Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #289 > unrolled thread

Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

Contents

  Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-03 00:36 +0100
    Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2011-05-03 03:17 +0000
    Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-05-03 14:57 +0100
    Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-05-03 15:25 +0000
      Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 15:13 +0100
        Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Michal Jaegermann <michal@gortel.phys.ualberta.ca> - 2011-05-06 09:26 +0000
          Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-06 15:12 +0100
      Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 15:21 +0100
        Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-05-05 16:36 +0100
          Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 17:41 +0100
            Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-05-05 17:50 +0100
              Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 18:04 +0100
              Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 18:17 +0100
            Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-05-05 21:37 +0000
              Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-06 00:53 +0100
                Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-05-06 00:19 +0000
                  Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-06 02:59 +0100
                    Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-05-06 16:22 +0000
                      Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-06 18:38 +0100
                        A couple of corections. Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-06 20:02 +0100
                        Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Michal Jaegermann <michal@gortel.phys.ualberta.ca> - 2011-05-08 22:12 +0000
                Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 "David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> - 2011-05-05 20:39 -0400
                  Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-06 03:05 +0100
      Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 15:24 +0100
      Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 16:08 +0100
        Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 16:30 +0100
          Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 16:55 +0100
    Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 14:59 +0100
      Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-05-05 15:39 +0000
        Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-05 17:51 +0100
          Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-05-05 21:43 +0000
            Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-06 00:58 +0100
              Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2011-05-06 00:24 +0000
                Re: Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10 Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-05-06 01:51 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#289 — Network configuration problem Mythbuntu 10.10

OK people this is just another of the problems I'm having with my MythTV 
front end, it's a problem I've had before. I previously tried other 
linux distributions, and kept running into the same problem, it just 
keeps coming back to haunt me. I can communicate locally but can not 
talk to the outside world.

Another thing that is strange is that have another machine running 
ubuntu that I use as my server, and have never had this problem on that 
machine. The only significant difference I can see is that my server has 
a 64bit processor, and is running a 64bit ubuntu, while the problematic 
machine has only a 32 bit processor, and so has to run the 32bit version 
of ubuntu. I don't know whether that would make any difference.

I can't see this being a problem with the network card or network 
drivers, because I have no problem communicating locally. Surely it must 
be a DNS or Gateway problem (or both), and I assume that that would make 
it an issue somewhere with the operating system. (Or am I missing 
something here).

I only discovered tonight that I still have this problem when I tried to 
use apt-get, and it wouldn't work. Doing a bit more experimenting I can 
ping any local address, and I can load web pages that are provided by my 
server. However I can't access any external web pages. I also tried 
experimenting with pinging the address pop3.tiscali.co.uk (my mail 
service). This works on my 64 bit system, but doesn't work on my 32 bit 
system. I tried copping the IP address of pop3.tiscali.co.uk and pinged 
that, again it works on my 64 bit system, but not on my 32 bit system.

Basically my 32 bit system can not communicate externally, which surely 
must be a gateway or DNS problem or both.

Up until tonight I hadn't touched the network settings. It was 
presumably set up to use DHCP by default. But when I discovered I had a 
problem I tried editing the network configuration files based upon the 
way my working 64 bit system is configured. I set a static address as 
that is the way I intend to eventually have it set up.


My /etc/network/interfaces was as follows:

auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

This is that way it was set before I made any changes, presumably set 
during the installation of the operating system. I added to it tonight 
and it is now as follows:

auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

# primary network interface
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.1.160
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.251


My /etc/resolv.conf was as follows:

# Generated by NetworkManager
nameserver 192.168.1.251

I've now added 2 lines, again based upon my working system, and it is 
now as follows:

# Generated by NetworkManager
nameserver 192.168.1.251
domain tiscali.co.uk
search tiscali.co.uk



As you have probably already worked out my router is at address 
192.168.1.251.

Amending these files has not solved the problem, I can still communicate 
perfectly with any local address, but can not communicate with the 
outside world.

I'm wondering if perhaps something in ubuntu or in the graphical desktop 
might be taking some network settings from somewhere else. I tried 
typing in ifconfig, and was a bit surprised to see am IP6 address was 
also listed, and I have no idea where that came from, as I don't even 
use IP6.

Any ideas as to how I can find out what is going on here and how to go 
about fixing it. If the system was using only the configuration files I 
have set, then it should just work, at the moment I'm just confused.

Thanks for any help.

Richard.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#290

On Tue, 03 May 2011 00:36:22 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
> OK people this is just another of the problems I'm having with my MythTV 
> front end, it's a problem I've had before. I previously tried other 
> linux distributions, and kept running into the same problem, it just 
> keeps coming back to haunt me. I can communicate locally but can not 
> talk to the outside world.

Then this post should have been in a networking group like
comp.os.linux.networking,  not a hardware group.

> My /etc/resolv.conf was as follows:
>
> # Generated by NetworkManager
> nameserver 192.168.1.251

Well, 192.168.1.251 better know how to talk to this node.


> I've now added 2 lines, again based upon my working system, and it is 
> now as follows:
>
> # Generated by NetworkManager
> nameserver 192.168.1.251
> domain tiscali.co.uk
> search tiscali.co.uk

domain/search is not going to help this problem.
change nameserver line to contain your ISP's nameserver or a public
dns server. example: nameserver 8.8.8.8

If you can then communicate with the outside world, you
know the problem is with 192.168.1.251

Before posting to comp.os.linux.networking, I would recommend you draw
a picture of your network, fill in the values, then post your basic
problem description. "can not communicate with the outside world"
provide config files for both 192.168.1.251 and problem node and
picture of your layout. Example:



             Diagram A 

  .------------------------------.           .--------------------.
  |   ISP assigned ip address    |           |  ip 192.168.3.3    |
  |   ISP gw 71.171.124.1        |      eth0 |  gw 192.168.1.1    |
  |   Actiontech RI408        dmz+-----------+     dmz1           |
  |            router/modem      |           | Mandriva 2008.1    |
  |          ip 192.168.1.1      |           |                    |
  `-------+-------------------+--'           `--------------------'
          |                   |
          |                   | 
          | eth0              | eth0   
 .--------+---------.  .------+-----------.
 | ip 192.168.1.4   |  | ip 192.168.1.2   |
 | gw 192.168.1.1   |  | gw 192.168.1.1   |
 |    node1         |  |    node2         |
 |  suse 10.3       |  |  kubuntu 8.4     |
 `------------------'  |                  |
                       | ip 192.168.5.6   |
                       `------+-----------'
                              | eth1
                              |
                              | eth0   
                      .-------+----------.
                      | ip 192.168.5.3   |
                      | gw 192.168.5.6   |
                      |    node3         |
                      | Mandriva 2008.1  |
                      `------------------'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#291

Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

> OK people this is just another of the problems I'm having with my
> MythTV front end, it's a problem I've had before. I previously tried
> other linux distributions, and kept running into the same problem, it
> just keeps coming back to haunt me. I can communicate locally but can
> not talk to the outside world.
>
> Another thing that is strange is that have another machine running
> ubuntu that I use as my server, and have never had this problem on
> that machine. The only significant difference I can see is that my
> server has a 64bit processor, and is running a 64bit ubuntu, while the
> problematic machine has only a 32 bit processor, and so has to run the
> 32bit version of ubuntu. I don't know whether that would make any
> difference.

It wouldn't.

> I can't see this being a problem with the network card or network
> drivers, because I have no problem communicating locally. Surely it
> must be a DNS or Gateway problem (or both), and I assume that that
> would make it an issue somewhere with the operating system. (Or am I
> missing something here).
>
> I only discovered tonight that I still have this problem when I tried
> to use apt-get, and it wouldn't work.

What happens when you try?

> Doing a bit more experimenting I can ping any local address, and I can
> load web pages that are provided by my server. However I can't access
> any external web pages. I also tried experimenting with pinging the
> address pop3.tiscali.co.uk (my mail service). This works on my 64 bit
> system, but doesn't work on my 32 bit system. I tried copping the IP
> address of pop3.tiscali.co.uk and pinged that, again it works on my 64
> bit system, but not on my 32 bit system.

Again; what happens when you try?


-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#292

On Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011 at 00:36:22h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> Basically my 32 bit system can not communicate externally, which surely
> must be a gateway or DNS problem or both.

1) On the 32bit machine can you ping using IP addresses
   and get a response from

   a) your router

   b) your 64bit machine

2) On the 64bit machine can you ping using IP address and
   get a response from the 32bit machine?

2) What is the output of route -n on the 32bit machine

3) On the 32bit machine can your ping and get a response from
   an external IP address eg  ping 74.125.77.99

If 1a does not work, then your ethernet card and or configuration
is broken or your etherhnet cable to the router is disconnected.

If 3 works, then it means that your 32bit machine is not getting
DNS service from the router.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#297

J G Miller wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011 at 00:36:22h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
> 
>> Basically my 32 bit system can not communicate externally, which surely
>> must be a gateway or DNS problem or both.
> 
> 1) On the 32bit machine can you ping using IP addresses
>    and get a response from
> 
>    a) your router
Yes work perfectly

> 
>    b) your 64bit machine
Yes works perectly.

> 
> 2) On the 64bit machine can you ping using IP address and
>    get a response from the 32bit machine?
Yes works perfectly

> 
> 2) What is the output of route -n on the 32bit machine

Kernel IP routing table
Destination	Gateway	Genmask		Flags	Metric	Ref	Use	Iface
192.168.1.0	0.0.0.0	255.255.255.0	U	0	0	0	eth0
169.254.0.0	0.0.0.0	255.255.0.0	U	1000	0	0	eth0
0.0.0.0		192.168.1.251	0.0.0.0	UG	100	0	0	eth0



Right looking at this I think we may be homing in on the problem.
the 169.254.0.0 seem very strange, I have no idea where that one came 
from, and it seems the only address routed to my gateway is 0.0.0.0.

If this is what the problem is, then the next question is, where on 
earth did it get these setting from, and how do I change them?

> 
> 3) On the 32bit machine can your ping and get a response from
>    an external IP address eg  ping 74.125.77.99
No. As I explained, I tried pinging the IP address of the mail server, 
which, worked on my 64 bit machine, but doesn't work on the 32 bit machine.

> 
> If 1a does not work, then your ethernet card and or configuration
> is broken or your etherhnet cable to the router is disconnected.
> 
> If 3 works, then it means that your 32bit machine is not getting
> DNS service from the router.

Looking at the output from route -n I'm now thinking it looks like a 
Gateway or routing problem, but what do I do about it. Any more suggestions?

Thanks.

Richard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#320

Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination     Gateway Genmask         Flags   Metric  Ref     Use     Iface
> 192.168.1.0     0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0   U       0       0       0       eth0
> 169.254.0.0     0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0     U       1000    0       0       eth0
> 0.0.0.0         192.168.1.251   0.0.0.0 UG      100     0       0       eth0
> 
> 
> 
> Right looking at this I think we may be homing in on the problem.
> the 169.254.0.0 seem very strange, I have no idea where that one came 
> from, and it seems the only address routed to my gateway is 0.0.0.0.

This is routing for zeroconf addresses.  Visit http://www.zeroconf.org,
or search for "zeroconf" on Google, or read a wikipedia article on that,
or all the above if you do not know what that is.  You will find out
why this may be useful if you will get on your network, say, a printer
which can use this configuration method.

> If this is what the problem is,

It does not look that way.

> then the next question is, where on 
> earth did it get these setting from, and how do I change them?

Your network configuration likely has an option to turn that off.
Or "ip ro del ..." (type "ip route help" first) if you want to remove
it for just now.

    Michał
   

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#321

Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> Kernel IP routing table
>> Destination     Gateway Genmask         Flags   Metric  Ref     Use     Iface
>> 192.168.1.0     0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0   U       0       0       0       eth0
>> 169.254.0.0     0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0     U       1000    0       0       eth0
>> 0.0.0.0         192.168.1.251   0.0.0.0 UG      100     0       0       eth0
>>
>>
>>
>> Right looking at this I think we may be homing in on the problem.
>> the 169.254.0.0 seem very strange, I have no idea where that one came 
>> from, and it seems the only address routed to my gateway is 0.0.0.0.
> 
> This is routing for zeroconf addresses.  Visit http://www.zeroconf.org,
> or search for "zeroconf" on Google, or read a wikipedia article on that,
> or all the above if you do not know what that is.  You will find out
> why this may be useful if you will get on your network, say, a printer
> which can use this configuration method.

Thanks. I'll have a look at that, although I have now actually found the 
source of the problem. It was a silly mistake that I made many months ago.

Richard E.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#298

J G Miller wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011 at 00:36:22h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
> 
>> Basically my 32 bit system can not communicate externally, which surely
>> must be a gateway or DNS problem or both.
> 
> 1) On the 32bit machine can you ping using IP addresses
>    and get a response from
> 
>    a) your router
> 
>    b) your 64bit machine
> 
> 2) On the 64bit machine can you ping using IP address and
>    get a response from the 32bit machine?
> 
> 2) What is the output of route -n on the 32bit machine
> 
> 3) On the 32bit machine can your ping and get a response from
>    an external IP address eg  ping 74.125.77.99
> 
> If 1a does not work, then your ethernet card and or configuration
> is broken or your etherhnet cable to the router is disconnected.
> 
> If 3 works, then it means that your 32bit machine is not getting
> DNS service from the router.

Oh and actually I think it might be both a routing and a DNS problem.
I just tried "Ping pop3.tiscali.co.uk" on both machines.
The 32 bit says "unknown host pop3.tiscali.co.uk" while the 64 bit 
machine comes back with the IP address and the ping starts to work, it 
is a little slow, but that is probably the external server being busy.

It is starting to look to me as though the gateway and DNS settings may 
be completely messed up, but I don't know why.

Thanks.

Richard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#302

Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

> Oh and actually I think it might be both a routing and a DNS problem.
> I just tried "Ping pop3.tiscali.co.uk" on both machines.
> The 32 bit says "unknown host pop3.tiscali.co.uk" while the 64 bit
> machine comes back with the IP address and the ping starts to work, it
> is a little slow, but that is probably the external server being busy.

You cannot reliably diagnose or eliminate a DNS problem accurately from
ping's output, as it lies about the error - it always says 'unknown
host' whatever the real problem was.

Use 'host' or 'dig' instead.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#305

Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
> 
>> Oh and actually I think it might be both a routing and a DNS problem.
>> I just tried "Ping pop3.tiscali.co.uk" on both machines.
>> The 32 bit says "unknown host pop3.tiscali.co.uk" while the 64 bit
>> machine comes back with the IP address and the ping starts to work, it
>> is a little slow, but that is probably the external server being busy.
> 
> You cannot reliably diagnose or eliminate a DNS problem accurately from
> ping's output, as it lies about the error - it always says 'unknown
> host' whatever the real problem was.
> 
> Use 'host' or 'dig' instead.
> 
Thanks. that's interesting. However I think I've solved the problem now.

I think it was other things overloading my router. If I have only my 
32bit linux box connected to my router and then reset everything, then 
it works. I strongly suspect the torrent client on my other machine, 
perhaps it's using up all the routing tables in my router, or something 
like that. Althought why exactly this only affects one machine on my 
network is a bit or a mystery, but I won't worry about that now.

Thanks.

Richard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#306

Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

>>> Oh and actually I think it might be both a routing and a DNS problem.
>>> I just tried "Ping pop3.tiscali.co.uk" on both machines.
>>> The 32 bit says "unknown host pop3.tiscali.co.uk" while the 64 bit
>>> machine comes back with the IP address and the ping starts to work, it
>>> is a little slow, but that is probably the external server being busy.
>>
>> You cannot reliably diagnose or eliminate a DNS problem accurately from
>> ping's output, as it lies about the error - it always says 'unknown
>> host' whatever the real problem was.
>>
>> Use 'host' or 'dig' instead.
>
> Thanks. that's interesting. However I think I've solved the problem now.
>
> I think it was other things overloading my router. If I have only my
> 32bit linux box connected to my router and then reset everything, then
> it works.

Another possibility would be attempting to use the same IP address on
two machines.

> I strongly suspect the torrent client on my other machine, perhaps
> it's using up all the routing tables in my router, or something like
> that.

You can easily test that: disable just the torrent client.
"Using up all the routing tables" doesn't make much sense.

> Althought why exactly this only affects one machine on my network is a
> bit or a mystery, but I won't worry about that now.

It would suggest it might not be the real explanation...

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#308

Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Richard Evans <rp.evans.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
> 
>>>> Oh and actually I think it might be both a routing and a DNS problem.
>>>> I just tried "Ping pop3.tiscali.co.uk" on both machines.
>>>> The 32 bit says "unknown host pop3.tiscali.co.uk" while the 64 bit
>>>> machine comes back with the IP address and the ping starts to work, it
>>>> is a little slow, but that is probably the external server being busy.
>>> You cannot reliably diagnose or eliminate a DNS problem accurately from
>>> ping's output, as it lies about the error - it always says 'unknown
>>> host' whatever the real problem was.
>>>
>>> Use 'host' or 'dig' instead.
>> Thanks. that's interesting. However I think I've solved the problem now.
>>
>> I think it was other things overloading my router. If I have only my
>> 32bit linux box connected to my router and then reset everything, then
>> it works.
> 
> Another possibility would be attempting to use the same IP address on
> two machines.

That is a very sensible suggestion, although I wouldn't make such a 
basic mistake. Just to double check, I just pinged the address I'm using 
for this machine, which is currently switched off, and got no response. 
So no sign of anything else using the same I address.

> 
>> I strongly suspect the torrent client on my other machine, perhaps
>> it's using up all the routing tables in my router, or something like
>> that.
> 
> You can easily test that: disable just the torrent client.
> "Using up all the routing tables" doesn't make much sense.

I will probably try that at some point, but I've already spent all 
afternoon on this, and I still have other things I need to do, and every 
little think I try to do on this box seems to end up in hours of messing 
about, so I think I may leave that one for another time.

> 
>> Althought why exactly this only affects one machine on my network is a
>> bit or a mystery, but I won't worry about that now.
> 
> It would suggest it might not be the real explanation...

Perhaps not, although as long as I can make it work when I need to I'm 
happy enough for now. When/If I finally get it running as a 
MythFrontEnd, I wont need it to access the internet very often, so it 
wont be too much of a problem. I'll probably figure out what is going on 
at some point.

Thanks.

Richard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#309

Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> 
>> I strongly suspect the torrent client on my other machine, perhaps
>> it's using up all the routing tables in my router, or something like
>> that.
> 
> You can easily test that: disable just the torrent client.
> "Using up all the routing tables" doesn't make much sense.

OK I just tried closing the torrent client, and it didn't help. However 
un-plugging the network cable from my 64bit box did fix the problem. So 
it looks like it's something on that machine that is causing the 
problem. Not sure if I'll ever figure out why, it's all rather baffling. 
In case you are wondering, the IP address of the 64 bit machine is 
192.168.1.202. Incidentally I didn't want to try shutting down the 64 
bit machine as that is running my MythBackEnd, and it is currently 
recording (using a DVB-T stick, it's not using the internet to record).

Well this is still very strange, but at least I now have a work around.

Thanks.

Richard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#310

On Thursday, May  5th, 2011 at 17:41:20h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> I strongly suspect the torrent client on my other machine,
> perhaps it's using up all the routing tables in my router, or something
> like that.

Which make and model of router do you use?

I have experienced the problem of my router, a Netgear FVS318v3, "locking
up" (ie no traffic in or out) if it is required to make too many simultaneous
connections due to too many peers on too many downloads, and the only solution
is to reboot and reduce number of active connections.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#312

J G Miller wrote:
> On Thursday, May  5th, 2011 at 17:41:20h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
> 
>> I strongly suspect the torrent client on my other machine,
>> perhaps it's using up all the routing tables in my router, or something
>> like that.
> 
> Which make and model of router do you use?
> 
> I have experienced the problem of my router, a Netgear FVS318v3, "locking
> up" (ie no traffic in or out) if it is required to make too many simultaneous
> connections due to too many peers on too many downloads, and the only solution
> is to reboot and reduce number of active connections.
> 
> 
I'm currently using a
"Netgear RangeMax Dual Band Wireless-N Modem Router model DGND3300v2".

The problem does seem to be associated to something on my server (my 
64bit Linux box). I tried entering "ping pop3.tiscali.co.uk" on my 32 
bit machine, and at first it didn't work. Then I unplugged the network 
cable from my server and the ping immediately started working. 
Reconnecting the my server network cable, the ping was still working. 
Presumably whatever the problem is, it is takes a bit of time to 
manifest it's self.

Richard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#314

On Friday, May 6th, 2011 at 00:53:18h +0100, Richard Evans explained:

> J G Miller wrote:
>> On Thursday, May  5th, 2011 at 17:41:20h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
>> 
>>> I strongly suspect the torrent client on my other machine, perhaps
>>> it's using up all the routing tables in my router, or something like
>>> that.
>> 
>> Which make and model of router do you use?
>> 
>> I have experienced the problem of my router, a Netgear FVS318v3,
>> "locking up" (ie no traffic in or out) if it is required to make too
>> many simultaneous connections due to too many peers on too many
>> downloads, and the only solution is to reboot and reduce number of
>> active connections.
>> 
>> 
> I'm currently using a
> "Netgear RangeMax Dual Band Wireless-N Modem Router model DGND3300v2".

Which is a lot newer than the router I am using, so you really should
not have a problem of too many simultaneous connections.

I am wondering -- do you have a static IP address assigned to the
32bit and to the 64bit boxes, or is the IP address assigned by 
DHCP.

Ah, you already stated

auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.1.160

for the 32bit box. 

The IP address for the 64bit box is set to what?

