the linux networking utilities hate me

[granty at bellatlantic.net (Grant Young)]

Maybe this will help?

route add default gw 192.168.1.245

I problems with Suse where it couldn't find the correct router/gateway
after activating the wireless card on my laptop.  Typing this in seemed
to fix it.  I don't have this problem with Red Hat for some reason. 
Perhaps router discovery is better on Red Hat?  On other Unix's I had to
put the router IP in the /etc/defaultrouter file.  

Just to add a detail:  If you're using a Cable/DSL router box and a
Access Point with separate IPs the gateway IP is the router box.

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 10:24, Seth Gordon wrote:
> Until last night, I had an AirPort base station assigned to IP address 
> 192.168.1.11.  My Linux (Debian stable) laptop has a wireless Ethernet 
> card as device eth1, and the configuration for the card, in 
> /etc/network/interfaces, describes it as "pointopoint 192.168.1.11 ... 
> gateway 192.168.1.11 ..." and everything worked just fine.  If I typed 
> "/sbin/ifconfig eth1", the output would report the point-to-point link, 
> and if I typed "route -n", the output would begin something like this:
> 
> Network      Gateway      ... Device
> 192.168.1.11 *            ... eth1
> 0.0.0.0      192.168.1.11 ... eth1
> 
> Then I swapped out the AirPort, and replaced it with a Linksys base 
> station whose default IP address is 192.168.1.245.  No problem, I 
> thought.  I'll just replace "11" with "245" in /etc/network/interfaces, 
> reboot, and everything should work just as before.  But it doesn't.  I 
> *can* access the Web interface of the base station itself by typing 
> "http://192.168.1.245"; into my browser, but I can't access anything else.
> 
> Even when I explicitly type "/sbin/ifconfig eth1 ... pointopoint 
> 192.168.1.245", and then type "/sbin/ifconfig eth1", the interfaces is 
> no longer flagged as point-to-point.  Now, when I type "route -n", the 
> output begins
> 
> Network       Gateway      ... Device
> 192.168.1.245 0.0.0.0      ... eth1
> 
> I've tried "route add -host 192.168.1.245 eth1" and "route add -host 
> 192.168.1.245 gw 192.168.1.13" (.13 is the address of my laptop's 
> wireless card), with the same results.
> 
> What am I doing wrong?  Is there another configuration file that I 
> forgot about?  Is a misconfiguration on the wireless base station 
> causing the kernel routing tables to become confused?  Am I just cursed?
> 
> // seth gordon // sethg at ropine.com // http://dynamic.ropine.com/yo/ //
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss