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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #240017 > unrolled thread

Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Can surf the internet, but not my home network... nimrod <nimrod@virgilio.it> - 2021-09-15 17:10 +0200
    Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 17:20 +0200
    Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... Hans <hans.ullrich@loop.de> - 2021-09-15 17:50 +0200
      Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... IL Ka <kazakevichilya@gmail.com> - 2021-09-15 18:00 +0200
      Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-09-16 09:50 +0200
        Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-09-16 20:20 +0200
          Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet,  but not my home network... Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-09-17 01:00 +0200
          Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-09-17 01:10 +0200
          Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet,  but not my home network... Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2021-09-17 06:20 +0200
            Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet,  but not my home network... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-09-17 08:30 +0200
              Correction [was: unable to start a new discussion] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-09-17 08:30 +0200
            Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet,  but not my home network... Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-09-17 10:50 +0200
              Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-09-17 13:10 +0200
                Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2021-09-17 15:20 +0200
                  Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-09-17 16:40 +0200
              Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but  not my home network... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-09-17 21:30 +0200
                New thread vs. changed Subject line (was Re: (unable to start a new  discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-09-17 21:50 +0200
                Starting a new thread by replying [was: (unable to start a new  discussion)...] but not my home network... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-09-17 22:10 +0200
    Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network... David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-09-15 22:10 +0200

#240017 — Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

my devices (pc, laptops, smartphone) all can surf the internet without
problems. So one would say that the router is working properly.

But computer A cannot access computer B via SSH as it's alwais being
doing for years, and viceversa. They cannot even ping each other. No
firewall on them at all.

Computer A can ping computer C instead, and viceversa. No PC can access
the printer website nor print any more. Nor can I scan documents as I
could before, because the scanner is part of the printer.

All the devices are listed in the router's web administrative
interface, but some have a green dot, some other a grey dot, apparently
without a meaning, because some active device has the grey dot and some
the green dot though it's even turned off.

Just one PC is running Windows, all the other three are running Debian.

Another interesting fact is that I can print documents with my
smartphone accessing the printer via DirectWiFi. If I understand it
right, DirectWiFi doesn't make use of the router.

And here is the router info:
Product Vendor: Technicolor
Product Name: AGHP
Serial Number: CP1911TAAWE
Software Version: 19.4

Such devices, usually distributed by TIM in Italy, don't seem the most
performing on the market, but it's still very difficult to use another
one with most italian providers. Otherwise I would change it
immediately with a better and customizable one.

I really cannot figure out what's happening. 

Any hint would be very much appreciated.

-- 
nimrod <nimrod@virgilio.it>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#240019

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>
> Computer A can ping computer C instead, and viceversa. No PC can access
> the printer website nor print any more. Nor can I scan documents as I could
> before, because the scanner is part of the printer.
>
>
Please show "ip addr" and "ip nei show" from all Linux machines and
"ipconfig" and "arp -a" from Windows machines.
Are they connected with twisted pair or wifi?

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

#240021

Am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021, 16:41:21 CEST schrieb nimrod:
Hi,

got the same problem, when the ethernet interface is up, too and I am on wifi.
This a problem with the gateway settings. 

My solution is remove the kernel module (in my case it is ath5k.ko, as it is 
an Atheros card). Removing it with "rmmod ath5k", and when I need to use it 
again, I restart it using "modprobe ath5k".

If you are wired connected, you can try "ifconfig eth0 down" or whatever your 
ethernet card is named (could be something like enp0s10 or similar, if you are 
using predictable names).

Hope this helps.

Best 

Hans

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

#240023

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>
> My solution is remove the kernel module (in my case it is ath5k.ko, as it
> is
> an Atheros card). Removing it with "rmmod ath5k", and when I need to use
> it
> again, I restart it using "modprobe ath5k".
>
> If you are wired connected, you can try "ifconfig eth0 down" or whatever
> your
> ethernet card is named (could be something like enp0s10 or similar, if you
> are
> using predictable names).
>

No need to remove kernel module to shutdown interface, nor you need
ifconfig.

Use ` ip link set <interface_name> down`

https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/iproute2/ip-link.8.en.html

>
>

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

#240040

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mi, 15 sep 21, 17:48:39, Hans wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021, 16:41:21 CEST schrieb nimrod:
> Hi,
> 
> got the same problem, when the ethernet interface is up, too and I am on wifi.
> This a problem with the gateway settings. 

Unless my understanding of local networks is wrong, the gateway is not 
involved in communication between hosts in the same subnet.

Additionally, network-manager has been switching seamlessly between 
interfaces here, since many releases.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

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

#240055

On 9/16/21 12:40 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 15 sep 21, 17:48:39, Hans wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021, 16:41:21 CEST schrieb nimrod:
>> Hi,
>>
>> got the same problem, when the ethernet interface is up, too and I am on wifi.
>> This a problem with the gateway settings.
> 
> Unless my understanding of local networks is wrong, the gateway is not
> involved in communication between hosts in the same subnet.


Many residential/ SOHO Internet gateways a combination devices -- 
firewall, router, DHCP server, DNS caching proxy, switch, Wi-Fi access 
point, etc..


When LAN and/or Wi-Fi clients whose network interfaces are configured 
with DHCP want to communicate with each other, the gateway provides the 
information required to initiate that communication (e.g. DNS lookup, IP 
addresses, MAC addresses, etc.), in addition to switching/ sending/ 
receiving packets.  Everything should "just work".


But, a client with a manually configured network interface (e.g. "static 
IP") will be unknown to the gateway, and therefore unknown to DHCP 
clients.  The details of the manual configuration determine failure 
modes, which may be asymmetric.


"Networking for System Administrators" by Lucas is excellent:

https://mwl.io/nonfiction/networking#n4sa


David

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

#240057 — Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 07:46:43PM -0300, Dedeco Balaco wrote:
> Why am i unable to start a new discussion? I have sent 4 messages! They
> have one attachment that is less than 150KiB - so, they are not
> considered big, for the list, right?

I don't know what the maximum allowed attachment size is, but 150 kB is
very large.  That could quite easily be the reason your messages are
being dropped, or classified as spam.

Spam filtering is complex, and the size of the attachment, together
with your mail provider being yahoo, could both be contributing to
some sort of score-based spam identification system.

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

#240058

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Jo, 16 sep 21, 11:19:11, David Christensen wrote:
> On 9/16/21 12:40 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Mi, 15 sep 21, 17:48:39, Hans wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021, 16:41:21 CEST schrieb nimrod:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > got the same problem, when the ethernet interface is up, too and I am on wifi.
> > > This a problem with the gateway settings.
> > 
> > Unless my understanding of local networks is wrong, the gateway is not
> > involved in communication between hosts in the same subnet.
> 
> 
> Many residential/ SOHO Internet gateways a combination devices -- firewall,
> router, DHCP server, DNS caching proxy, switch, Wi-Fi access point, etc..
> 
> 
> When LAN and/or Wi-Fi clients whose network interfaces are configured with
> DHCP want to communicate with each other, the gateway provides the
> information required to initiate that communication (e.g. DNS lookup, IP
> addresses, MAC addresses, etc.), in addition to switching/ sending/
> receiving packets.  Everything should "just work".
> 
> 
> But, a client with a manually configured network interface (e.g. "static
> IP") will be unknown to the gateway, and therefore unknown to DHCP clients.
> The details of the manual configuration determine failure modes, which may
> be asymmetric.

I understood Hans's "gateway" to refer to the default gateway setting of 
each computer.

Contacting other computers by their IP address should still work in most 
common setups, provided the addresses are in the same subnet.

Admittedly, the OP didn't explicitly specify if pinging was done by IP 
address or DNS name, and indeed, DNS is more likely to depend on the 
residential gateway (instead of /etc/hosts or mDNS).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

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

#240060 — Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 19:46:43 -0300
Dedeco Balaco <dedeco.balaco@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why am i unable to start a new discussion? I have sent 4 messages!
> They have one attachment that is less than 150KiB - so, they are not
> considered big, for the list, right?

I consider 150 KiB to be monstrous.

Have you tried sending a short message with no attachment?

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

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

#240061 — Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:48:55PM -0600, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 19:46:43 -0300
> Dedeco Balaco <dedeco.balaco@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Why am i unable to start a new discussion? I have sent 4 messages!
> > They have one attachment that is less than 150KiB - so, they are not
> > considered big, for the list, right?
> 
> I consider 150 KiB to be monstrous.
> 
> Have you tried sending a short message with no attachment?

I'd say... yes: the start of this thread kind of proves [1] it.

So most probably the attachment is part of the problem.

@Dedeco: as Greg says, spam filtering is a complex thing. As far as
I know, this list uses SpamAssassin, which is based on rules and
heuristics -- and lots of tuning (thanks to the team behind it,
otherwise we would be drowning in spam!)

Someone said 150k is "monstrous". This depends on the context, of
course. But for a mailing list this size (we have roughly 3k
subscribed members [2]), 150k seems a bit heavy, yes. I wouldn't
do it.

Cheers

[1] for a very sloppy value of "proof" :)
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/

 - t

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

#240062 — Correction [was: unable to start a new discussion]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 08:23:23AM +0200, tomas wrote:

[...]

> I'd say... yes: the start of this thread kind of proves [1] it.

Duh. Not a new thread, so not "kind of proves". Sorry.

