38:51PM +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 19/01/2025 17:21, mick.crane wrote: > > The other day changed the ISP's (Sky) router to have fibre connection. > > Maybe the previous router was configured to serve .home DNS zone. Judging by the other sy

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 19/01/2025 17:21, mick.crane wrote: The other day changed the ISP's (Sky) router to have fibre connection. Maybe the previous router was configured to serve .home DNS zone. If vivaldi uses the same settings page as chromium than you may try to disable "secure DNS" ch

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 07:17:53AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: [...] > E.g. Ah, oh -- I overlooked (or forgot) that OP's brower is Vivaldi. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:44:22AM +, mick.crane wrote: > On 2025-01-21 08:41, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > - is the host name you use internally for your Roundcube in > > that URL? Or something else? I guess it's the first > > - if yes: what happens if you ping that host name from exactl

Re: ISP's router being helpful

nzel.home (10.0.0.2): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.130 ms ping sends an ICMP packet to an IP address (which may be specified or looked up from a domain name) and reports the time between sending and receiving a reply packet. It can be blocked by a firewall, dropped by a busy router, or not answered beca

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:44:22 +, mick.crane wrote: > On 2025-01-21 08:41, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > If the ping complains that it can't resolve the name, the problem > > is in your resolver setup. If it can, I'd look for the DoH (DNS- > > over-http) settings of your browser. > mick@courge

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 2025-01-21 08:41, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: - is the host name you use internally for your Roundcube in that URL? Or something else? I guess it's the first - if yes: what happens if you ping that host name from exactly the same box your browser runs in? If the ping complains that it can'

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:03:23PM +, mick.crane wrote: > On 2025-01-19 13:58, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 12:53:20PM +, mick.crane wrote: > > > On 2025-01-19 12:01, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > OK. I can ping the PC with roundcube on it by name

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 2025-01-19 13:58, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 12:53:20PM +, mick.crane wrote: On 2025-01-19 12:01, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] OK. I can ping the PC with roundcube on it by name but "host " fails to resolve. Aha. This means that your roundcube (whatever name it

Re: ISP's router being helpful

wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 05:04:16PM +, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk > wrote: > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 12:13:09PM +, > > > debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > I just use IP addresses for local web services, so I can use > > > > DOH

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 05:04:16PM +, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 12:13:09PM +, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk > > wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > I just use IP addresses for local web services, so I can use DOH in > > > my browser. > > > > I'm at

Re: ISP's router being helpful

wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 12:13:09PM +, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk > wrote: > > [...] > > > I just use IP addresses for local web services, so I can use DOH in > > my browser. > > I'm at a loss why somebody would want to do that (although I pretty > well know why Google wants every

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 12:13:09PM +, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote: [...] > I just use IP addresses for local web services, so I can use DOH in my > browser. I'm at a loss why somebody would want to do that (although I pretty well know why Google wants everyone to). But to each their ow

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 08:36:11AM +1100, George at Clug wrote: > I had forgotten to mention about "DNS over HTTPS", which besides encrypting > DNS traffic, usually use a trusted Internet based DNS service, instead of > local DNS settings. But I mentioned it. It brought us a lot of fun at $WORKP

Re: ISP's router being helpful

George at Clug wrote: > I had forgotten to mention about "DNS over HTTPS", which besides > encrypting DNS traffic, usually use a trusted Internet based DNS > service, instead of local DNS settings. > > https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/dns-over-https > > This maybe why your web browser does n

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 2025-01-19 21:36, George at Clug wrote: I had forgotten to mention about "DNS over HTTPS", which besides encrypting DNS traffic, usually use a trusted Internet based DNS service, instead of local DNS settings. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/dns-over-https This maybe why your web brow

Re: ISP's router being helpful

don't understand the internet and don't know what I'm doing. > The other day changed the ISP's (Sky) router to have fibre connection. > I have a PC with apache2 presenting an index.html which is a page of > links to various documents and websites. > The link to e.g.

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:51:58AM -0600, Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > On Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 7:58 AM wrote: > > > > > [0] This is part of the libc and (roughly) translates host names to > >IP addresses for the programs running in your box. Eventually, > >it goes out to ask some DNS ser

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Sun, Jan 19, 2025, 7:58 AM wrote: > > [0] This is part of the libc and (roughly) translates host names to >IP addresses for the programs running in your box. Eventually, >it goes out to ask some DNS servers. > Along the way it's (probably) consulting /etc/resolv.conf which is whe

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 12:53:20PM +, mick.crane wrote: > On 2025-01-19 12:01, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > OK. I can ping the PC with roundcube on it by name but "host > " fails to resolve. Aha. This means that your roundcube (whatever name it has, you didn't tell us yet :) is probably i

Re: ISP's router being helpful

If everything you want to do is internal, maybe you can use PFSence's DNS settings? https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/services/dhcp/ipv4.html Server Options DNS Servers: Defines up to four DNS server IP addresses which the server provides to clients. To use custom DNS Servers instead

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On 2025-01-19 12:01, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:21:45AM +, mick.crane wrote: Hi, Obviously I don't understand the internet and don't know what I'm doing. Honestly. Who does, these days? The other day changed the ISP's (Sky) router to have

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 7:02 AM wrote: > On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:21:45AM +, mick.crane wrote: > > Hi, > > Obviously I don't understand the internet and don't know what I'm doing. > > Honestly. Who does, these days? > > > The other day

Re: ISP's router being helpful

On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 10:21:45AM +, mick.crane wrote: > Hi, > Obviously I don't understand the internet and don't know what I'm doing. Honestly. Who does, these days? > The other day changed the ISP's (Sky) router to have fibre connection. > I have

Re: ISP's router being helpful

t understand the internet and don't know what I'm doing. > The other day changed the ISP's (Sky) router to have fibre connection. > I have a PC with apache2 presenting an index.html which is a page of > links to various documents and websites. > The link to e.g. the

ISP's router being helpful

Hi, Obviously I don't understand the internet and don't know what I'm doing. The other day changed the ISP's (Sky) router to have fibre connection. I have a PC with apache2 presenting an index.html which is a page of links to various documents and websites. The link to e.g

Re: Debian on OpenWrt One router?

On 11/12/24 14:13, Alex King wrote: Where do I go for people interested in Debian on the OpenWrt One/ BananaPi Router? (https://openwrt.org/toh/openwrt/one) There may be a Debian only distro. Usually the manufacturer supplies a link. There is certainly an Armbian distro which is 99% the

Debian on OpenWrt One router?

Where do I go for people interested in Debian on the OpenWrt One/BananaPi Router? (https://openwrt.org/toh/openwrt/one) Mine just arrived today, and while it's working fine with OpenWrt, of course I'd prefer it was running Debian.  I googled and found https://wiki.debian.org/Debian

Re: NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 15:11:20 +0200, Detlef Vollmann wrote: >> NetworkManager is the "default" (whatever "default" means) as it serves >> well the need of many users to connect a client machine to the Internet. > > It's only the "default" if a Desktop Environment is instal

Re: NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 15:11:20 +0200, Detlef Vollmann wrote: > NetworkManager is the "default" (whatever "default" means) as it serves > well the need of many users to connect a client machine to the Internet. It's only the "default" if a Desktop Environment is installed. On a Standard Debian i

Re: NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

On 7/8/24 11:50, David Ayers wrote: On 8/7/24 11:42, jeremy ardley wrote: I also forgot to mention my usual warning: NetworkManager is *not* stable and if you do anything complex with it you can expect trouble. Personally I use systemd-networkd as that seems much more stable and predictable

Re: NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

Hi, David Ayers wrote: > PS: it seems I'm not receiving mails via the list subscription so > please keep my CC:ed if you will. Thank you! The "X-Spam-Status:" header of your mail does not show "LDOSUBSCRIBER". So i assume that ay...@fsfe.org is not known to the list server as a subscribed e-mail

Re: NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

ogus so it never meaningfully resolves on the > public Internet). Thank you for the insight! I just clicked through the routers DHCP configuration options (note there are no explicit DNS options). This is a ZTS ZXHN H268N Router provided with a custom Firmware A1 WLAN Box 027_42w2_MU from

Re: NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

d-networkd as that seems much more stable and > predictable and is easier to congigure Thanks, and yes, /etc/hosts is what I have been juggling until now but even though the network is "überschaubar" (small) it is volatile. After reboots of the router the printer/scanner, nas all get new IPs

Re: NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

On 8 Jul 2024 01:03 +0200, from ay...@fsfe.org (David Ayers): > Hello everyone! > > My Debian 12/bookworm laptop uses DHCP with NetworkManager which > produce an /etc/resolv.conf containing: > # Generated by NetworkManager > ``` > search home > nameserver 192.168.1.254 > ``` Note that .home is so

Re: NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

P suppired router will reply for the queries.  I suppose, that the router is returning the wrong reply for its own local domain for queries. So I guess my question is, can I tell dnsmasq somehow not to cache NXDOMAIN or interpret it as NODATA-IPv6 for queries to the *.home domain? Any other s

Re: NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

ssful name resolutions with subsequent requests failing again. I do notice that when querying external domains, they seem to return NODATA-IPv6 instead of NXDOMAIN for what I assume are the queries. But I have no control of that my ZTE based ISP suppired router will reply for the queries.

