On Sunday 03 April 2011 18:20:37 Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:33:04 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> > On Sunday 03 April 2011 16:52:14 Camaleón wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> >> And also the reverse, from "Dozy" try to ping "Tux" (ping -c 3
> >> 192.168.0.2).
> >
> > Wow! Could you explain how you knew tha
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 17:33:04 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2011 16:52:14 Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> And also the reverse, from "Dozy" try to ping "Tux" (ping -c 3
>> 192.168.0.2).
>
> Wow! Could you explain how you knew that? I might recognise it myself
> another time!!
I've just rea
On Sunday 03 April 2011 17:33:04 Lisi wrote:
> machine .33 would be the third DHCP number allocated by the router. It
> does not currently exist. I could find three machines to connect by DHCP,
> if the third would make a difference of some kind!
I hang my head in shame! :-(
All that was neede
On Sunday 03 April 2011 16:52:14 Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:35:08 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> > On Sunday 03 April 2011 16:15:05 Camaleón wrote:
> >> Is the "ping" success if you run it as root?
> >
> > No! Herewith 1 specimen:
> >
> > Tux:/home/lisi# ping 192.168.0.3
>
> Try to ping machin
Just curious, I don't remember you saying that you reported the 'router'
device?
Also, I assume you've done some configuration changes to the router as
you're using static ips? So what dhcp changes have you made? Are you sure
you're not stepping on something else's feet? Does your router have logs
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 16:35:08 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2011 16:15:05 Camaleón wrote:
>> Is the "ping" success if you run it as root?
>
> No! Herewith 1 specimen:
>
> Tux:/home/lisi# ping 192.168.0.3
Try to ping machine .33 (ping -c 3 192.168.0.33)
And also the reverse, from "Do
On Sunday 03 April 2011 16:15:05 Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:18:06 +0100, Lisi wrote:
[snip]
> > lisi@Tux:~$ ping 192.168.0.3
> > PING 192.168.0.3 (192.168.0.3) 56(84) bytes of data. From 192.168.0.2
> > icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
>
> (...)
>
> Ugh.
Thanks, Camaleón. I h
On Sunday 03 April 2011 15:59:46 shawn wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Lisi wrote:
> > On Sunday 03 April 2011 15:33:16 shawn wilson wrote:
> >> ok, now lets see a route -n from the computers.
[snip]
> hum, lets try an 'ip addr', the main thing i want to see is UP as in
> this:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 15:18:06 +0100, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2011 13:54:06 Frank Lanitz wrote:
>> Question as always, do you have error message when trying to ping or
>> ssh?
>
> An error occurred while loading fish://peter@192.168.0.3: Could not
> connect to host 192.168.0.3.
>
> lisi@
On Sunday 03 April 2011 11:15:06 Jochen Schulz wrote:
> Lisi:
> > The Debian computers can be neither pinged nor ssh'd to. This is
> > presumably because of some setting that Debian puts in place by default,
> > but I can't find where or what.
>
> Debian doesn't install a firewall/packet filter by
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2011 15:33:16 shawn wilson wrote:
>> ok, now lets see a route -n from the computers.
>
>
> Thanks, shawn. :-) Herewith:
>
> Tux:/home/lisi# route -n
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags M
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 15:18:06 +0100
Lisi wrote:
> lisi@Tux:~$ ping 192.168.0.3
> PING 192.168.0.3 (192.168.0.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
> From 192.168.0.2 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
> From 192.168.0.2 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
This is showing that for some reasons no conne
On Sunday 03 April 2011 15:33:16 shawn wilson wrote:
> ok, now lets see a route -n from the computers.
Thanks, shawn. :-) Herewith:
Tux:/home/lisi# route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface
192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Lisi wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2011 13:54:06 Frank Lanitz wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:08:47 +0100
>>
>> Lisi wrote:
>> > The default situation is that I can (or anyhow, could)* ssh into a
>> > PCLinuxOS box from the other computers on my LAN. I can also ping
On Sunday 03 April 2011 13:54:06 Frank Lanitz wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:08:47 +0100
>
> Lisi wrote:
> > The default situation is that I can (or anyhow, could)* ssh into a
> > PCLinuxOS box from the other computers on my LAN. I can also ping
> > the gateway, and could ping the PCLinuxOS compu
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:08:47 +0100
Lisi wrote:
> The default situation is that I can (or anyhow, could)* ssh into a
> PCLinuxOS box from the other computers on my LAN. I can also ping
> the gateway, and could ping the PCLinuxOS computer.
>
> The Debian computers can be neither pinged nor ssh'd t
Lisi:
>
> The Debian computers can be neither pinged nor ssh'd to. This is presumably
> because of some setting that Debian puts in place by default, but I can't
> find where or what.
Debian doesn't install a firewall/packet filter by default. You just
need to install openssh-server in the mac
The default situation is that I can (or anyhow, could)* ssh into a PCLinuxOS
box from the other computers on my LAN. I can also ping the gateway, and
could ping the PCLinuxOS computer.
The Debian computers can be neither pinged nor ssh'd to. This is presumably
because of some setting that Deb
18 matches
Mail list logo
