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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #171186 > unrolled thread

A minimalist network

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

Contents

  A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
    Re: A minimalist network Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-08-17 17:20 +0200
      Re: A minimalist network Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-17 17:40 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 19:00 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-17 23:20 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-17 23:50 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 00:10 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-18 00:40 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 01:20 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-08-18 01:50 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 14:00 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-19 18:40 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-08-18 03:30 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2016-08-19 10:20 +0200
      Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-17 23:10 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 23:20 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-18 00:40 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-18 00:40 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-17 23:20 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-18 00:30 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-08-18 00:50 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-08-18 03:30 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-18 04:00 +0200
                Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-18 14:20 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2016-08-18 12:40 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 22:10 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 14:10 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 23:40 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-17 23:50 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 01:30 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-18 00:50 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-08-18 01:30 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-08-18 13:00 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 19:10 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 19:20 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 19:40 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-08-18 20:00 +0200
    Re: A minimalist network "der.hans" <deb-user@LuftHans.com> - 2016-08-17 17:20 +0200
      Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-17 22:50 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 23:30 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-18 14:10 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 16:50 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 14:00 +0200
    Re: A minimalist network Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 23:40 +0200
      Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-18 00:50 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 01:10 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-18 01:40 +0200
    Re: A minimalist network David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-08-18 03:10 +0200
      Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-18 16:00 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 16:10 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 14:50 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-08-19 15:10 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 15:50 +0200
                Re: A minimalist network David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-19 19:50 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-19 16:00 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 16:00 +0200
                Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 17:00 +0200
                  Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 19:40 +0200
                    Re: A minimalist network Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-19 21:20 +0200
                    Re: A minimalist network Mike McClain <mike.junk@copper.net> - 2016-08-20 08:40 +0200
                      Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-20 13:30 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2016-08-20 22:00 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-08-18 17:10 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-08-18 17:30 +0200
            RE: A minimalist network Bonno Bloksma <b.bloksma@tio.nl> - 2016-08-19 12:20 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:40 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Tim McDonough <tmcdonough@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:50 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 18:10 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-18 19:00 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 17:40 +0200
        Re: A minimalist network David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-08-18 21:00 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 21:30 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 21:40 +0200
          Re: A minimalist network Charlie Kravetz <cjk@teamcharliesangels.com> - 2016-08-18 22:40 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 23:20 +0200
              Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 15:00 +0200
                Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 16:00 +0200
                  Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 16:10 +0200
                    Re: A minimalist network Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 16:50 +0200
                      Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 20:00 +0200
                    Re: A minimalist network Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-19 17:50 +0200
                      Re: A minimalist network Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-19 20:10 +0200
            Re: A minimalist network Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-18 23:20 +0200

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#171186 — A minimalist network

I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet.

The Debian machine is having various configurations of Jessie 
installed. Consider it a laboratory experiment. It can have 
multiple installs in a day. It intentionally has *NO* internet 
connectivity. It has a small partition set aside for preseed.cfg 
and miscellaneous scripts.

The second machine is running WinXP Pro SP3 and serves as source 
of preseed and script files.

My internet searches turn up too much outdated information and/or 
fine detail. Most link assume a server with multiple clients. 
Better description would be a peer to peer setup. It may be 
convenient to have the Windows machine act as a terminal for the 
Debian machine.

Suggested search terms or links.
Thank you.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#171189

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

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:45:39AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet.
>
>The Debian machine is having various configurations of Jessie 
>installed. Consider it a laboratory experiment. It can have multiple 
>installs in a day. It intentionally has *NO* internet connectivity. It 
>has a small partition set aside for preseed.cfg and miscellaneous 
>scripts.
>
>The second machine is running WinXP Pro SP3 and serves as source of 
>preseed and script files.
>
>My internet searches turn up too much outdated information and/or fine 
>detail. Most link assume a server with multiple clients. Better 
>description would be a peer to peer setup. It may be convenient to 
>have the Windows machine act as a terminal for the Debian machine.

If you're connecting the two machines with a single cable, then either 
the cable needs to be a "cross-over" ethernet cable, or one or other 
other the devices needs to support "Auto-MDI/MDIX". Support for that was 
patchy in 10M/100M devices but it mich more common in Gigabit Ethernet 
devices.

Once you've got the physical layer sorted (that is, green blinky lights 
on both machines), then the rest of the configuration should be much the 
same as any network:
 * Either give the hosts unique, static IPs OR
   Run a DHCP server on one of the machines
 * Either refer to the hosts by IP address OR
   Run a DNS server on one of the machines OR
   Write the hostnames in /etc/hosts 
   (%SYSTEMROOT%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows)

>
>Suggested search terms or links.
>Thank you.
>
>
>
>

-- 
For more information, please reread.

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

#171191

On 8/17/16 11:09 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:45:39AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet.
>>
>> The Debian machine is having various configurations of Jessie 
>> installed. Consider it a laboratory experiment. It can have multiple 
>> installs in a day. It intentionally has *NO* internet connectivity. 
>> It has a small partition set aside for preseed.cfg and miscellaneous 
>> scripts.
>>
>> The second machine is running WinXP Pro SP3 and serves as source of 
>> preseed and script files.
>>
>> My internet searches turn up too much outdated information and/or 
>> fine detail. Most link assume a server with multiple clients. Better 
>> description would be a peer to peer setup. It may be convenient to 
>> have the Windows machine act as a terminal for the Debian machine.
>
> If you're connecting the two machines with a single cable, then either 
> the cable needs to be a "cross-over" ethernet cable, or one or other 
> other the devices needs to support "Auto-MDI/MDIX". Support for that 
> was patchy in 10M/100M devices but it mich more common in Gigabit 
> Ethernet devices.

Or you could just plug both machines into a cheap ethernet hub.

>
> Once you've got the physical layer sorted (that is, green blinky 
> lights on both machines), then the rest of the configuration should be 
> much the same as any network:
> * Either give the hosts unique, static IPs OR
>   Run a DHCP server on one of the machines
> * Either refer to the hosts by IP address OR
>   Run a DNS server on one of the machines OR
>   Write the hostnames in /etc/hosts 
> (%SYSTEMROOT%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows)
>

If you're continually rebuilding the Debian machine, you probably don't 
want to fool with peer-to-peer setups.  Probably better just to enable 
the ftp server already built into Win XP.

Another thing to do is install PuTTY on the WinXP box as a telnet/ssh 
client.

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

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

#171194

On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 11:34:25 (-0400), Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 8/17/16 11:09 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:45:39AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >>I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet.
> >>
> >>The Debian machine is having various configurations of Jessie
> >>installed. Consider it a laboratory experiment. It can have
> >>multiple installs in a day. It intentionally has *NO* internet
> >>connectivity. It has a small partition set aside for preseed.cfg
> >>and miscellaneous scripts.
> >>
> >>The second machine is running WinXP Pro SP3 and serves as source
> >>of preseed and script files.
> >>
> >>My internet searches turn up too much outdated information
> >>and/or fine detail. Most link assume a server with multiple
> >>clients. Better description would be a peer to peer setup. It
> >>may be convenient to have the Windows machine act as a terminal
> >>for the Debian machine.
> >
> >If you're connecting the two machines with a single cable, then
> >either the cable needs to be a "cross-over" ethernet cable, or one
> >or other other the devices needs to support "Auto-MDI/MDIX".
> >Support for that was patchy in 10M/100M devices but it mich more
> >common in Gigabit Ethernet devices.
> 
> Or you could just plug both machines into a cheap ethernet hub.
> 
> >
> >Once you've got the physical layer sorted (that is, green blinky
> >lights on both machines), then the rest of the configuration
> >should be much the same as any network:
> >* Either give the hosts unique, static IPs OR
> >  Run a DHCP server on one of the machines
> >* Either refer to the hosts by IP address OR
> >  Run a DNS server on one of the machines OR
> >  Write the hostnames in /etc/hosts
> >(%SYSTEMROOT%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows)
> >
> 
> If you're continually rebuilding the Debian machine, you probably
> don't want to fool with peer-to-peer setups.  Probably better just
> to enable the ftp server already built into Win XP.

When I connect two machines together, I just use the IPv6
addresses which seem stable enough that I have aliases set
up for them.

It also means I don't have to disturb the IPv4 wireless
configuration that all the machines have picked up by DHCP.

> Another thing to do is install PuTTY on the WinXP box as a
> telnet/ssh client.

Cheers,
David.

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

#171207

On 8/17/2016 10:34 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 8/17/16 11:09 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:45:39AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>> I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet.
>>>
>>> The Debian machine is having various configurations of Jessie
>>> installed. Consider it a laboratory experiment. It can have
>>> multiple installs in a day. It intentionally has *NO* internet
>>> connectivity. It has a small partition set aside for
>>> preseed.cfg and miscellaneous scripts.
>>>
>>> The second machine is running WinXP Pro SP3 and serves as
>>> source of preseed and script files.
>>>
>>> My internet searches turn up too much outdated information
>>> and/or fine detail. Most link assume a server with multiple
>>> clients. Better description would be a peer to peer setup. It
>>> may be convenient to have the Windows machine act as a
>>> terminal for the Debian machine.
>>
>> If you're connecting the two machines with a single cable, then
>> either the cable needs to be a "cross-over" ethernet cable, or
>> one or other other the devices needs to support
>> "Auto-MDI/MDIX". Support for that was patchy in 10M/100M
>> devices but it mich more common in Gigabit Ethernet devices.
>
> Or you could just plug both machines into a cheap ethernet hub.

I did purchase an "8-Port Gigabit Switch". I don't intend open 
the shrink wrap unless convinced there is no other way. As I've 
said elsewhere a major motivation is educational.

>
>>
>> Once you've got the physical layer sorted (that is, green
>> blinky lights on both machines), then the rest of the
>> configuration should be much the same as any network:
>> * Either give the hosts unique, static IPs OR
>>   Run a DHCP server on one of the machines
>> * Either refer to the hosts by IP address OR
>>   Run a DNS server on one of the machines OR
>>   Write the hostnames in /etc/hosts
>> (%SYSTEMROOT%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows)
>>
>
> If you're continually rebuilding the Debian machine, you probably
> don't want to fool with peer-to-peer setups.  Probably better
> just to enable the ftp server already built into Win XP.

Do I really want an "ftp server"? I can see the WinXP machine as 
a "server". Do I have problems with definitions?
>
> Another thing to do is install PuTTY on the WinXP box as a
> telnet/ssh client.
>

I've seen terms PuTTY and telnet before - will have to use them 
as search terms.

Why would I be interested in ssh as both machines are sitting on 
my desk and _neither_ will be connected to the internet when 
ethernet connection is live?

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

#171212

On 8/17/16 5:14 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:

> On 8/17/2016 10:34 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> On 8/17/16 11:09 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:45:39AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>> I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet.
>>>>
>>>> The Debian machine is having various configurations of Jessie
>>>> installed. Consider it a laboratory experiment. It can have
>>>> multiple installs in a day. It intentionally has *NO* internet
>>>> connectivity. It has a small partition set aside for
>>>> preseed.cfg and miscellaneous scripts.
>>>>
>>>> The second machine is running WinXP Pro SP3 and serves as
>>>> source of preseed and script files.
>>>>
>>>> My internet searches turn up too much outdated information
>>>> and/or fine detail. Most link assume a server with multiple
>>>> clients. Better description would be a peer to peer setup. It
>>>> may be convenient to have the Windows machine act as a
>>>> terminal for the Debian machine.
>>>
>>> If you're connecting the two machines with a single cable, then
>>> either the cable needs to be a "cross-over" ethernet cable, or
>>> one or other other the devices needs to support
>>> "Auto-MDI/MDIX". Support for that was patchy in 10M/100M
>>> devices but it mich more common in Gigabit Ethernet devices.
>>
>> Or you could just plug both machines into a cheap ethernet hub.
>
> I did purchase an "8-Port Gigabit Switch". I don't intend open the 
> shrink wrap unless convinced there is no other way. As I've said 
> elsewhere a major motivation is educational.

Ok - then one thing to educate yourself on is details of the NICs in 
each machine - some will need a crossover cable to work, others will 
auto-detect.

>>
>>>
>>> Once you've got the physical layer sorted (that is, green
>>> blinky lights on both machines), then the rest of the
>>> configuration should be much the same as any network:
>>> * Either give the hosts unique, static IPs OR
>>>   Run a DHCP server on one of the machines
>>> * Either refer to the hosts by IP address OR
>>>   Run a DNS server on one of the machines OR
>>>   Write the hostnames in /etc/hosts
>>> (%SYSTEMROOT%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows)
>>>
>>
>> If you're continually rebuilding the Debian machine, you probably
>> don't want to fool with peer-to-peer setups.  Probably better
>> just to enable the ftp server already built into Win XP.
>
> Do I really want an "ftp server"? I can see the WinXP machine as a 
> "server". Do I have problems with definitions?

Something has to talk, something has to listen and respond.  Even in a 
peer-to-peer setup, there has to be a process listening and responding 
to incoming packets.  Whether you call it a process or a server - 
something has to be running.

Now, if all you want to do is bounce packets off a machine, all it has 
to do is respond to "ping" - that's generally part of IP processing (if 
configured to respond).

If you want to do anything useful, you have to have something listening 
for incoming packets, connection requests, and transactions.  That could 
be a telnet daemon (gives you a shell prompt when you connect), ftp (if 
you want to move files around), ssh (shell, plus some more interesting 
things), a web server, or lots of other things.

The question is what do you want to communicate.  Usually it's files, 
hence enabling the WinXP ftp server is a good first step. Particularly 
if you're thinking of using that box as a source of files when you're 
building and rebuilding your Debian box - generally, Debian retrieves 
files via FTP.


>>
>> Another thing to do is install PuTTY on the WinXP box as a
>> telnet/ssh client.
>>
>
> I've seen terms PuTTY and telnet before - will have to use them as 
> search terms.
>
> Why would I be interested in ssh as both machines are sitting on my 
> desk and _neither_ will be connected to the internet when ethernet 
> connection is live?
>
>
Good point.  SSH does some additional things like remote command execution.


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

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

#171213

On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 17:42:31 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> On 8/17/16 5:14 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> 
> >Do I really want an "ftp server"? I can see the WinXP machine as a
> >"server". Do I have problems with definitions?
> 
> Something has to talk, something has to listen and respond.  Even in a
> peer-to-peer setup, there has to be a process listening and responding to
> incoming packets.  Whether you call it a process or a server - something has
> to be running.

Very well put. I know nothing about Windows but the principle you outline
is fundamental to networking. Nothing listening on one machine, therefore
nothing transferred.

As an alternative to an ftp server there is netcat and Ncat. Both run on
Debian and both have Windows versions.

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

#171216

On 8/17/16 6:00 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 17:42:31 -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/16 5:14 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>
>>> Do I really want an "ftp server"? I can see the WinXP machine as a
>>> "server". Do I have problems with definitions?
>> Something has to talk, something has to listen and respond.  Even in a
>> peer-to-peer setup, there has to be a process listening and responding to
>> incoming packets.  Whether you call it a process or a server - something has
>> to be running.
> Very well put. I know nothing about Windows but the principle you outline
> is fundamental to networking. Nothing listening on one machine, therefore
> nothing transferred.
>
> As an alternative to an ftp server there is netcat and Ncat. Both run on
> Debian and both have Windows versions.