NetworkManager with dnsmasq caching NXDOMAIN response of router

t requests failing again. I do notice that when querying external domains, they seem to return NODATA-IPv6 instead of NXDOMAIN for what I assume are the queries. But I have no control of that my ZTE based ISP suppired router will reply for the queries. I suppose, that the router is returning

memtest86+ on UEFI (was: Hardware Advice Wanted: Router)

> Interesting. I have memtest86+ 6.10-4, for amd64, on the machine. Then AFAIK it is not a known problem (IOW, it should work). > Maybe I'll try a USB stick version. IIRC the memtest86+ Debian package comes with .iso files which you can (manually) put into /boot/images/ and which boot in a slig

Re: Hardware Advice Wanted: Router

On Sat, 02 Dec 2023 11:58:11 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Note: Memtest86 does not appear to work. I believe that is a known > > problem with UEFI machines. > > AFAIK the current memtest86+ (not to be confused with memtest86, which > is proprietary) claims to work fine on UEFI. > IIUC the o

Getting UEFI to boot Debian (was: Hardware Advice Wanted: Router)

> For the curious, I occasionally need to run Microchip MPLAB, the old > pre-Java version which doesn't do Linux. It only just about does > Windows... I used to think Serif software was buggy until I tried > Microchip stuff. Setting it up might take some work (especially if you need it to have dir

Re: Hardware Advice Wanted: Router

> Note: Memtest86 does not appear to work. I believe that is a known > problem with UEFI machines. AFAIK the current memtest86+ (not to be confused with memtest86, which is proprietary) claims to work fine on UEFI. IIUC the one in oldstable doesn't OTOH. Stefan

Re: Set UEFI boot target with Windows (was: Hardware Advice Wanted: Router)

On Thu, 30 Nov 2023 13:27:59 +0100 Arno Lehmann wrote: > > ... have you ever tried > > bcdedit /bootsequence > > In general, the built-in help of bcdedit is not bad, needs a bit of > patience, though. > > And of course we lack the flexibility of tools such as awk or sed on > Windows, to a

Set UEFI boot target with Windows (was: Hardware Advice Wanted: Router)

Bit of a digression here, probably better not to pursue *this* on the mailing list, but... Am 30.11.2023 um 12:52 schrieb Joe: On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 18:34:30 -0500 Jeffrey Walton wrote: As I understand things, a well functioning UEFI system does not need to use GRUB. The entries for Linux

Re: Hardware Advice Wanted: Router

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 18:34:30 -0500 Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > As I understand things, a well functioning UEFI system does not need > to use GRUB. The entries for Linux and Windows will be in the UEFI > boot menu, and you can boot directly using EFI variables. > It's the 'well functioning' tha

Re: Hardware Advice Wanted: Router

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 6:17 PM Charles Curley wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:57:28 -0700 > Charles Curley wrote: > > > My FIT-PCs that provide network services are getting old, and i386 > > Linux is slowly fading away. So I would like to replace them with a >

Re: Hardware Advice Wanted: Router

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:57:28 -0700 Charles Curley wrote: > My FIT-PCs that provide network services are getting old, and i386 > Linux is slowly fading away. So I would like to replace them with a > router/gateway computer. Thank you all for much useful advice. I ended up with an AC

Re: connect two hosts over wifi without router?

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023, Hans wrote: Hi folks, just before I am trying forever: Is it possible, to connect two hosts directly over wlan without using a router? Yes. It's called adhoc networking. No AP, no router, just two wifi cards acting as a ptp link. But I doubt you can do it other

Re: connect two hosts over wifi without router?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:11 PM Hans wrote: > > Hi folks, > > just before I am trying forever: > > Is it possible, to connect two hosts directly over wlan without using a > router? > > The background: I want to stream video from my drone using RTMP to my > notebook

Re: connect two hosts over wifi without router?

Hans writes: > Hi folks, > > hmm, looks like the only way is using a hotspot, either one as a vitual one > using hostapd (or some similar software). I don't know much about drones but even a cursory look seemed to indicate some drones can act as wifi hotspots themselves? And newer drones suppo

Re: connect two hosts over wifi without router?

and receiving device will cause delays (which I > also get when using a router To minimize delays, you could use a recording device on the drone (Don't they record by default?); or put a dashcam or something similar on it that can record. Are there are any recording devices that don't

Re: connect two hosts over wifi without router?

Hi folks, hmm, looks like the only way is using a hotspot, either one as a vitual one using hostapd (or some similar software). But this is just what I wanted to avoid, as every software between streaming device and receiving device will cause delays (which I also get when using a router i.e

Re: connect two hosts over wifi without router?

Hans wrote: > Is it possible, to connect two hosts directly over wlan without using a > router? Sometimes. The capability is called Ad-Hoc mode. If you have two Linux machines with wifi NICs that support it, you can do it. If one of the hosts is a drone, it might not be capable o

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >