Trouble with first attempt at ethernet

I have decided to give a go at setting up a basic home ethernet
network and thought I would do a test first and see if I had any
troubles. This involved taking two fairly old computers I had laying
about and putting fresh installs of Slackware 9.1 on them. There are
no firewalls on either machine. I also used old cards ISA cards
(I had two SMC EtherEZ and two 3Com Etherlink IIIs as well) which I had
salvaged from here or there for the purpose of testing what I could do
and how difficult it would be. I figured on getting something more
proper for the final run with my more major computers but didn't want
to spend any real money until I had some idea that I was going to run
into and what I could support, i.e. wireless vs. cables.

I first installed an SMC card in each computer, edited the
/etc/rc.d/rc.modules file to load the appropriate driver, as listed in
the Ethernet-HOWTO, and rebooted. I also connected the two machines
with a crossover cable, which I had read would work for a simple two
computer connection avoiding the need for a hub.
Everything looked good at that
point. I then ran netconfig and put in static IP addresses for each
machine (192.168.1.1 & 192.168.1.2). I again rebooted, just in case,
and again things seemed okay, and the eth0 interface appeared to be
up. To confirm I ran ifconfig and received this:

eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:C0:06:B8:EB
inet addr:192.168.1.1 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:5 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:169 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:300 (300.0 b) TX bytes:10482 (10.2 Kb)
Interrupt:3 Base address:0x250 Memory:c0000-c2000

lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:147 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:147 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:17184 (16.7 Kb) TX bytes:17184 (16.7 Kb)

Based on what I had seen online in some basic guides and such this
seemed at least on the surface to be what I wanted to get. However, I
found that each machine could ping itself, but could not reach the
other computer. Instead, I received this result:

PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.1 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.1 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.1 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.1 icmp_seq=5 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.1 icmp_seq=7 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.1 icmp_seq=8 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.1 icmp_seq=10 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.1 icmp_seq=11 Destination Host Unreachable

--- 192.168.1.2 ping statistics ---
13 packets transmitted, 0 received, +8 errors, 100% packet loss,
time 12039ms
, pipe 2

I have followed some advice and added the first address (192.168.1.1)
as the gateway with no result. After this result with the two SMC
cards, I also switched to the Etherlinks without any impact on
performance. My first instinct was that perhaps these old ISA cards
were to blame, but having used two different sets I wondered if that
was likely. Surely one would have worked. But, could this in fact be
my problem? Or am I overlooking something obvious in my setup?
Obviously I am complete newb at setting up an ethernet connection and
so I wouldn't be surprised to find that I am goofing something silly
up. But, I have not found any references online to any steps which I
am neglecting, which means that I am stumped.

If anyone can offer any help at all it is greatly appreciated.

They're simple suggestions, but have you verified that the cable is
actually a crossover cable? I've seen them mislabeled before... You
should be able to tell just by looking at the colors at the ends of the
cable.

Also, run ifconfig on both machines, just to make sure they're both on the
correct IP's and all. You only mentioned running it on one.

It looks like you did everything right, which is why I'd be on the lookout
for hardware error (cable) or fat-fingers.

--
\\\\\ ----> [email]hedgehog@hedgie.com[/email] <----
\\\\\\\__o Bringing hedgehogs to the common folk since 1994.
__\\\\\\\'/________________________________________________________

Visit [url]http://www.hedgie.com[/url] for information on my latest book,
"Waiting for War," published by Aventine Press!

Many thanks for the help on this. I am really just stumped on what I
am doing wrong at this point.

I actually do not really know how to confirm that the cable is good,
either in being a crossover, or just working correctly. I have never
used this one, or any other, and so have no point of
comparison. How can I verify that it is a crossover? I didn't notice
anything printed on it.

So far, due especially to my ignorance of exactly how things work, I
have done everything on both computers identically, one right after
the other. And ifconfig did return similar results on both machines.
The only difference I noticed was the obvious address change,
i.e. 192.168.1.1 vs 192.168.1.2. Both seemed to be what I should see
based on what I have read online and have seen in examples.

My first instinct was that I had cards which were not working
properly. I only had those two kinds, SMC and Etherlink, on hand and
did not want to buy anything until I had an idea of what I was doing
so that I could make a decent decision as to what I wanted, and what
was supported in Linux. But, I did notice that in the Etherlink HOWTO
there were some warnings regarding ISA PnP and some sort of
autodetect not working right, but I really could not follow what was
being said, and it did not seem, at least, to be referring to something
not working at all, but rather to it working better one way than
another. I am still wondering if perhaps my problem could be that
I just happened to have two difficult to configure cards and with my
newbie status I am simply not doing all that needs to be done. Have
you ever had any occasion to use one of these cards? Should I perhaps
simply invest in a new card and see what I get? Boy, it's tough being
such a cheapskate. :-)

> I actually do not really know how to confirm that the cable is good,[color=blue]
> either in being a crossover, or just working correctly. I have never
> used this one, or any other, and so have no point of
> comparison. How can I verify that it is a crossover? I didn't notice
> anything printed on it.[/color]

Hold the two connectors next to each other, same side up, facing the
same way. Suppose the colors in one connector are "ABCDEF". If the
same pattern appears in the other connector in the same order, then
it's a straight through (normal) patch cable. If you see "FEDCBA" in
the other connector, then it's a crossover.

If you didn't specifically buy a crossover cable, then 99% likely it
is straight-through and cannot be used to connect two computers
directly.
[color=blue]
> you ever had any occasion to use one of these cards? Should I perhaps
> simply invest in a new card and see what I get? Boy, it's tough being[/color]

It's not quite time to buy new hardware yet, this would simply be
buying a new set of problems which might - or might not - be easier to
solve than the problems you have right now.

Lewin A.R.W. Edwards wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>>I actually do not really know how to confirm that the cable is good,
>>either in being a crossover, or just working correctly. I have never
>>used this one, or any other, and so have no point of
>>comparison. How can I verify that it is a crossover? I didn't notice
>>anything printed on it.[/color]
>
>
> Hold the two connectors next to each other, same side up, facing the
> same way. Suppose the colors in one connector are "ABCDEF". If the
> same pattern appears in the other connector in the same order, then
> it's a straight through (normal) patch cable. If you see "FEDCBA" in
> the other connector, then it's a crossover.[/color]

Not true at all. There is no "cross over" in your pin-out,
only polarity switching.

A proper description is here:
[url]http://www.faqs.org/faqs/LANs/cabling-faq/section-11.html[/url]


Memorize it. Bookmark it. Print it out and carry it in
your wallet. Have it tattooed to the back of your hand.
[color=blue]
> If you didn't specifically buy a crossover cable, then 99% likely it
> is straight-through and cannot be used to connect two computers
> directly.[/color]

100% likely.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 07:38:02 -0700, Lewin A.R.W. Edwards wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I actually do not really know how to confirm that the cable is good,
>> either in being a crossover, or just working correctly. I have never
>> used this one, or any other, and so have no point of
>> comparison. How can I verify that it is a crossover? I didn't notice
>> anything printed on it.[/color]
>
> Hold the two connectors next to each other, same side up, facing the
> same way. Suppose the colors in one connector are "ABCDEF". If the
> same pattern appears in the other connector in the same order, then
> it's a straight through (normal) patch cable. If you see "FEDCBA" in
> the other connector, then it's a crossover.[/color]

Okay. I was slightly wrong, and there is something written on it. It
says on the side "RadioShack (UL) E129760-C TYPE CM UTP 24AWG CAT5E CROSSOVER"
Additionally, when I hold the two ends next to each other, both ends facing
up, what I see is:
Left: Brown, Brown/white, Green, Blue/White, Blue, Green/White, Orange,
Orange/White
Right: Brown, Brown/White, Orange, Blue/White, Blue, Orange/White,
Green, Green/White

How does that sound to you? Not the reverse of the first, but rather a
sort of jumbled up version? I did buy the package with crossover
written on it, but other than that I was unsure of what to look for.
All were listed as CAT5E, so I assumed that I would be able to use that.

hi
[color=blue]
> cothrige wrote:[/color]
----- snip[color=blue]
>
> Left: Brown, Brown/white, Green, Blue/White, Blue, Green/White, Orange,
> Orange/White
> Right: Brown, Brown/White, Orange, Blue/White, Blue, Orange/White,
> Green, Green/White
>[/color]

If like me your memory is a bit visual
<http://www.lanshack.com/make-cat5E.asp> will tell you that you have a
crossover.

--
good luck

peter

cothrige sat down at the computer and pounded the following into the
keyboard:
[color=blue]
> How does that sound to you? Not the reverse of the first, but rather a
> sort of jumbled up version? I did buy the package with crossover written
> on it, but other than that I was unsure of what to look for. All were
> listed as CAT5E, so I assumed that I would be able to use that.[/color]

That sounds like the right cable. I'm actually a little confused at this
point as to why it isn't working.

What's the output from the "route" program?

--
\\\\\ ----> [email]hedgehog@hedgie.com[/email] <----
\\\\\\\__o Bringing hedgehogs to the common folk since 1994.
__\\\\\\\'/________________________________________________________

Visit [url]http://www.hedgie.com[/url] for information on my latest book,
"Waiting for War," published by Aventine Press!

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:26:51 -0400, Jimmy Brokaw wrote:
[color=blue]
> That sounds like the right cable. I'm actually a little confused at this
> point as to why it isn't working.
>
> What's the output from the "route" program?[/color]

Yep. It turns out it is the right cable. Many thanks to the poster above
for the pictures link as they worked for me very well. Apparently I am
visual as well.

But, thankfully, I have now had success with the ping. I was
going from card to card to try anything I could find online, and finally
had something work. I had found a post somewhere which mentioned the irq
and io of the poster's SMC EtherEZ ISA card, and so I passed them to lilo
(adding some other items which I found in a site discussing the Etherlink
cards which I thought would possibly help).
Using "ether=9,0x240,4,0,eth0" got me a successful ping from each
machine to the other. Of course, I haven't tried doing anything else, and
actually do not even know what to do next.

I do find myself wondering though, will I have to pass this through at
boot, on the rare occasions I have to reboot anyway, or can I append this
in the lilo.conf file? If so, how should it be done?

And does anyone have any recommendations on a site which will guide me
through actually using the network insome way, i.e. filesystems and so on?

Again, many thanks to all for the advice. Never a dull moment since I
switched to Linux, that's for sure! :-)

cothrige sat down at the computer and pounded the following into the
keyboard:
[color=blue]
> But, thankfully, I have now had success with the ping. I was going from
> card to card to try anything I could find online, and finally had
> something work. I had found a post somewhere which mentioned the irq and
> io of the poster's SMC EtherEZ ISA card, and so I passed them to lilo
> (adding some other items which I found in a site discussing the Etherlink
> cards which I thought would possibly help). Using "ether=9,0x240,4,0,eth0"
> got me a successful ping from each machine to the other. Of course, I
> haven't tried doing anything else, and actually do not even know what to
> do next.[/color]

In a secure network like yours, make sure "telnet" daemons are installed
and running on both, and try telnetting from one to the other. Then start
googling for Samba or some other file service.
[color=blue]
> I do find myself wondering though, will I have to pass this through at
> boot, on the rare occasions I have to reboot anyway, or can I append this
> in the lilo.conf file? If so, how should it be done?[/color]

That's not a problem I've encountered before... My cards have always
worked first try. You should be able to put the settings into your
init.d/network to get the cards working when the network boots.

Congrats on finding the problem!

--
\\\\\ ----> [email]hedgehog@hedgie.com[/email] <----
\\\\\\\__o Bringing hedgehogs to the common folk since 1994.
__\\\\\\\'/________________________________________________________

Visit [url]http://www.hedgie.com[/url] for information on my latest book,
"Waiting for War," published by Aventine Press!

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:24:16 -0400, Jimmy Brokaw wrote:
[color=blue]
> That's not a problem I've encountered before... My cards have always
> worked first try. You should be able to put the settings into your
> init.d/network to get the cards working when the network boots.
>
> Congrats on finding the problem![/color]

Many thanks to you and to the others who have helped me in getting this up
so far. I have just managed to mount the respective filesystems on
each computer and can at least move about between them. Fortunately,
nfs was fairly self starting, it would seem anyway. Now I think I may
look into IP masquerading, though I must admit that I am a bit intimidated
by what I have read so far, in order to share my internet connection
between computers.

Thanks again for all the help.

cothrige sat down at the computer and pounded the following into the
keyboard:
[color=blue]
> Many thanks to you and to the others who have helped me in getting this up
> so far. I have just managed to mount the respective filesystems on each
> computer and can at least move about between them. Fortunately, nfs was
> fairly self starting, it would seem anyway. Now I think I may look into
> IP masquerading, though I must admit that I am a bit intimidated by what I
> have read so far, in order to share my internet connection between
> computers.[/color]

Consider using shorewall. The shorewall website (sorry, tired, a
quick google should get it) has example configuration files for a
two-interface masquerading setup, so you can get it running with minimal
hassle and effort.

I mean, you *could* just muck with iptables all night.... But using the
two-interface setup from shorewall, it's really a quick jobbie.

--
\\\\\ ----> [email]hedgehog@hedgie.com[/email] <----
\\\\\\\__o Bringing hedgehogs to the common folk since 1994.
__\\\\\\\'/________________________________________________________

Visit [url]http://www.hedgie.com[/url] for information on my latest book,
"Waiting for War," published by Aventine Press!

> Not true at all. There is no "cross over" in your pin-out,[color=blue]
> only polarity switching.
> Memorize it. Bookmark it. Print it out and carry it in
> your wallet. Have it tattooed to the back of your hand.[/color]

Oops. I am chastened and rebuked. My left buttock is already smarting
in anticipation of the tattoo it is soon to receive.

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:25:40 -0500, cothrige <cothrige@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Now I think I may
>look into IP masquerading, though I must admit that I am a bit intimidated
>by what I have read so far, in order to share my internet connection
>between computers.[/color]

A router is Much Simpler.

--
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
The only problem with troubleshooting is that
trouble sometimes shoots back.
[url]http://www.lasfs.org[/url] [url]http://home.earthlink.net/~sidebrnz[/url]

On Mon, 03 May 2004 05:55:28 GMT, Joe Zeff
<the.guy.with.the.sideburns@lasfs.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:25:40 -0500, cothrige <cothrige@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Now I think I may
>>look into IP masquerading, though I must admit that I am a bit intimidated
>>by what I have read so far, in order to share my internet connection
>>between computers.[/color]
>
>A router is Much Simpler.[/color]

Depends on what he wants to do. A Linksys or whatever is cheaper -
unless you want to run, for example, apache using virtual domains
behind the linksys. Doesn't work, even in the dmz. No one knows why.

To the OP - take a look at shorewall [url]http://www.shorewall.net/[/url]
VERY simple to set up a basic firewall/NAT/IP masq setup.

Mike-

--
If you're not confused, you're not trying hard enough.
--
Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If
email from you bounces, try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,

On Sun, 02 May 2004 15:19:31 -0700, Lewin A.R.W. Edwards wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Not true at all. There is no "cross over" in your pin-out,
>> only polarity switching.
>> Memorize it. Bookmark it. Print it out and carry it in
>> your wallet. Have it tattooed to the back of your hand.[/color]
>
> Oops. I am chastened and rebuked. My left buttock is already smarting
> in anticipation of the tattoo it is soon to receive.[/color]

Wouldn't that be harder to read than the suggested location? Or do you
have a staff member assigned to that job?

> > Oops. I am chastened and rebuked. My left buttock is already smarting[color=blue][color=green]
> > in anticipation of the tattoo it is soon to receive.[/color]
>
> Wouldn't that be harder to read than the suggested location? Or do you
> have a staff member assigned to that job?[/color]

My hands are already covered with other memoranda. Besides, my
alternative location is more fun.