> The problem does seem to be associated to something on my server (my
> 64bit Linux box). I tried entering "ping pop3.tiscali.co.uk" on my 32
> bit machine, and at first it didn't work. Then I unplugged the network
> cable from my server and the ping immediately started working.
> Reconnecting the my server network cable, the ping was still working.
> Presumably whatever the problem is, it is takes a bit of time to
> manifest it's self.

Well you have indicated you are using NetworkManager on the 32bit box.
My experience is that if you have assigned a static address in the
interfaces file, then there is no need for NetworkManager (dpkg --purge)
because NetworkManager will mess up your network connection and anyways
if you have a static IP address, you do not need Network manager.

I am wondering if NetworkManager is getting an IP address by DHCP
and overriding your static IP address, and that this is causing the
network problem.

Have you correctly setup your router to only assign DHCP to a
particular range of IP addreses and that the static IP address
you have assigned to box 32bit (and perhaps 64 bit) are outside
this range?

Also it is not good practice to make your local machines members
of the tiscali.co.uk domain because there are no DNS records for
these machines and you are claiming something which is not true,
so you should remove the domain and search entries from resolv.conf.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#318

I just found something really stupid. I have an old cable router that 
I'm now using as a network switch, and it was set to the same address as 
the Netgear router I'm using for my network connection. So rather 
surprising that I haven't come across any problems before. Doah!!!!



J G Miller wrote:

>>>
>>>
>> I'm currently using a
>> "Netgear RangeMax Dual Band Wireless-N Modem Router model DGND3300v2".
> 
> Which is a lot newer than the router I am using, so you really should
> not have a problem of too many simultaneous connections.
> 
> I am wondering -- do you have a static IP address assigned to the
> 32bit and to the 64bit boxes, or is the IP address assigned by 
> DHCP.
> 
> Ah, you already stated
> 
> auto eth0
> iface eth0 inet static
> address 192.168.1.160
> 
> for the 32bit box. 

Incidentally, I've only quite recently got around to configuring the IP 
settings on my 32bit box. Before I had just left things as default, and 
it did seem to be using DHCP by default, (as it was using 192.168.1.3, 
which was the next available address at the time). I discovered the 
networking problem while it was set up as default, using DHCP.

Interestingly the network configuration file didn't have anything in it 
except for the loopback settings. So presumably the system must have 
been getting the default DHCP setup from somewhere else.


> 
> The IP address for the 64bit box is set to what?

192.168.1.202

> 
>> The problem does seem to be associated to something on my server (my
>> 64bit Linux box). I tried entering "ping pop3.tiscali.co.uk" on my 32
>> bit machine, and at first it didn't work. Then I unplugged the network
>> cable from my server and the ping immediately started working.
>> Reconnecting the my server network cable, the ping was still working.
>> Presumably whatever the problem is, it is takes a bit of time to
>> manifest it's self.
> 
> Well you have indicated you are using NetworkManager on the 32bit box.

Ermm...Pass...
I have not found any utility called network manager on the 32bit box. If 
it exists, I haven't found it yet. The graphical interface is rather 
basic, and there are very few settings available. For this reason I have 
been wondering whether it may be worth reinstalling everything from 
scratch and using the Gnome desktop, but perhaps 1st I should try to 
persevere with what I've got.

When I Initially installed the OS, I left all the networking as it was 
by default. When I discovered that I couldn't access the internet, I did 
look for network settings in the graphical desktop, and couldn't find 
any. So I just opened up a terminal window, and edited the network 
configuration files using the vi text editor.

> My experience is that if you have assigned a static address in the
> interfaces file, then there is no need for NetworkManager (dpkg --purge)
> because NetworkManager will mess up your network connection and anyways
> if you have a static IP address, you do not need Network manager.

Fair enough. But how do I find out whether I actually have Network 
Manager, and if so how do I get rid of it? Do I need to get rid of it?

> 
> I am wondering if NetworkManager is getting an IP address by DHCP
> and overriding your static IP address, and that this is causing the
> network problem.
> 
> Have you correctly setup your router to only assign DHCP to a
> particular range of IP addreses and that the static IP address
> you have assigned to box 32bit (and perhaps 64 bit) are outside
> this range?

I've set up my router to use addresses 1-50 for DHCP assignments. I 
thought 50 was ample. Only my laptop and my printer are setup to use 
DHCP. (My printer doesn't seem to work if I use a static address, buggy 
drivers I think).

I started at address 100 for my Squeezeboxes, currently I have 4 using 
100-103.

I started at address 200 for server devices, and I've stopped using the 
2 that used 200 and 201. My 64bit linux box was the next server I set 
up, so I used 202.

I started at 250 for network routers. I have a second router connected 
that I'm now only using as a network switch, it's an old Linksys cable 
router. OMG.. Doah, Just found out that that one is also set to address 
251. Now that would explain the problem, and I'm not sure why I haven't 
had any problems before. Right I've just changed it it 250, hopefully 
that should fix the problem.

I set my 32 bit box to 160 because at the time I couldn't remember 
whether my Squeezeboxes where starting a 100 or 150.

> 
> Also it is not good practice to make your local machines members
> of the tiscali.co.uk domain because there are no DNS records for
> these machines and you are claiming something which is not true,
> so you should remove the domain and search entries from resolv.conf.

OK. I found that setting on my 64bit Box, I don't know how it got there 
but assumed one of the setup programs must have put it there for a 
reason. This is one of the few things about IP settings that I don't 
quite understand. I assumed it must be correct, and copied it to my 
32bit box. Perhaps I'll try commenting it out and then see if everything 
still works properly.

Richard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#322

On Friday, May 6th, 2011 at 02:59:06 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> I just found something really stupid. I have an old cable router that
> I'm now using as a network switch, and it was set to the same address as
> the Netgear router I'm using for my network connection. So rather
> surprising that I haven't come across any problems before. Doah!!!!

So Richard Kettlewell I think it was, was correct when he voice his
suspicion of two devices having the same IP address.

May I make a suggestion?  You should sit down and make a list of
all your network devices and MAC addresses and put these into
/etc/hosts and /etc/ethers.

And it would be a good idea to organise your numbering so that for
example (this is the scheme I use and is not intended to be
any way authoritative)

routers and
network devices       .1-10

hosts                 .11-19

printers              .20-29

media devices         .30-39

DHCP leases           .101-199


As I say you can use your own designated groups and ranges,
but by employing some such scheme you will ensure that you
know what IP addreses are in use and avoid such a clash
happening which as you have discovered is in fact extremely
difficult to discover.

> Interestingly the network configuration file didn't have anything in it
> except for the loopback settings. So presumably the system must have
> been getting the default DHCP setup from somewhere else.

From the router of course.

> I have not found any utility called network manager on the 32bit box.

But I thought you said that the entries in /etc/resolv.conf had been
added by network manager.

    dpkg -l \* | egrep network | egrep manager

un  network-manager          <none>                   (no description available)
un  network-manager-dbg      <none>                   (no description available)
un  network-manager-dev      <none>                   (no description available)
un  network-manager-gnome    <none>                   (no description available)
un  network-manager-kde      <none>                   (no description available)

Anything you have installed as such will be indicated by ii in column one.

Then you can use dpkg --purge on it, which in my opinion is the best thing
to do with network manager (except on roaming laptop PCs of course).

And then you may be able to purge dhcp(3?)-client as well because it is no longer
needed but a metapackage dependency may prevent that.

> For this reason I have been wondering whether it may be worth reinstalling
> everything from scratch and using the Gnome desktop

Why would you have to reinstall from scratch just to install the GNOME dekstop,
this is not Windoze you know  ;)

Just apt-get gnome-{whatever} to install the GNOME desktop.  But if you go
for the top level metapackage it will install everything including network
manager again which will have to be purged.

My suggestion would be to install XFCE as a desktop anyways  ;)

> So I just opened up a terminal window, and edited the network
> configuration files using the vi text editor.

If you can use vi (actually I would suggest vim with all of the extras
installed so you get color highlighting) then you are not as Linux
unsophisticated as you pretend  ;)

> Only my laptop and my printer are setup to use DHCP.
> (My printer doesn't seem to work if I use a static address, buggy
> drivers I think).

This makes no sense at all to me.  Once the IP address has been assigned,
the printer will not care if the IP address has been assigned dynamically
by DHCP or statically by hand.

I presume you are using CUPS?

> I started at address 100 for my Squeezeboxes, currently I have 4 using
> 100-103.

Which model?  The Transporter {SE?} ??!!!????

And can they play FLAC and OGG files?

> I set my 32 bit box to 160 because at the time I *couldn't remember*
> whether my Squeezeboxes where starting a 100 or 150.

See my suggestion right at the start about organisation!  ;)

> This is one of the few things about IP settings that I don't
> quite understand.

Do you mean in resolv.conf?

The domain setting in resolv.conf is stating the name of your
local domain (on your LAN).  So if you have an entry tiscali.co.uk
you are claiming that the machines on your LAN are part of the
tiscali.co.uk domain space.

So say you have a machine called 32bit, then its FQDN would become
32bit.tiscali.co.uk and you point your DNS to your router which
I suspect is just a caching (store and forward) DNS server from the
tiscali.co.uk DNS server. 

When you also add the Search directive tiscali.co.uk, what this means
is that when you do a DNS query for a host name which is not FQDN,
it will tag on that search domain to the host name to make it FQDN.

So when you do a DNS query for 32bit, it tries to do a DNS query
for 32bit.tiscali.co.uk via the tiscali.co.uk DNS server.  Since
Tiscali company have no entry for such a machine, then the DNS query will
fail.

My suggestion is that you setup up your own DNS server on your 64 bit
machine server which is authoritative for your own local unofficial
domain rpevans.co.uk and it does lookups for everything else via the
top level servers, thereby avoiding Tiscali DNS completely.

Obviously you have to be careful that your own fake internal domain
evans.co.uk never leaks out on to the real network by asking your router
DNS instead of your own 64bit DNS server or via e-mail headers.

Of course if you have purchased a real domain name you could use that,
but again you have to ensure that private internal host names (on 192.168.*)
are not queried via or leaked to external name servers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#323

J G Miller wrote:
> On Friday, May 6th, 2011 at 02:59:06 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
> 
>> I just found something really stupid. I have an old cable router that
>> I'm now using as a network switch, and it was set to the same address as
>> the Netgear router I'm using for my network connection. So rather
>> surprising that I haven't come across any problems before. Doah!!!!
> 
> So Richard Kettlewell I think it was, was correct when he voice his
> suspicion of two devices having the same IP address.

Well along the right lines anyway. I think he was talking about my 32bit 
machine possibly having the same address as something else.

> 
> May I make a suggestion?  You should sit down and make a list of
> all your network devices and MAC addresses and put these into
> /etc/hosts and /etc/ethers.

Good suggestion, however I'm afraid I'm not good at keeping written 
records when I'm at home, I would probably not get around to keeping it 
up to data. My numbering system normally works well, I consider this 
problem was just a silly mistake when I did something in a hurry.

The silly mistake happened partly because I have had more routers than I 
  originally thought, and partly as I was in the middle of a busy week 
when I changed my router.

I originally bought my new dual band router to get around overcrowding 
on the 2.4 Ghz band, and I thought I might as well also get something 
that supports ADSL2. I originally connected it directly to my internet 
connection, but the connection was unreliable. So I re connected the 
router supplied to me by Tiscali. I then used my new router as just a 
wireless access point, by connecting it in place of my old Linksys 
router in the lounge (which I was using as just a switch). I seem to 
remember having to amend the address on my Linksys router to do this. 
That arrangement work very well for a year or 2.

Then some time after Talk Talk bought out Tiscali, I got an Email saying 
they had upgraded my connection to up to 24 Meg. So I decided I'd try 
connecting my new router to the internet again, and hopefully get a 
faster connection. It worked, and my download speed changed from about 5 
meg to about 15 meg.

Obviously this meant I now needed a 4 port switch for the lounge, and so 
I used my Linksys router again. This was in the middle of a busy week, 
and I must have forgotten to double check the addressing. However I 
didn't notice any problems. Since my Laptop connects wirelessly direct 
to my Netgear router, you expect that one to work. My 64bit Linux server 
also worked, it must have been luck that it connected to the correct 
router. Obviously my luck ran out with the 32bit Box, which must have 
kept connecting to the wrong router.

It was a silly mistake, and I'll be more careful about that next time. 
In fact if I install any new routers I'll probably start working my way 
down through the 240s.


> 
>> Interestingly the network configuration file didn't have anything in it
>> except for the loopback settings. So presumably the system must have
>> been getting the default DHCP setup from somewhere else.
> 
> From the router of course.

Not quite what I meant. The Linux box still needs to know that it has to 
send a DHCP request, and the configuration file wasn't telling it to use 
DHCP, so perhaps it does that by default if it doesn't find any other 
settings.

Interestingly my resolv.conf already contained the address of my router, 
and I hadn't put it there, as I hadn't looked at that file before. I 
suppose something in the OS or the install process must have done that.

> 
>> I have not found any utility called network manager on the 32bit box.
> 
> But I thought you said that the entries in /etc/resolv.conf had been
> added by network manager.

I don't remember saying that, but I may have assumed at some point there 
there was some sort of network manager.

> 
>     dpkg -l \* | egrep network | egrep manager
> 
> un  network-manager          <none>                   (no description available)
> un  network-manager-dbg      <none>                   (no description available)
> un  network-manager-dev      <none>                   (no description available)
> un  network-manager-gnome    <none>                   (no description available)
> un  network-manager-kde      <none>                   (no description available)
> 
> Anything you have installed as such will be indicated by ii in column one.
> 
> Then you can use dpkg --purge on it, which in my opinion is the best thing
> to do with network manager (except on roaming laptop PCs of course).
> 
> And then you may be able to purge dhcp(3?)-client as well because it is no longer
> needed but a metapackage dependency may prevent that.
> 

I hadn't come across that command before, but I'll give it a try, 
probably tonight.

>> For this reason I have been wondering whether it may be worth reinstalling
>> everything from scratch and using the Gnome desktop
> 
> Why would you have to reinstall from scratch just to install the GNOME dekstop,
> this is not Windoze you know  ;)

Very true, although it is a process that takes quite a bit of time, and 
at the moment my priority is to just get everything working.

> 
> Just apt-get gnome-{whatever} to install the GNOME desktop.  But if you go
> for the top level metapackage it will install everything including network
> manager again which will have to be purged.
> 
> My suggestion would be to install XFCE as a desktop anyways  ;)

Can I assume that already having a basic desktop installed is not going 
to create any problems?

> 
>> So I just opened up a terminal window, and edited the network
>> configuration files using the vi text editor.
> 
> If you can use vi (actually I would suggest vim with all of the extras
> installed so you get color highlighting) then you are not as Linux
> unsophisticated as you pretend  ;)

I had to write Pascal programs at college on unix mainframe, this was 
back in the 1980s. So I had a lot of practice at using the vi editor. So 
now using Linux I'm just sticking with what I know. It's a shame I can't 
find the Unix guide that the college provided, as it could be useful for 
looking up Linux commands. Well at least I can often use Google to find 
the commands I want to use. Eg. Trying to rename my xorg.conf last 
night, I found that rn or ren weren't recognized commands, but a google 
search told me that I had to use mv.


> 
>> Only my laptop and my printer are setup to use DHCP.
>> (My printer doesn't seem to work if I use a static address, buggy
>> drivers I think).
> 
> This makes no sense at all to me.  Once the IP address has been assigned,
> the printer will not care if the IP address has been assigned dynamically
> by DHCP or statically by hand.

It didn't make much sense to me either. There do seem to be issues with 
the drivers, as there were a lot comments on the web from people saying 
the drivers were terrible.

The install process used DHCP by default, and it all worked OK. Then I 
tried changing it to a static address, and my computer was completely 
unable to find the printer on the network. Frustratingly there is no way 
to manually enter the IP address. I couldn't actually see how the 
computer is ever actually able to find the printer. I spent all day 
trying to get it to work using a static address, but never got it to 
work. It's not fun when reinstalling the drivers takes over an hour, and 
then the thing still doesn't work. After doing that several times I got 
fed up and went back to using a dynamic address, and for some reason 
that usually works.
> 
> I presume you are using CUPS?

