[Sussex] Re: Setting up a simple home network

[Steve Dobson]

Alan

On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 11:44 +0100, Captain Redbeard wrote:
>  >Steve Dobson wrote:
>  >
>  >Not quite right.  It should read something like this:...
> 
> I know, I know, see my revision posting.

But I didn't receive that until after I had posted my reply.
What do you want me to be a mind reader?  :-)

>  >If you try "ifconfig -a" you should see an entry for the 
>  >NIC (eth0).
> 
> Did that and it does list an entry for eth0 on both machines.

Good

<snip>
> My (slightly revised) commands were as follows:
> 
> On the server:
> ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 
> 192.168.255.255
> 
> On the client:
> ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 
> 192.168.255.255

You've still not got something right.

The netmask defines how many bits are used for the network's address and
how many for the host's address on that network.  A mask of
255.255.255.0 (first 24 bits are 1s) says that 24 bits make up the
network address, and the remaining 8 are used for the host.

The broadcast address should be configured to have the network bits
match the network's address (in your case the first 24 bits).  So your
broadcast address should read "192.168.0.255".

> And now on the client:
> ping -b 192.168.255.255
> 
> Result:
> PING 192.168.255.255 (192.168.255.255) 56(84) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.206ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.586ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.043ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.144ms (DUP!)
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.024ms
> 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.118ms (DUP!)
> etc...
> 
> With similar output on the server.
> 
> 
> IT WORKED!!!

Congrats

> 
>  >This is advanced stuff.  If you can't get the two machine 
>  >to ping each other, then don't worry yet about protocol 
> and >remote mounting of files.  This maybe want you want, 
> but >learn to stand up before you try and run.
> 
> OK, I'm standing up, now how do I run?  The mount command 
> still doesn't work!

I see a new post on the mount problem.  I'll read that and 
try and help there.

Steve