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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#171220

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:27:13PM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > > > 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 ;/

There is a classic model of networking in which there are 7 (or
9) layers, each one using the one below it. Here's the
simplified version:

Application Protocol
TCP or UDP socket
IP
network connection

At this point you have the network connection set up, so you
need to configure an IP network on top of it.

When there are only (small number) nodes, you can hand-configure
each machine.

The 192.168.x.y network is traditionally used for this. (There
are two others, one of which is 10.x.y.z, the other of which is
rarely used.)


Tell both machines that they are on the 192.168.1.0 network. The
network mask is 255.255.255.0, or /24 in CIDR notation. There is 
no gateway. One machine can have the address 192.168.1.10, and 
the other 192.168.1.20.

When that is done, you should be able to use ping to get a
response from the other machine's address:

$ ping -c 1 192.168.1.10
PING 192.168.10 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.1.10: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.119 ms

--- 192.168.1.10 ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.119/0.119/0.119/0.000 ms

$

At that point, you can consider client and server applications.

-dsr-

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

#171232

On 08/17/2016 03:27 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I am groping for the questions I *SHOULD BE* asking ;/

Q:  How does Ethernet work?

Q:  How do TCP/IP local area networks work?

Q:  How does the Internet work?


David

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

#171234

On 08/17/2016 03:27 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> I am groping for the questions I *SHOULD BE* asking ;/
> Q:  How does Ethernet work?
>
> Q:  How do TCP/IP local area networks work?
>
> Q:  How does the Internet work?
>
>
https://www.amazon.com/Networking-Dummies-Doug-Lowe/dp/B01FBEEOBU/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471484996&sr=1-2&keywords=networking+for+dummies

or, for the real nitty gritty,

https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Networks-5th-Andrew-Tanenbaum/dp/0132126958




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

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

#171240

On 8/17/2016 8:52 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 08/17/2016 03:27 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>> I am groping for the questions I *SHOULD BE* asking ;/
>> Q:  How does Ethernet work?
>>
>> Q:  How do TCP/IP local area networks work?
>>
>> Q:  How does the Internet work?
>>
>>
> https://www.amazon.com/Networking-Dummies-Doug-Lowe/dp/B01FBEEOBU/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471484996&sr=1-2&keywords=networking+for+dummies

That looks like a good starting point. Put in a request for a 
copy with local library.

>
>
> or, for the real nitty gritty,
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Networks-5th-Andrew-Tanenbaum/dp/0132126958

It spends too much space on internet. SeaMonkey is more than 
sufficient for me.

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

#171236

Hi Richard,

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:27:13PM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> 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*

>From what I can gather of the thread, both of your machines have
gigabit interfaces. That's good as it means the Auto-MDIX feature is
virtually guaranteed be supported¹. So, you need not worry whether
your cable is crossover or not.

All you need to do now is statically configure both machines to be
in the same IP network. It does not really matter what numbers you
choose as long as they are valid, but convention dictates that you
should use one of the private networks as listed in RFC1918:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network

As you are only going to have two machines on this network you could
a /30. In fact given there won't be a default gateway host you could
probably get away with a /31. But there is no need to make life
confusing: you can just use a /24, so your network has use of all of
the last octet of the address, e.g. 192.168.1.*.

So, let's say you did choose 192.168.1.0/24. Just configure one
machine as 192.168.1.1 and the other as 192.168.1.2 with a netmask
on both of 255.255.255.0. If either of them insists on needing a
default gateway you can just put the IP of the other machine there.

Your Debian machine is probably saying that it's "attempting to
establish a connection" because it has detected that you've plugged
in an Ethernet cable that has carrier (has the electrical properties
of a working Ethernet network), and is now trying to automatically
configure that interface with DHCP.

That's most likely going to fail because you don't have a DHCP
server on your "network"—unless you *did* happen to have a DHCP
server running on one of those two machines.

Since this setup is very limited and isn't going to change, I would
just statically configure the network on both machines. Setting up a
DHCP server would be just one more thing to learn.

Once your network is working you can use the same tools that you use
over the internet to transfer files over your local network. So,
things like scp, sftp and so on. If your purpose in direct
connection is to have a secure link that needs no encryption and
you're satisfied that it needs no encryption², then you could get
faster transfers with tools like netcat.

Cheers,
Andy

¹ Auto-MDIX is OPTIONAL in the 1000Base-T standard so it is possible
  that some gigabit NIC would not support it, but I have never seen
  one that doesn't, even really cheap ones.

² A lot of times just because you have a private link between
  machines still wouldn't make it safe to ignore encryption, because
  if the cable goes somewhere where you don't have 24/7 vision then
  it's trivial for someone to attach something that passively sniffs
  it. But, it sounds like this is a setup in the home where that is
  perhaps too paranoid.

Cheers,
Andy

-- 
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

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

#171280

On Thu 18 Aug 2016 at 10:33:28 (+0000), Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:27:13PM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
> > 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*
> 
> >From what I can gather of the thread, both of your machines have
> gigabit interfaces. That's good as it means the Auto-MDIX feature is
> virtually guaranteed be supported¹. So, you need not worry whether
> your cable is crossover or not.
> 
> All you need to do now is statically configure both machines to be
> in the same IP network. It does not really matter what numbers you
> choose as long as they are valid, but convention dictates that you
> should use one of the private networks as listed in RFC1918:
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network
> 
> As you are only going to have two machines on this network you could
> a /30. In fact given there won't be a default gateway host you could
> probably get away with a /31. But there is no need to make life
> confusing: you can just use a /24, so your network has use of all of
> the last octet of the address, e.g. 192.168.1.*.
> 
> So, let's say you did choose 192.168.1.0/24. Just configure one
> machine as 192.168.1.1 and the other as 192.168.1.2 with a netmask
> on both of 255.255.255.0. If either of them insists on needing a
> default gateway you can just put the IP of the other machine there.

Before I discovered the simplicity of using IPv6, I used IPv4.
I just dug out a backup of a configuration file from that time,
/etc/network/interfaces

# This file describes the network interfaces available on your system
# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).

# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

# The primary network interface
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet static
        address 192.168.1.19
        netmask 255.255.255.255
        pointopoint 192.168.1.15

#

The other end had its 19 and 15 switched, naturally.

Cheers,
David.

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

#171297

On 8/18/2016 5:33 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:27:13PM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> 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*
>
>>From what I can gather of the thread, both of your machines have
> gigabit interfaces. That's good as it means the Auto-MDIX feature is
> virtually guaranteed be supported¹. So, you need not worry whether
> your cable is crossover or not.
>
> All you need to do now is statically configure both machines to be
> in the same IP network. It does not really matter what numbers you
> choose as long as they are valid, but convention dictates that you
> should use one of the private networks as listed in RFC1918:
>
>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network
>
> [snip]

That led to multiple relevant Wikipedia links which combined with
_Networking+for+Dummies_ should give me framework.

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

#171209

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 05:00:25 PM Richard Owlett wrote:
> 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.

As stated by someone else, you need a crossover cable--or something 
equivalent, like plug cables from both machines into a switch, router, or hub,  
I think I've seen someone selling like a crossover adaptera female to male 
adapter wired as a crossover ...

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

#171211

On 8/17/16 5:33 PM, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 05:00:25 PM Richard Owlett wrote:
>> 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.
> As stated by someone else, you need a crossover cable--or something
> equivalent, like plug cables from both machines into a switch, router, or hub,
> I think I've seen someone selling like a crossover adaptera female to male
> adapter wired as a crossover ...

Not necessarily.  It depends on the NICs.  Auto-detect has become pretty 
commonplace over the past 10 years, and I believe that gigE uses all 4 
pairs.

Now if you were connecting RS232 ports....


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

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

#171226

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 05:45:47 PM Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On 8/17/16 5:33 PM, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> > As stated by someone else, you need a crossover cable--or something
> > equivalent, like plug cables from both machines into a switch, router, or
> > hub, I think I've seen someone selling like a crossover adaptera female
> > to male adapter wired as a crossover ...
> 
> Not necessarily.  It depends on the NICs.  Auto-detect has become pretty
> commonplace over the past 10 years, and I believe that gigE uses all 4
> pairs.

Ok, I guess I learned something.

> 
> Now if you were connecting RS232 ports....

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

#171221

On 8/17/2016 4:33 PM, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 05:00:25 PM Richard Owlett wrote:
>> 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.
>
> As stated by someone else, you need a crossover cable--or something
> equivalent, like plug cables from both machines into a switch, router, or hub,
> I think I've seen someone selling like a crossover adaptera female to male
> adapter wired as a crossover ...
>

I've been told elsewhere that a Gigabit interface does not 
require a "crossover" thingy. I date from era of "null modems" so 
I understand concept. More investigation warranted.

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

#171225

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 8/17/2016 10:09 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
> >>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.

Too bad it is WinXP, otherwise you'd have instant connectivity via IPv6
SLAAC.

> >If you're connecting the two machines with a single cable, then
> >either the cable needs to be a "cross-over" ethernet cable, or

Gigabit ethernet uses all wires on both directions at the same time
(well, at least 1000BASE-T does) using quite advanced line coding and
echo cancelation to get away with it.  It doesn't need (or want), a
cross-over cable.

A straight CAT-5e, CAT-6 or CAT-6A patch cable will do (assuming the
cable is *good*, and not bargain-bin defective junk that would never
pass certification).

> >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.

The T43 can't do 1 Gbit/s easily due to the relatively slow Pentium-M
processor, but should be able to do 400~600 Mbit/s (using Linux, anyway.
No idea about WinXP).

That T43 will be able to go twice as fast (maybe even saturate the
gigabit ethernet link) on larger transfers if you kick the MTU up to
9000 bytes on *both* devices (Debian and WinXP), but this is more
advanced stuff I suggest you leave for later.

> >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.

You could install isc-dhcp-server on the Debian side, and configure it
to serve dynamic IPs.  The WinXP side will ask for an IPv4 address and
get it from the Debian box.  But that's going to be annoying unless you
do the extra step of anchoring the WinXP IP by configuring its MAC
address in the isc-dhcp-server config file.

It would be easier to use static IPs in both sides.  The how-tos for
Windows XP will be accurate enough for that.  Use, e.g., 192.168.55.10,
with a netmask of 255.255.255.0 for the Debian box, and 192.168.55.20
for the WinXP box, with the same netmask.  You don't need a gateway.

The static IPs can be configured in Debian by editing
/etc/network/interfaces,  "man interfaces" will tell you more.

If you want to transfer files properly or mount remote drives from one
computer to the other, install the "samba" package in the Debian side.
The "samba" documentation at samba.org is really good and should be
enough to tell you how to configure it (expect to spend some time on
this).

That should be enough to get you going, and you will learn a *lot* from
this.  Good luck.

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh

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

#171237

Le 18/08/2016 à 01:26, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
>
> Too bad it is WinXP, otherwise you'd have instant connectivity via IPv6
> SLAAC.

Windows XP supports IPv6. It is just disabled by default, so you need to 
enable it with something like "ipv6 enable". Even Windows 2000 could 
have experimental basic IPv6 support.

SLAAC (stateless address autoconfiguration) requires a properly 
configured IPv6 router sending RA's (router advertisements). Debian 
running radvd can do this.

Or do you mean link local addresses (fe80::/10) ? They're not the most 
convenient for everyday use.

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

#171261

On Thu 18 Aug 2016 at 12:51:08 (+0200), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 18/08/2016 à 01:26, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit :
> >
> >Too bad it is WinXP, otherwise you'd have instant connectivity via IPv6
> >SLAAC.
> 
> Windows XP supports IPv6. It is just disabled by default, so you
> need to enable it with something like "ipv6 enable". Even Windows
> 2000 could have experimental basic IPv6 support.
> 
> SLAAC (stateless address autoconfiguration) requires a properly
> configured IPv6 router sending RA's (router advertisements). Debian
> running radvd can do this.
> 
> Or do you mean link local addresses (fe80::/10) ? They're not the
> most convenient for everyday use.

The latter is certainly what I meant earlier. I find it very
convenient, just by using an alias and function (which I deliberately
avoid below). Here's the networking on my laptop as normally
configured wirelessly (with uname -a; /sbin/ifconfig -a;
ip route show; ip neigh show) and then when I connect to a
host with cat5 cable, and back again. (I edited out the lo
interface for brevity):

--
Laptop connected normally by wireless:
Linux west 3.16.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3 (2016-07-02) i686 GNU/Linux

eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1c:23:3b:9f:34  
          UP BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
          RX bytes:0 (0.0 B)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 B)
          Interrupt:18 

wlan0     Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1c:bf:d5:28:76  
          inet addr:192.168.1.15  Bcast:192.168.1.255
          Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::21c:bfff:fed5:2876/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:284407 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:147975 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
          RX bytes:430082452 (410.1 MiB)  TX bytes:13065473 (12.4 MiB)

default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 
192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.15 

192.168.1.19 dev wlan0 lladdr 00:13:72:83:0e:66 REACHABLE
192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 lladdr 44:94:fc:39:1f:ce REACHABLE

--
Remove 192.168.1.19's ethernet cable from wall and plug into laptop:
Linux west 3.16.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3 (2016-07-02) i686 GNU/Linux

eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1c:23:3b:9f:34  
          inet6 addr: fe80::21c:23ff:fe3b:9f34/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:47 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:48 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
          RX bytes:10259 (10.0 KiB)  TX bytes:10392 (10.1 KiB)
          Interrupt:18 

wlan0     Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1c:bf:d5:28:76  
          inet addr:192.168.1.15  Bcast:192.168.1.255
          Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::21c:bfff:fed5:2876/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:322207 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:166891 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
          RX bytes:486912567 (464.3 MiB)  TX bytes:14726418 (14.0 MiB)

default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 
192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.15 

fe80::213:72ff:fe83:e66 dev eth0 lladdr 00:13:72:83:0e:66 REACHABLE
192.168.1.19 dev wlan0 lladdr 00:13:72:83:0e:66 STALE
192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 lladdr 44:94:fc:39:1f:ce REACHABLE

--
Log in to 192.168.1.19:
$ ssh -X fe80::213:72ff:fe83:e66%eth0
Linux alum 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.81-1 i686
[...]
You have new mail.
Last login: Thu Aug 18 10:08:12 2016 from west
$ 

--
Transfer file from 192.168.1.19 back to the laptop:
$ scp -p a_file david@[fe80::21c:23ff:fe3b:9f34%eth0]:/tmp/
a_file                             100% 1280KB   1.3MB/s   00:01    
$ 

--
Log out of 192.168.1.19:
$ [typed ^D]
Connection to fe80::213:72ff:fe83:e66%eth0 closed.
$ 

--
Transfer a file from laptop to 192.168.1.19:
$ scp -p a_file david@[fe80::213:72ff:fe83:e66%eth0]:/tmp/
a_file                             100% 1280KB   1.3MB/s   00:01    
$ 
--

Reconnect 192.168.1.19 to the wall socket:
Linux west 3.16.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3 (2016-07-02) i686 GNU/Linux

eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1c:23:3b:9f:34  
          inet6 addr: fe80::21c:23ff:fe3b:9f34/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:1385 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:1495 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
          RX bytes:1457798 (1.3 MiB)  TX bytes:1464872 (1.3 MiB)
          Interrupt:18 

wlan0     Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:1c:bf:d5:28:76  
          inet addr:192.168.1.15  Bcast:192.168.1.255
          Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::21c:bfff:fed5:2876/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:324108 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:167844 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
          RX bytes:489469428 (466.7 MiB)  TX bytes:14814545 (14.1 MiB)

default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 
192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.15 

fe80::213:72ff:fe83:e66 dev eth0 lladdr 00:13:72:83:0e:66 STALE
192.168.1.19 dev wlan0 lladdr 00:13:72:83:0e:66 REACHABLE
192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 lladdr 44:94:fc:39:1f:ce REACHABLE

--
Note that if you copy this method, you'll add lines to your
~/.ssh/known_hosts file.

Cheers,
David.

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

#171263

	Hi.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:51:08 +0200
Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:

> SLAAC (stateless address autoconfiguration) requires a properly 
> configured IPv6 router sending RA's (router advertisements). Debian 
> running radvd can do this.
> 
> Or do you mean link local addresses (fe80::/10) ? They're not the most 
> convenient for everyday use.

OP is seeking to connect exactly 2 PCs. Both SLAAC and DHCP are
overkill in such case IMO. I don't see what's so inconvenient in ipv6
link-local for such simplistic setup.

Reco

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

#171265

On Thu 18 Aug 2016 at 20:18:56 +0300, Reco wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 12:51:08 +0200
> Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote:
> 
> > SLAAC (stateless address autoconfiguration) requires a properly 
> > configured IPv6 router sending RA's (router advertisements). Debian 
> > running radvd can do this.
> > 
> > Or do you mean link local addresses (fe80::/10) ? They're not the most 
> > convenient for everyday use.
> 
> OP is seeking to connect exactly 2 PCs. Both SLAAC and DHCP are
> overkill in such case IMO. I don't see what's so inconvenient in ipv6
> link-local for such simplistic setup.

To remind ourselves:

  I wish to connect two laptops via Ethernet

He has internet connectivity. Stick both machines into the router. Set
them up with addresses and routing. Verify they can communicate. Neither
machine need be capable of connecting with the outside world.

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

#171267

Le 18/08/2016 à 19:18, Reco a écrit :
>
> OP is seeking to connect exactly 2 PCs. Both SLAAC and DHCP are
> overkill in such case IMO.

I won't argue.

> I don't see what's so inconvenient in ipv6
> link-local for such simplistic setup.

IPv6 link local addresses are harder to remember, and you must append 
the interface name to them (see D. Wright's reply), assuming that the 
application supports this notation.

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

#171190

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

Am 16. Aug, 2016 schwätzte Richard Owlett so:

moin moin Richard,

look at zeroconf. Both machines can independently setup networking to talk
to each other.

I believe zeroconf came up somehow recently on a new box until I fixed the
network cable, so it's likely an option during install.

ciao,

der.hans

> 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.

-- 
#  http://www.LuftHans.com/        http://www.PhxLinux.org/
#  "But you could teach these skills to a high-school student, and you could
#  probably teach them to an artist."  -- Richard Roberts

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

#171203

On 8/17/2016 10:05 AM, der.hans wrote:
> Am 16. Aug, 2016 schwätzte Richard Owlett so:
>
> moin moin Richard,
>
> look at zeroconf. Both machines can independently setup
> networking to talk
> to each other.

The web hits I got for zeroconf indicated it's part of a support 
package for KDE, I'm using Mate. Don't know if that's a problem. 
http://manpages.debian.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi is still giving a 404 
error so I can't check there. Didn't find any link at kde.org 
that looked promising.

>
> I believe zeroconf came up somehow recently on a new box until I
> fixed the
> network cable, so it's likely an option during install.
>
> ciao,
>
> der.hans
>
>> 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171208

On Wednesday 17 August 2016 21:48:20 Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 8/17/2016 10:05 AM, der.hans wrote:
> > Am 16. Aug, 2016 schwätzte Richard Owlett so:
> >
> > moin moin Richard,
> >
> > look at zeroconf. Both machines can independently setup
> > networking to talk
> > to each other.
>
> The web hits I got for zeroconf indicated it's part of a support
> package for KDE, I'm using Mate. Don't know if that's a problem.
> http://manpages.debian.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi is still giving a 404
> error so I can't check there. Didn't find any link at kde.org
> that looked promising.

Try one of these:
http://mate-desktop.com/community/

They are a helpful enthusiastic lot.

Lisi

>
> > I believe zeroconf came up somehow recently on a new box until I
> > fixed the
> > network cable, so it's likely an option during install.
> >
> > ciao,
> >
> > der.hans
> >
> >> 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web