No idea. The only way to make it work is to install some hugely over 
bloated drivers, and I have no idea how they manage to find the printer 
on the network. I just know that using a static address I could never 
get it to work, despite spending all day trying, so I can only assume 
there is a strange bug in the drivers.

Perhaps I'll Google CUPS, and see if that gives any clues.

> 
>> I started at address 100 for my Squeezeboxes, currently I have 4 using
>> 100-103.
> 
> Which model?  The Transporter {SE?} ??!!!????

3 Squeezebox 3s and a Squeezebox boom.
> 
> And can they play FLAC and OGG files?

Yes to FLAC, but Noish to OGG.

A Squeezebox server can decode and re-encode to provide support for 
codecs that are not native to the Squeezeboxes. It converts to FLAC by 
default, but I've set up mine to convert to WAV as I see no point in 
using processing power to re encode just to send it over a local 
network, which can easily cope with WAV format.

A Squeezebox 3 has native support can handle WAV FLAC MP3 (including 
MP2), and WMA. I heard that the lack of native AAC support is due to not 
having enough flash memory for any more codecs.

I think The boombox can handle a few more codecs, but TBH I never looked 
into it, as I usually have all 4 devices synchronised, so it's easiest 
to have them all set up the same way.

> 
>> I set my 32 bit box to 160 because at the time I *couldn't remember*
>> whether my Squeezeboxes where starting a 100 or 150.
> 
> See my suggestion right at the start about organisation!  ;)

That was a decision made in a hurry, otherwise I would have double 
checked which address I had used for my Squeezeboxes. I picked 160 just 
to be 100% sure that it wasn't going to clash with anything. Perhaps at 
some point I'll change it to 1 more than my Squeeeboxes ;-).

> 
>> This is one of the few things about IP settings that I don't
>> quite understand.
> 
> Do you mean in resolv.conf?

I mean why IP has a setting where you enter a domain name. I understand 
why you have to enter the address of the DNS server, but I never figured 
out what the local domain name is about. I've mostly just left that part 
alone.

> 
> The domain setting in resolv.conf is stating the name of your
> local domain (on your LAN).  So if you have an entry tiscali.co.uk
> you are claiming that the machines on your LAN are part of the
> tiscali.co.uk domain space.
> 
> So say you have a machine called 32bit, then its FQDN would become
> 32bit.tiscali.co.uk and you point your DNS to your router which
> I suspect is just a caching (store and forward) DNS server from the
> tiscali.co.uk DNS server. 
> 
> When you also add the Search directive tiscali.co.uk, what this means
> is that when you do a DNS query for a host name which is not FQDN,
> it will tag on that search domain to the host name to make it FQDN.
> 
> So when you do a DNS query for 32bit, it tries to do a DNS query
> for 32bit.tiscali.co.uk via the tiscali.co.uk DNS server.  Since
> Tiscali company have no entry for such a machine, then the DNS query will
> fail.
> 
> My suggestion is that you setup up your own DNS server on your 64 bit
> machine server which is authoritative for your own local unofficial
> domain rpevans.co.uk and it does lookups for everything else via the
> top level servers, thereby avoiding Tiscali DNS completely.
> 
> Obviously you have to be careful that your own fake internal domain
> evans.co.uk never leaks out on to the real network by asking your router
> DNS instead of your own 64bit DNS server or via e-mail headers.
> 
> Of course if you have purchased a real domain name you could use that,
> but again you have to ensure that private internal host names (on 192.168.*)
> are not queried via or leaked to external name servers.

OK so I don't seem to have a local domain name. Perhaps local 
communication might work better if I find a way to set one up.

Thanks.

Richard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#324 — A couple of corections.

Richard Evans wrote:

> 
> I originally bought my new dual band router to get around overcrowding 
> on the 2.4 Ghz band, and I thought I might as well also get something 
> that supports ADSL2. I originally connected it directly to my internet 
> connection, but the connection was unreliable. So I re connected the 
> router supplied to me by Tiscali. I then used my new router as just a 
> wireless access point, by connecting it in place of my old Linksys 
> router in the lounge (which I was using as just a switch). I seem to 
> remember having to amend the address on my Linksys router to do this.

Obviously it was not my Linksys router that needed a change of IP 
address, as that was the one I took off of the network. Thinking about 
it I must have needed to change the address of my new Netgear router, 
and since I was removing my Linksys router, I must have decided to reuse 
that address. Hence why I eventually ended up with a clash.

>>
>> This makes no sense at all to me.  Once the IP address has been assigned,
>> the printer will not care if the IP address has been assigned dynamically
>> by DHCP or statically by hand.
> 
> It didn't make much sense to me either. There do seem to be issues with 
> the drivers, as there were a lot comments on the web from people saying 
> the drivers were terrible.
> 
> The install process used DHCP by default, and it all worked OK. Then I 
> tried changing it to a static address, and my computer was completely 
> unable to find the printer on the network. Frustratingly there is no way 
> to manually enter the IP address.

Just to clarify. I mean there is no way to enter an IP address into the 
drivers installed on my Laptop. Somehow they find the printer on the 
network, if everything works properly, which it often doesn't.

>>
>> I presume you are using CUPS?
> 
> No idea. The only way to make it work is to install some hugely over 
> bloated drivers, and I have no idea how they manage to find the printer 
> on the network. I just know that using a static address I could never 
> get it to work, despite spending all day trying, so I can only assume 
> there is a strange bug in the drivers.
> 
> Perhaps I'll Google CUPS, and see if that gives any clues.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware

csiph-web