Cheers

> [1] for a very sloppy value of "proof" :)
     very sloppy, indeed ;-p

 - t

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

#240063 — Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

On Thu 16 Sep 2021 at 21:48:55 -0600, Charles Curley wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 19:46:43 -0300
> Dedeco Balaco <dedeco.balaco@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Why am i unable to start a new discussion? I have sent 4 messages!
> > They have one attachment that is less than 150KiB - so, they are not
> > considered big, for the list, right?
> 
> I consider 150 KiB to be monstrous.
> 
> Have you tried sending a short message with no attachment?

Dedeco Balaco already has two short messages showing in this thread.
That indicates he has the ability to start a new discussion.

However, a new discussion should be started in a *new* thread, not
plonked willy-nilly into an existing thread. This is the second time
recently that someone has done that. The first time it involved  an
experienced user!

To take this thread further off-topic: there can be a good reason to
send an attachment; for example, a log. Compression would reduce its
size and is advised.

-- 
Brian.

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

#240064 — Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

On Friday 17 September 2021 04:46:20 Brian wrote:

> On Thu 16 Sep 2021 at 21:48:55 -0600, Charles Curley wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 19:46:43 -0300
> >
> > Dedeco Balaco <dedeco.balaco@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Why am i unable to start a new discussion? I have sent 4 messages!
> > > They have one attachment that is less than 150KiB - so, they are
> > > not considered big, for the list, right?
> >
> > I consider 150 KiB to be monstrous.
> >
> > Have you tried sending a short message with no attachment?
>
> Dedeco Balaco already has two short messages showing in this thread.
> That indicates he has the ability to start a new discussion.
>
> However, a new discussion should be started in a *new* thread, not
> plonked willy-nilly into an existing thread. This is the second time
> recently that someone has done that. The first time it involved  an
> experienced user!
>
> To take this thread further off-topic: there can be a good reason to
> send an attachment; for example, a log. Compression would reduce its
> size and is advised.

Likewise, a screenshot of a problem should be loaded into gimp, 
re-exported as a .jpg,  compressed until the colors are all screwed up. 
Leaving the compression at 12% quality will get a 250k screen shot, 
which will be blocked but jpeg throws away color before it throws away 
edges of text characters. So if showing a screen full of text to show 
the error, smunch the daylights out of it, it will still be readable. 
Even then its uo to the filters to say yay or nay.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#240068 — Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

> edges of text characters. So if showing a screen full of text to show 
> the error, smunch the daylights out of it, it will still be readable. 

Whatever happened to the idea of citing the actual text rather than
using an (unreadable) image?


        Stefan

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

#240070 — Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

On Friday 17 September 2021 09:10:01 Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > edges of text characters. So if showing a screen full of text to
> > show the error, smunch the daylights out of it, it will still be
> > readable.
>
> Whatever happened to the idea of citing the actual text rather than
> using an (unreadable) image?
>
>
>         Stefan

Beats hell outta me Stefan, but a copy/paste from a terminal screen beats 
ALL the other methods for compression. But that involves launching 
whatever from a terminal screen, requiring the user to actaully type the 
command.

Oh the horrors...

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#240071 — Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...

On 9/17/21 1:46 AM, Brian wrote:
> However, a new discussion should be started in a*new*  thread, not
> plonked willy-nilly into an existing thread. This is the second time
> recently that someone has done that. The first time it involved  an
> experienced user!


Guilty as charged.  :-(


Using Thunderbird, clicking "Reply List" and changing the Subject to 
"new subject [was: old subject]" is NOT the way to do it.  Clicking 
"Write", and cutting and pasting the Subject and/or body into a new 
message is what I should have done.


David

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

#240072 — New thread vs. changed Subject line (was Re: (unable to start a new discussion) Re: Can surf the internet, but not my home network...)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-09-17 at 15:25, David Christensen wrote:

> On 9/17/21 1:46 AM, Brian wrote:
> 
>> However, a new discussion should be started in a*new*  thread, not
>> plonked willy-nilly into an existing thread. This is the second
>> time recently that someone has done that. The first time it
>> involved  an experienced user!
> 
> Guilty as charged.  :-(
> 
> Using Thunderbird, clicking "Reply List" and changing the Subject to
> "new subject [was: old subject]" is NOT the way to do it.  Clicking
> "Write", and cutting and pasting the Subject and/or body into a new
> message is what I should have done.

I'm not so sure.

I don't recall the exact case at hand here, but generally, if the new
topic bears a close enough derived relation from the older one that it
makes sense to use that "Was: [old subject]" notation in the Subject
line, then IMO replying in-place *is* the correct way to do it. (Barring
specific, case-dependent reasons otherwise.)

That Subject-line notation is for the case when the topic of the thread
has drifted, and you're adjusting the Subject line in your reply to
reflect the new topic, but you're still going to be quoting the previous
message in order to respond to it.

If that's not what you're doing - if you're starting a new topic
entirely, that bears no particular relation to the other message,
including not quoting its contents - then using that type of
Subject-line notation doesn't make sense, and neither does starting your
message via a "reply" action.

However, if that *is* what you're doing, then not only is that not
inherently a reason to start a new thread from scratch, but IMO doing so
would usually be inappropriate - because it separates the new message
from proximity to the one to which its contents are a reply, thus making
it harder to see the full context of the new message.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#240073 — Starting a new thread by replying [was: (unable to start a new discussion)...] but not my home network...

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 12:25:00PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:

[...]

> Guilty as charged.  :-(
> 
> 
> Using Thunderbird, clicking "Reply List" and changing the Subject to
> "new subject [was: old subject]" is NOT the way to do it.  Clicking
> "Write", and cutting and pasting the Subject and/or body into a new
> message is what I should have done.

If you are starting an all-new thread, don't forget to also remove
the "In-Reply-To:" and possibly "References:" headers (for -- heh
reference, here are the ones from the mail you sent):

  References: <fa2164266d1f641c7c4310fda7c50056f525ea31.camel@virgilio.it>
          <9780563.fES1ZbLj8h@protheus2>
          <20210916074053.m2nv7ws6ir2pyjfv@acr13.nuvreauspam>
          <ba67a562-2431-4494-8b16-450f92187a01@holgerdanske.com>
          <2f96483f-abb3-bf01-79d4-8db06e063a84@yahoo.com>
          <f7d92ac2-161a-3f8a-9eed-5b9fbfd11760@yahoo.com>
          <20210916214855.461097e4@jhegaala.localdomain>
          <17092021093304.02d83dd33a78@desktop.copernicus.org.uk>
  In-Reply-To: <17092021093304.02d83dd33a78@desktop.copernicus.org.uk>

Civilised mail user agents use those to thread their threads.

Cheers
 - t

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

#240028

On 9/15/21 7:41 AM, nimrod wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> my devices (pc, laptops, smartphone) all can surf the internet without
> problems. So one would say that the router is working properly.
> 
> But computer A cannot access computer B via SSH as it's alwais being
> doing for years, and viceversa. They cannot even ping each other. No
> firewall on them at all.
> 
> Computer A can ping computer C instead, and viceversa. No PC can access
> the printer website nor print any more. Nor can I scan documents as I
> could before, because the scanner is part of the printer.
> 
> All the devices are listed in the router's web administrative
> interface, but some have a green dot, some other a grey dot, apparently
> without a meaning, because some active device has the grey dot and some
> the green dot though it's even turned off.
> 
> Just one PC is running Windows, all the other three are running Debian.
> 
> Another interesting fact is that I can print documents with my
> smartphone accessing the printer via DirectWiFi. If I understand it
> right, DirectWiFi doesn't make use of the router.
> 
> And here is the router info:
> Product Vendor: Technicolor
> Product Name: AGHP
> Serial Number: CP1911TAAWE
> Software Version: 19.4
> 
> Such devices, usually distributed by TIM in Italy, don't seem the most
> performing on the market, but it's still very difficult to use another
> one with most italian providers. Otherwise I would change it
> immediately with a better and customizable one.
> 
> I really cannot figure out what's happening.
> 
> Any hint would be very much appreciated.


Please install Cygwin on Windows:

     https://www.cygwin.com/

This will give you a Bash shell.  You can install additional software, 
such as an SSH client and an SSH server (the latter may require opening 
port 22 in the Windows firewall).


Please use a Bash shell and add the following line to ".profile" or 
".bash_profile":

     export PS1='\n\D{%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S} '${USER}'@\h \w\n\$ '


The best way to convey system administration information is to cut and 
paste complete console stanzas -- prompt, command entered, and output 
displayed.


A still camera and/or video camera are useful for capturing screens when 
a terminal is unavailable, such as POST messages, CMOS setup programs, 
and GUI interfaces.  Transcribe to plain test for post, or put the 
photos/ video on a file sharing site.


It is wise to delete sensitive information from console stanzas before 
posting on the Internet.  Please denote deletions with "...", "<snip>", 
"********', "REDACTED, etc..


The following stanza is a good way to start a conversation about Debian:

2021-09-15 12:33:02 dpchrist@dipsy ~
$ cat /etc/debian_version ; uname -a
10.10
Linux dipsy 4.19.0-17-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.19.194-3 (2021-07-18) x86_64 
GNU/Linux


The following stanza is a good way to start a conversation about Windows:

2021-09-15 12:37:52 dpchrist@win7 ~
$ uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-6.1 win7 3.1.7(0.340/5/3) 2020-08-22 17:48 x86_64 Cygwin


Then add stanzas that demonstrate whatever issue you are having.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web