Re: Update - Re: Weird Network Card problems - 2

[Ajit Warrier <unixajit yahoo com>]

I have set it as you suggested but I am still unable
to ping any machine on the internal network other than
itself.

Ajit

--- Dan Walker <dan j walker talk21 com> wrote:
> Also, the gateway should be the ip address of your
> router - your gateway
> to the real world. if not, you would be able to ping
> it but not connect
> to the net.
> I may be reading this wrong here (the bit below)
> 
> On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 21:11, Dan Walker wrote:
> 
>     I always thought that an eeprom was only there
> if you put one in
>     there. i mean call me stupid but every network
> card that i have seen
>     has the space for an extra chip. this is so it
> can boot from it -
>     the boot rom! 
>     
>     
>     
>     From: Tony Dietrich <td transoft demon co uk> 
>     Reply-To: redhat-install-list redhat com
>     To: RedHat Install
> <redhat-install-list redhat com> 
>     Subject: Re: Update - Re: Weird Network Card
> problems - 2 
>     Date: 04 Jan 2003 19:55:58 +0000 
>     Ajit 
>     
>     Doing some quick research on the net for you, it
> seems that the
>     error 
>     message you are getting about EEPROM not
> present, and the subsequent
>     failure of the card to connect, are a know bug
> in the tulip.c
>     drivers 
>     for that card. 
>     
>     Although the technical language went over my
> head, it seems that the
>     current versions of the driver are built with
> the scan detection
>     order 
>     the wrong way round ... in other word, it tries
> to scan for the
>     EEPROM 
>     first, before finalising the IRQ etc.  This can
> result in
>     unpredictable 
>     values being used when the driver is
> initialised. (including the 
>     reported MAC address) 
>     
>     This all boils down to the simple fact that you
> have a bit of
>     hardware 
>     that isn't fully supported by Linux yet.  The
> articles I read
>     suggested 
>     that no solution is yet available. 
>     
>     Sorry to be the bearer of bad new. 
>     
>     TD 
>     
>     
>     On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 18:28, Ajit Warrier wrote:
> 
>     > I did one better. I removed the eth0 card from
> the 
>     > machine and removed the card from the network 
>     > configuration tool. This is only card in the
> laptop. 
>     > Then rebooted. 
>     > 
>     > This removed all entries from the routing
> table except 
>     > for the entry for lo. 
>     > 
>     > Then shutdown and re-inserted the card. During
> 
>     > startup, it once again did *not* detect the
> card. I 
>     > added eth0 as a DC clone from the network 
>     > configuration tool. I checked that the card
> came up 
>     > and that the module for tulip was loaded. 
>     > 
>     > The routing table generated was exactly the
> same - one 
>     > entry for the default gateway set correctly,
> one for 
>     > lo and one for the network. Now, as far as I
> know, the 
>     > entry for the local network should have the
> eth0 IP 
>     > address as the gateway. Am I correct here?
> This is how 
>     > I see the routing table in other machines. 
>     > 
>     > At any rate, I can ping the IP of eth0. Cannot
> ping 
>     > any other IPs in the internal network. And I
> still do 
>     > get a different MAC address than when I am in
> Win98 on 
>     > the same machine. I know that each card in the
> world 
>     > has a unique MAC address and that it is not
> possible 
>     > for a card to have different MAC's in
> different OS's, 
>     > but it *is* nevertheless happening. 
>     > 
>     > Could it be that eth0 is only a virtual
> adapter (the 
>     > physical adapter not getting detected at all)
> and so 
>     > it can ping itself and nothing else? Because
> in dmesg 
>     > I get the message - 
>     > 
>     > eth0: Digital DS21143 Tulip rev 48 at
> 0xc48e0000, 
>     > EEPROM not present, 00:4c:69:6e:75:79, IRQ 11 
>     > 
>     > Any ideas? In case it helps, I can send a
> detailed 
>     > document showing my network, IPs etc and any
> other 
>     > file that may help, as attachement. Just say
> the word 
>     > - I am desperate here! 
>     > 
>     > Thanks for your time guys. 
>     > 
>     > Ajit 
>     > 
>     > --- Rick Stevens <rstevens vitalstream com>
> wrote: 
>     > > Ajit Warrier wrote: 
>     > > > Hi list, 
>     > > > 
>     > > > I used 
>     > > > 
>     > > > route add -net 10.3.1.0 netmask
> 255.255.255.0 eth0 
>     > > > 
>     > > > however this makes the following entry in
> the 
>     > > table - 
>     > > > 
>     > > > 10.3.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U... 
>     > > > 
>     > > > I thought that the gateway for this should
> be the 
>     > > IP 
>     > > > of the adapter of the machine itself since
> this 
>     > > > machine is part of the 10.3.1.0 network.
> So I 
>     > > tried to 
>     > > > add it as below - 
>     > > > 
>     > > > route add -net 10.3.1.0 netmask
> 255.255.255.0 gw 
>     > > > 10.3.1.23. 
>     > > > 
>     > > > However this added the entry with a UG in
> teh Flag 
>     > > > portion (as expected). 
>     > > > 
>     > > > I still cannot access the network. 
>     > > 
>     > > Oh, gawd.  Look, do
> "/etc/rc.d/init.d/network 
>     > > restart" to start off 
>     > > with a clean slate.  Find out what the IP
> address of 
>     > > your Linux box 
>     > > is SUPPOSED to be and what it ACTUALLY is. 
> To find 
>     > > out what it 
>     > > ACTUALLY is: 
>     > > 
>     > >     ifconfig eth0 
>     > > 
>     > > If the address is wrong, then use this
> command to 
>     > > change it, replacing 
>     > > "correct.ip.address" with the right one: 
>     > > 
>     > >     ifconfig eth0 correct.ip.address netmask
> 
>     > > 255.255.255.0 
>     > > 
>     > > Next, find out what the IP address is OF THE
> ROUTER 
>     > > and use THAT as 
>     > > the default gateway: 
>     > > 
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com