Good point.  If all you want to do is send packets from one machine, and 
see them show up on another one - netcat is just the ticket.

Then again, for testing whether networking is working on one machine, 
there's nothing better than having a server running on another machine, 
and telneting to it's port - see if you get a HELO or equivalent.  With 
netcat, it's all human typing and reading on both sides of the connection.

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

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

#171224

On Wednesday 17 August 2016 22:14:24 Richard Owlett wrote:
> Why would I be interested in ssh as both machines are sitting on
> my desk and _neither_ will be connected to the internet when
> ethernet connection is live?

You need to use something to move the files form one machine to another, as 
has been said.

Now that this list has kindly helped me learn how, I use ssh all the time on 
my small home network; but I must admit I use it more for admin than for 
moving files, though I also use it for moving files.

Lisi

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

#171228

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> Now that this list has kindly helped me learn how, I use ssh all the time on 
> my small home network; but I must admit I use it more for admin than for 
> moving files, though I also use it for moving files.

Same here, but the crypto required by ssh/scp and rsync (over ssh) will
be murder on the T43's Pentium-M processor, and *slow it down* very
noticeably.

I should know, I've been doing a *lot* of Debian work in a T43/p for the
best side of a decade...

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh

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

#171295

On 8/17/2016 6:13 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2016 22:14:24 Richard Owlett wrote:
>> Why would I be interested in ssh as both machines are sitting on
>> my desk and _neither_ will be connected to the internet when
>> ethernet connection is live?
>
> You need to use something to move the files form one machine to another, as
> has been said.
>
> Now that this list has kindly helped me learn how, I use ssh all the time on
> my small home network; but I must admit I use it more for admin than for
> moving files, though I also use it for moving files.
>

I hadn't looked up ssh, I *thought* I knew what it was for. I 
didn't ;/

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

#171315

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 06:53:22 -0500
Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> wrote:

> On 8/17/2016 6:13 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 August 2016 22:14:24 Richard Owlett wrote:  
> >> Why would I be interested in ssh as both machines are sitting on
> >> my desk and _neither_ will be connected to the internet when
> >> ethernet connection is live?  
> >
> > You need to use something to move the files form one machine to
> > another, as has been said.
> >
> > Now that this list has kindly helped me learn how, I use ssh all
> > the time on my small home network; but I must admit I use it more
> > for admin than for moving files, though I also use it for moving
> > files. 
> 
> I hadn't looked up ssh, I *thought* I knew what it was for. I 
> didn't ;/
> 
> 

It often comes in handy when a Linux computer stops responding to the
keyboard, it's something else to try before the Big Red Switch.

For a Windows machine, PuTTY is generally the ssh client of choice,
though there are others. For file transfer, WinSCP works with ssh,
FileZilla does also but I've never used it for that. PuTTY does
command-line file transfer, watch the \s and /s, I think XP is old
enough to pretend not to understand the /.

-- 
Joe

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

#171233

On 08/17/2016 02:14 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I did purchase an "8-Port Gigabit Switch". I don't intend open the
> shrink wrap unless convinced there is no other way. As I've said
> elsewhere a major motivation is educational.

I'd recommend a residential router with WiFi, Gigabit ports, and full
support for purpose-built FOSS firewall distributions, such as:

    http://dd-wrt.com/site/index


> Why would I be interested in ssh as both machines are sitting on my desk
> and _neither_ will be connected to the internet when ethernet connection
> is live?

1.  You can ssh from one machine to the other (if both have sshd service).

2.  You will want the Internet connection to be live while the computers
are connected to the local area network (LAN).


David

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

#171288

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

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:23:35PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> I'd recommend a residential router with WiFi, Gigabit ports, and full
> support for purpose-built FOSS firewall distributions, such as:
> 
>     http://dd-wrt.com/site/index

Whilst useful, that's a long way from "minimalist" in my book, and significantly
more complicated than a single Cat 5e cable connecting the two computers (assuming
at least one of the NICs can handle auto MDI-X)

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

#171204

On 8/17/2016 10:09 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:45:39AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet.
>>
>> The Debian machine is having various configurations of Jessie
>> installed. Consider it a laboratory experiment. It can have
>> multiple installs in a day. It intentionally has *NO* internet
>> connectivity. It has a small partition set aside for
>> preseed.cfg and miscellaneous scripts.
>>
>> The second machine is running WinXP Pro SP3 and serves as
>> source of preseed and script files.
>>
>> My internet searches turn up too much outdated information
>> and/or fine detail. Most link assume a server with multiple
>> clients. Better description would be a peer to peer setup. It
>> may be convenient to have the Windows machine act as a terminal
>> for the Debian machine.
>
> If you're connecting the two machines with a single cable, then
> either the cable needs to be a "cross-over" ethernet cable, or
> one or other other the devices needs to support "Auto-MDI/MDIX".
> Support for that was patchy in 10M/100M devices but it mich more
> common in Gigabit Ethernet devices.

I'm using Lenovos - a T43 and a R61, each with Gigabit interface.

>
> Once you've got the physical layer sorted (that is, green blinky
> lights on both machines), then the rest of the configuration
> should be much the same as any network:
> * Either give the hosts unique, static IPs OR
>    Run a DHCP server on one of the machines
> * Either refer to the hosts by IP address OR
>    Run a DNS server on one of the machines OR
>    Write the hostnames in /etc/hosts
> (%SYSTEMROOT%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows)

Ahh the question is HOW <chuckle>
Bought Cat6 straight thru cable. Neither machine has a light to 
blink, but both reacted indicating cable present - but no 
communication established YET.
>
>>
>> Suggested search terms or links.

A significant motivation is self education. I date from era when 
a UART occupied several square inches of PCB ;/

If retirement is not for education, what use is it?

>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

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

#171205

On Wednesday 17 August 2016 22:00:25 Richard Owlett wrote:
> If retirement is not for education, what use is it?

To retire?  Life is for education - retirement is for slowing down.  Sadly.

Lisi

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

#171215

On 8/17/2016 4:13 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2016 22:00:25 Richard Owlett wrote:
>> If retirement is not for education, what use is it?
>
> To retire?  Life is for education - retirement is for slowing down.  Sadly.
>

Perhaps a better phraseology would be "Retirement is for learning 
lessons our elders vainly attempted to teach recalcitrant know it 
alls". ???

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

#171217

On 8/17/16 6:33 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 8/17/2016 4:13 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>> On Wednesday 17 August 2016 22:00:25 Richard Owlett wrote:
>>> If retirement is not for education, what use is it?
>>
>> To retire?  Life is for education - retirement is for slowing down.  
>> Sadly.
>>
>
> Perhaps a better phraseology would be "Retirement is for learning 
> lessons our elders vainly attempted to teach recalcitrant know it 
> alls". ???
>

Retirement is for the dead.

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

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

#171206

On 8/17/16 5:00 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:

> On 8/17/2016 10:09 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:45:39AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>> I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet.
>>>
>>> The Debian machine is having various configurations of Jessie
>>> installed. Consider it a laboratory experiment. It can have
>>> multiple installs in a day. It intentionally has *NO* internet
>>> connectivity. It has a small partition set aside for
>>> preseed.cfg and miscellaneous scripts.
>>>
>>> The second machine is running WinXP Pro SP3 and serves as
>>> source of preseed and script files.
>>>
>>> My internet searches turn up too much outdated information
>>> and/or fine detail. Most link assume a server with multiple
>>> clients. Better description would be a peer to peer setup. It
>>> may be convenient to have the Windows machine act as a terminal
>>> for the Debian machine.
>>
>> If you're connecting the two machines with a single cable, then
>> either the cable needs to be a "cross-over" ethernet cable, or
>> one or other other the devices needs to support "Auto-MDI/MDIX".
>> Support for that was patchy in 10M/100M devices but it mich more
>> common in Gigabit Ethernet devices.
>
> I'm using Lenovos - a T43 and a R61, each with Gigabit interface.
>
>>
>> Once you've got the physical layer sorted (that is, green blinky
>> lights on both machines), then the rest of the configuration
>> should be much the same as any network:
>> * Either give the hosts unique, static IPs OR
>>    Run a DHCP server on one of the machines
>> * Either refer to the hosts by IP address OR
>>    Run a DNS server on one of the machines OR
>>    Write the hostnames in /etc/hosts
>> (%SYSTEMROOT%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows)
>
> Ahh the question is HOW <chuckle>
> Bought Cat6 straight thru cable. Neither machine has a light to blink, 
> but both reacted indicating cable present - but no communication 
> established YET.

Reacted how?

Have you assigned an IP address to each?  Done an ifup on the Debian 
box, and the equivalent on the Windows box?

HOW are you trying to establish communication?  Have you tried a ping?  
Something else?


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

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

#171214

On 8/17/2016 4:11 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 8/17/16 5:00 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2016 10:09 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:45:39AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>> I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet.
>>>>
>>>> The Debian machine is having various configurations of Jessie
>>>> installed. Consider it a laboratory experiment. It can have
>>>> multiple installs in a day. It intentionally has *NO* internet
>>>> connectivity. It has a small partition set aside for
>>>> preseed.cfg and miscellaneous scripts.
>>>>
>>>> The second machine is running WinXP Pro SP3 and serves as
>>>> source of preseed and script files.
>>>>
>>>> My internet searches turn up too much outdated information
>>>> and/or fine detail. Most link assume a server with multiple
>>>> clients. Better description would be a peer to peer setup. It
>>>> may be convenient to have the Windows machine act as a terminal
>>>> for the Debian machine.
>>>
>>> If you're connecting the two machines with a single cable, then
>>> either the cable needs to be a "cross-over" ethernet cable, or
>>> one or other other the devices needs to support "Auto-MDI/MDIX".
>>> Support for that was patchy in 10M/100M devices but it mich more
>>> common in Gigabit Ethernet devices.
>>
>> I'm using Lenovos - a T43 and a R61, each with Gigabit interface.
>>
>>>
>>> Once you've got the physical layer sorted (that is, green blinky
>>> lights on both machines), then the rest of the configuration
>>> should be much the same as any network:
>>> * Either give the hosts unique, static IPs OR
>>>    Run a DHCP server on one of the machines
>>> * Either refer to the hosts by IP address OR
>>>    Run a DNS server on one of the machines OR
>>>    Write the hostnames in /etc/hosts
>>> (%SYSTEMROOT%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows)
>>
>> Ahh the question is HOW <chuckle>
>> Bought Cat6 straight thru cable. Neither machine has a light to
>> blink, but both reacted indicating cable present - but no
>> communication established YET.
>
> Reacted how?

The WinXP machine no longer reported a disconnected cable.
The Jessie Mate machine now reported it was attempting to 
establish a connection.

IOW both machines recognized a PHYSICAL connection.
*NOTHING MORE*


>
> Have you assigned an IP address to each?  Done an ifup on the
> Debian box, and the equivalent on the Windows box?

No.
As of now I'm missing much underlying 'education'.
However "EDUCATION" is an explicit goal.

>
> HOW are you trying to establish communication?  Have you tried a
> ping? Something else?

This is only a "status" report.
I am groping for the questions I *SHOULD BE* asking ;/


>
>

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

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web