Very Computer

by **Mike** » Fri, 08 Jun 2001 01:52:20

If anyone can help me figure out why I can't get my wireless setup to work
under RedHat 7.1, that would be great. I'm using a D-Link DWL-650 802.11b
card and a LinkSys BEFWS14 gateway/WAP. Everything works find under windoze
2000.

RedHat 7.1 does almost all the work. After configuring wireless.opts for my
environment, I can insert the card, and the system recognizes it, loads the
wvlan_cs driver, and creates a new network interface (eth1). Here's what's
in dmesg when the driver loads:

PCI: Found IRQ 11 for device 00:03.1
PCI: The same IRQ used for device 00:03.0
PCI: The same IRQ used for device 00:07.2
PCI: The same IRQ used for device 00:10.0
PCI: The same IRQ used for device 00:10.1
Yenta IRQ list 0698, PCI irq11
Socket status: 30000006
Yenta IRQ list 0698, PCI irq11
Socket status: 30000010
cs: IO port probe 0x0c00-0x0cff: clean.
cs: IO port probe 0x0100-0x04ff: excluding 0x378-0x37f 0x4d0-0x4d7
cs: IO port probe 0x0a00-0x0aff: clean.
cs: memory probe 0xa0000000-0xa0ffffff: clean.
wvlan_cs: WaveLAN/IEEE PCMCIA driver v1.0.6

wvlan_cs: index 0x01: Vcc 3.3, irq 3, io 0x0100-0x013f
wvlan_cs: Registered netdevice eth1
wvlan_cs: MAC address on eth1 is 00 43 05 e1 f3 b4
wvlan_cs: This is LinkSys/D-Link card, not a Wavelan IEEE card :-(
You may want report firmare revision (0x7) and what the card support.
I will try to make it work, but you should look for a better driver.
According to http://www.focusresearch.com/dwl-650.html this is the correct
driver. This was the most specific page I could find for this card.
However I have my doubts because of the message, and because of the output
in iwconfig (see below) indicating 802.11 and 2Mbps.
Anyway, I've configured eth1 to use a static interface since DHCP times out.
I can activate the interface, and output from iwconfig and ifconfig seem to
indicate that the interface is active and communicating with the WAP:

% ifconfig
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:43:05:E1:F3:B4
inet addr:192.168.1.12 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:24 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0

% iwconfig
eth1 IEEE 802.11-DS ESSID:"default" Nickname:"Prism I"
Frequency:2.437GHz Sensitivity:1/3 Mode:Managed
Access Point: 00:34:02:D3:A8:C5
Bit Rate:2Mb/s RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Encryption key:off
Power Management:off
Link quality:33/92 Signal level:-69 dBm Noise level:-102 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:0 invalid crypt:0 invalid misc:0

However, I cannot even ping my gateway!

% ping 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) from 192.168.1.12 : 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
7 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, +6 errors, 100% packet loss

Any help is appreciated! Thanks!!!! Please feel free to copy me directly
on any replies.

by **Dean Thompso** » Fri, 08 Jun 2001 09:12:39

Hi Mike,

Quote:> If anyone can help me figure out why I can't get my wireless setup to work
> under RedHat 7.1, that would be great. I'm using a D-Link DWL-650 802.11b
> card and a LinkSys BEFWS14 gateway/WAP. Everything works find under
> windoze 2000.

> RedHat 7.1 does almost all the work. After configuring wireless.opts for
> my environment, I can insert the card, and the system recognizes it, loads
> the wvlan_cs driver, and creates a new network interface (eth1). Here's
> what's in dmesg when the driver loads:

[...]

> wvlan_cs: WaveLAN/IEEE PCMCIA driver v1.0.6

> wvlan_cs: index 0x01: Vcc 3.3, irq 3, io 0x0100-0x013f
> wvlan_cs: Registered netdevice eth1
> wvlan_cs: MAC address on eth1 is 00 43 05 e1 f3 b4
> wvlan_cs: This is LinkSys/D-Link card, not a Wavelan IEEE card :-(
> However I have my doubts because of the message, and because of the output
> in iwconfig (see below) indicating 802.11 and 2Mbps.
> Anyway, I've configured eth1 to use a static interface since DHCP times
> out. I can activate the interface, and output from iwconfig and ifconfig
> seem to indicate that the interface is active and communicating with the
> WAP:

The above message already starts to suggest things are not going according to
plan. When we take a look at the following we see even more:

Quote:
> % ifconfig
> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:43:05:E1:F3:B4
> inet addr:192.168.1.12 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:24 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0

From the above we can see that the card hasn't initialised properly, because
it shows that the card is not transmitting any packets at all. This is highly
unusual. Normally the network card will basically send out a "pilot" signal,
and the above seems to suggest that the card has a problem doing the transmit.

Additionally, it doesn't say which IRQ it is using, and I thought that even
PCMCIA cards would still report that sort of information. However, one thing
to note is that in the above dialog information it is going for IRQ 3 for the
network card. This will cause a conflict with the serial port I think from
memory, so you might have to go into your BIOS and disable the serial ports so
that the card will work properly. It could be a matter of the card not being
able to transmit because the serial port has a grip on the interrupt.

Good luck!

See ya

Dean Thompson

by **D Knisel** » Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:54:11

Doesn't the "Destination Host Unreachable" imply that he is just missing a
routing table entry? Since the IP address seems to be configured and
accepted and it shows 24 packets received and none transmitted, I gather
than nothing is even reaching that interface.

Furthermore, the 6 packets send/received/error on interface lo sure looks to
me like his pings tried to go there.

I think we need to see the output of "route -n".

D. Knisely

> Hi Mike,

> > If anyone can help me figure out why I can't get my wireless setup to
work
> > under RedHat 7.1, that would be great. I'm using a D-Link DWL-650
802.11b
> > card and a LinkSys BEFWS14 gateway/WAP. Everything works find under
> > windoze 2000.

> > RedHat 7.1 does almost all the work. After configuring wireless.opts
for
> > my environment, I can insert the card, and the system recognizes it,
loads
> > the wvlan_cs driver, and creates a new network interface (eth1). Here's
> > what's in dmesg when the driver loads:

> [...]

> > wvlan_cs: WaveLAN/IEEE PCMCIA driver v1.0.6

> > wvlan_cs: index 0x01: Vcc 3.3, irq 3, io 0x0100-0x013f
> > wvlan_cs: Registered netdevice eth1
> > wvlan_cs: MAC address on eth1 is 00 43 05 e1 f3 b4
> > wvlan_cs: This is LinkSys/D-Link card, not a Wavelan IEEE card :-(

> > However I have my doubts because of the message, and because of the
output
> > in iwconfig (see below) indicating 802.11 and 2Mbps.
> > Anyway, I've configured eth1 to use a static interface since DHCP times
> > out. I can activate the interface, and output from iwconfig and ifconfig
> > seem to indicate that the interface is active and communicating with the
> > WAP:

> The above message already starts to suggest things are not going according
to
> plan. When we take a look at the following we see even more:

> > % ifconfig
> > eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:43:05:E1:F3:B4
> > inet addr:192.168.1.12 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:24 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0

> From the above we can see that the card hasn't initialised properly,
because
> it shows that the card is not transmitting any packets at all. This is
highly
> unusual. Normally the network card will basically send out a "pilot"
signal,
> and the above seems to suggest that the card has a problem doing the
transmit.

> Additionally, it doesn't say which IRQ it is using, and I thought that
even
> PCMCIA cards would still report that sort of information. However, one
thing
> to note is that in the above dialog information it is going for IRQ 3 for
the
> network card. This will cause a conflict with the serial port I think
from
> memory, so you might have to go into your BIOS and disable the serial
ports so
> that the card will work properly. It could be a matter of the card not
being
> able to transmit because the serial port has a grip on the interrupt.

> Good luck!

> See ya

> Dean Thompson

> --

+____________________________+____________________________________________+

|
> | Bach. Computing (Hons) | ICQ - 45191180
|
> | PhD Student | Office - <Off-Campus>
|
> | School Comp.Sci & Soft.Eng | Phone - +61 3 9903 2787 (Gen. Office)
|
> | MONASH (Caulfield Campus) | Fax - +61 3 9903 1077
|
> | Melbourne, Australia |
|

+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

by **Dean Thompso** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 09:35:59

Hi!,

Quote:> Doesn't the "Destination Host Unreachable" imply that he is just missing a
> routing table entry? Since the IP address seems to be configured and
> accepted and it shows 24 packets received and none transmitted, I gather
> than nothing is even reaching that interface.

Normally, I would say yes this would indiciate that there is a missing route
entry, however the real problem with the setup which was described was the
fact that the ethernet card was/is not transmitting any packets out through
the interface where the gateway would be located.

If the TX packet count is stuck at zero which it is in this case, it would
suggest that the kernel has problems trying to transmit a packet. Most likely
this is because of a I/O or IRQ conflict. The fact that he is also sitting on
IRQ 3 seems to suggest that COM2 might still be active on his box which could
be causing him problems.

If he can get packets being broadcasted out through the card (ie., a packet
count > 0 being transmitted) then the gateway would be the next option. I
think the first step in this picture, is to get the card transmitting.

See ya

Dean Thompson

by **D Knisel** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:01:25

I think the route that might be missing is the entry for the WaveLAN
interface, NOT a missing default GW route. This is because there are 6
strange errors on his other LAN (which I presume is his default GW), and
there are no transmitted frames on the WaveLAN. His example also had 6 lost
ping attempts. Therefore, I am guessing that the 6 pings went out (or tried
to go out!) to the default gateway since there is no route (of any kind) to
the WaveLAN subnet.

I am also guessing that the WaveLAN card is actually working (despite the
IRQ 3 conflict, which could be sharable on a modern PC/BIOS and with a
recent kernel) because 1) no errors, and 2) 24 received frames (would
require a working IRQ!).

I still want to see "route -n".

D. Knisely

Quote:
> Hi!,

> > Doesn't the "Destination Host Unreachable" imply that he is just missing
a
> > routing table entry? Since the IP address seems to be configured and
> > accepted and it shows 24 packets received and none transmitted, I gather
> > than nothing is even reaching that interface.

> Normally, I would say yes this would indiciate that there is a missing
route
> entry, however the real problem with the setup which was described was the
> fact that the ethernet card was/is not transmitting any packets out
through
> the interface where the gateway would be located.

> If the TX packet count is stuck at zero which it is in this case, it would
> suggest that the kernel has problems trying to transmit a packet. Most
likely
> this is because of a I/O or IRQ conflict. The fact that he is also
sitting on
> IRQ 3 seems to suggest that COM2 might still be active on his box which
could
> be causing him problems.

> If he can get packets being broadcasted out through the card (ie., a
packet
> count > 0 being transmitted) then the gateway would be the next option. I
> think the first step in this picture, is to get the card transmitting.

> See ya

> Dean Thompson

> --

+____________________________+____________________________________________+

|
> | Bach. Computing (Hons) | ICQ - 45191180
|
> | PhD Student | Office - <Off-Campus>
|
> | School Comp.Sci & Soft.Eng | Phone - +61 3 9903 2787 (Gen. Office)
|
> | MONASH (Caulfield Campus) | Fax - +61 3 9903 1077
|
> | Melbourne, Australia |
|

+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

by **Mike** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 16:53:19

Hi guys,

I really appreciate all your suggestions. I am totally clueless, but I
sense that this is close to working, so I hope you can help me some more ...

Responding to your help, I first tried disabling the serial device via my
BIOS. The results were the same. I did notice that after a while there
were some transmitted packets shown in the ifconfig output, so maybe this is
indeed part of the problem. However all other results were the same and I
still couldn't ping my router/access point.

So then I grabbed the route -n output:

Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo

I didn't know what I was looking for here, so I connected directly to the
router via eth0, my ethernet card (this has always worked fine). Now,
route -n gave me this:

Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0

I assume the extra route is of significance. I also assume we're getting
into RTFM territory here, but this newbie would REALLY appreciate it if you
could help me kick in to the finish and tell me what I need to do to set up
the routing properly.

Thanks a million,
Mike

> I think the route that might be missing is the entry for the WaveLAN
> interface, NOT a missing default GW route. This is because there are 6
> strange errors on his other LAN (which I presume is his default GW), and
> there are no transmitted frames on the WaveLAN. His example also had 6
lost
> ping attempts. Therefore, I am guessing that the 6 pings went out (or
tried
> to go out!) to the default gateway since there is no route (of any kind)
to
> the WaveLAN subnet.

> I am also guessing that the WaveLAN card is actually working (despite the
> IRQ 3 conflict, which could be sharable on a modern PC/BIOS and with a
> recent kernel) because 1) no errors, and 2) 24 received frames (would
> require a working IRQ!).

> I still want to see "route -n".

> D. Knisely

> > Hi!,

> > > Doesn't the "Destination Host Unreachable" imply that he is just
missing
> a
> > > routing table entry? Since the IP address seems to be configured and
> > > accepted and it shows 24 packets received and none transmitted, I
gather
> > > than nothing is even reaching that interface.

> > Normally, I would say yes this would indiciate that there is a missing
> route
> > entry, however the real problem with the setup which was described was
the
> > fact that the ethernet card was/is not transmitting any packets out
> through
> > the interface where the gateway would be located.

> > If the TX packet count is stuck at zero which it is in this case, it
would
> > suggest that the kernel has problems trying to transmit a packet. Most
> likely
> > this is because of a I/O or IRQ conflict. The fact that he is also
> sitting on
> > IRQ 3 seems to suggest that COM2 might still be active on his box which
> could
> > be causing him problems.

> > If he can get packets being broadcasted out through the card (ie., a
> packet
> > count > 0 being transmitted) then the gateway would be the next option.
I
> > think the first step in this picture, is to get the card transmitting.

> > See ya

> > Dean Thompson

> > --

+____________________________+____________________________________________+

Quote:> > | Dean Thompson | E-mail -

Quote:> |
> > | Bach. Computing (Hons) | ICQ - 45191180
> |
> > | PhD Student | Office - <Off-Campus>
> |
> > | School Comp.Sci & Soft.Eng | Phone - +61 3 9903 2787 (Gen. Office)
> |
> > | MONASH (Caulfield Campus) | Fax - +61 3 9903 1077
> |
> > | Melbourne, Australia |
> |

+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

- Show quoted text -

by **Dean Thompso** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:41:16

Hi!,

Quote:> I think the route that might be missing is the entry for the WaveLAN
> interface, NOT a missing default GW route. This is because there are 6
> strange errors on his other LAN (which I presume is his default GW), and
> there are no transmitted frames on the WaveLAN. His example also had 6
> lost ping attempts. Therefore, I am guessing that the 6 pings went out (or
> tried to go out!) to the default gateway since there is no route (of any
> kind) to the WaveLAN subnet.

It is strange however, on most systems that I have seen, a route for the
interface is normally calculated automatically and inserted automatically.
Still, it would be good to see the "route -n" command as you suggest along
with a little bit of extra information so that we can see what is really going
on.

See ya

Dean Thompson

by **Dean Thompso** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:54:27

Hi!,

Quote:> So then I grabbed the route -n output:

> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
> 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo

Here is a problem, there is no default gateway setup, so there is no way to
get any information off your network. Based on your default gateway being the
following for your other interface:

Quote:> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0

You need to enter in the following line for the eth1 configuration:

route add default gw 192.168.1.1 dev eth1

I would also be interested to see whether or not you are actually able to ping
the machine 192.168.1.1. Hopefully, this will get rid of your network
unreachable message.

See ya

Dean Thompson

by **D Knisel** » Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:28:03

Except that he still would have been able to ping 192.168.1.1... I don't
think the default route will fix it entirely.

D. Knisely

Quote:
> Hi!,

> > So then I grabbed the route -n output:

> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
> > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
> > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo

> Here is a problem, there is no default gateway setup, so there is no way
to
> get any information off your network. Based on your default gateway being
the
> following for your other interface:

> > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
> > 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0

> You need to enter in the following line for the eth1 configuration:

> route add default gw 192.168.1.1 dev eth1

> I would also be interested to see whether or not you are actually able to
ping
> the machine 192.168.1.1. Hopefully, this will get rid of your network
> unreachable message.

> See ya

> Dean Thompson

> --

+____________________________+____________________________________________+

|
> | Bach. Computing (Hons) | ICQ - 45191180
|
> | PhD Student | Office - <Off-Campus>
|
> | School Comp.Sci & Soft.Eng | Phone - +61 3 9903 2787 (Gen. Office)
|
> | MONASH (Caulfield Campus) | Fax - +61 3 9903 1077
|
> | Melbourne, Australia |
|

+----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

by **Mike** » Sun, 10 Jun 2001 04:05:42

Hi again,
Thanks again for your help. I hope you don't mind and aren't spending too
much time on me. :) But you guys are the only knowledgable people that are
nice enough to try and help me!!!

First let me try to explain my configuration more clearly. My gateway is a
LinkSys box (combination gateway/switch/WAP). That is 192.168.1.1 ... it's
connected to my DSL modem. It acts as a DHCP server and does NAT for
wireless clients and for up to 4 cabled connections.
Windows 2000 machines are using the same wireless pcmcia card (D-Link
DWL-650) to connect just fine.

Additionally, my linux box works fine when I move to the room where the
switch is and connect directly to it with an ethernet cable using eth0
(ethernet NIC). I didn't do any configuration to my linux box, except for
modifying /etc/pcmcia/wireless.opts to set up my wireless options (mode &
essid). Everything else is out of the box RH7.1 which besides this works
great with my hardware including the NIC. It also recognizes the wireless
card when inserted, loads wvlan_cs, and creates eth1 for it.

I do have the same subnet assigned to both interfaces. I assume that is
correct, since in each case I'm trying to use the same gateway. I do not
have them active at the same time. eth0 does not activate on boot and is
inactive when I'm trying to use the wireless card. When I do use eth0, I
remove the wireless card and activate eth0 manually with 'ifup eth0'. It
configures itself fine with DHCP. I currently have eth1 assigned to a static
IP since obviously I can't configure it with DHCP yet. I can't even ping my
gateway, 192.168.1.1 ...

Incidentally I tried using /etc/pcmcia/config.opts to 'exclude irq 3' and
that didn't change anything.
I also tried using 'route add' to add my gateway as the default gateway but
that didn't help. I still can't even ping my gateway. I don't really
understand all the routing (particularly the netmask) but I gather that this
route:

Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1

should in theory allow me to reach any host on the 192.168.1.X LAN segment?
(which ovbiously includes the gateway.) Also I notice in the output below
that the ifconfig output indicates that eth1 is both sending and recieving
packets which I suppose is a good sign. But I just can't ping the gateway!

So, I'm still stuck. I've attached all the output you wanted to see. Please
let me know if this illuminates anything, or if there's more info I can give
you. Thanks! I really appreciate your efforts, and I really hope we can get
this thing going.

Thanks,
Mike

Output follows:
Script started on Fri Jun 8 10:41:59 2001

Module Size Used by
sr_mod 15264 0 (autoclean)
maestro3 25328 0 (autoclean)
ac97_codec 8800 0 (autoclean) [maestro3]
soundcore 4464 2 (autoclean) [maestro3]
r128 156944 1
agpgart 23392 3
autofs 11264 1 (autoclean)
appletalk 19664 0 (autoclean)
ipx 15520 0 (autoclean)
wvlan_cs 23616 1
ds 7280 2 [wvlan_cs]
yenta_socket 11440 2
pcmcia_core 43072 0 [wvlan_cs ds yenta_socket]
3c59x 25344 0 (autoclean) (unused)
ipchains 38976 0 (unused)
ide-scsi 8352 0
scsi_mod 95104 2 [sr_mod ide-scsi]
ide-cd 26848 0
cdrom 27232 0 [sr_mod ide-cd]
nls_iso8859-1 2880 1 (autoclean)
nls_cp437 4384 1 (autoclean)
vfat 9392 1 (autoclean)
fat 32672 0 (autoclean) [vfat]
usb-uhci 20720 0 (unused)
usbcore 49664 1 [usb-uhci]

:input ACCEPT
:forward ACCEPT
:output ACCEPT
Saving `input'.
-A input -s 207.69.188.185/255.255.255.255 53:53 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -p 17 -j
ACCEPT
-A input -s 207.69.188.186/255.255.255.255 53:53 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -p 17 -j
ACCEPT
-A input -s 207.69.188.185/255.255.255.255 53:53 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -p 17 -j
ACCEPT
-A input -s 207.69.188.186/255.255.255.255 53:53 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -p 17 -j
ACCEPT
-A input -s 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 80:80 -p 6 -j ACCEPT -y
-A input -s 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 67:68 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 67:68 -i eth0 -p 17 -j
ACCEPT
-A input -s 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 67:68 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 67:68 -i eth1 -p 17 -j
ACCEPT
-A input -s 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -i lo -j ACCEPT
-A input -s 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -p 6 -j REJECT -y
-A input -s 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -p 17 -j REJECT

PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) from 192.168.1.12 : 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
7 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, +6 errors, 100% packet loss

eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:04:76:3F:F5:CC
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
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:40:05:DF:15:D9
inet addr:192.168.1.12 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:41 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:15 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:18 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:18 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0

Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo

PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) from 192.168.1.12 : 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.12: Destination Host Unreachable
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss

eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:04:76:3F:F5:CC
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
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:40:05:DF:15:D9
inet addr:192.168.1.12 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:49 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:21 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:23 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:23 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0

Jun 8 10:38:09 localhost gnome-name-server[1106]: starting
Jun 8 10:38:09 localhost gnome-name-server[1106]: name server starting
Jun 8 10:38:09 localhost gnome-name-server[1111]: starting
Jun 8 10:38:09 localhost gnome-name-server[1111]: name server was running on
display, exiting
Jun 8 10:38:10 localhost kernel: Attached scsi CD-ROM sr0 at scsi0, channel
0, id 0, lun 0
Jun 8 10:38:10 localhost kernel: sr0: scsi3-mmc drive: 24x/24x writer cd/rw
xa/form2 cdda tray
Jun 8 10:38:10 localhost kernel: Uniform CD-ROM driver Revision: 3.12
Jun 8 10:38:23 localhost su(pam_unix)[1147]: session opened for user root by
ensembl(uid=501)
Jun 8 10:38:42 localhost modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module irlan0
Jun 8 10:38:59 localhost modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module 0a

Jun 8 10:37:38 localhost cardmgr[573]: executing: 'modprobe wvlan_cs'
Jun 8 10:37:40 localhost kernel: wvlan_cs: WaveLAN/IEEE PCMCIA driver v1.0.6
Jun 8 10:37:40 localhost kernel: wvlan_cs: (c) Andreas Neuhaus

Jun 8 10:37:40 localhost kernel: wvlan_cs: index 0x01: Vcc 3.3, irq 3, io
0x0100-0x013f
Jun 8 10:37:40 localhost kernel: wvlan_cs: Registered netdevice eth1
Jun 8 10:37:40 localhost kernel: wvlan_cs: MAC address on eth1 is 00 40 05
df 15 d9
Jun 8 10:37:40 localhost kernel: wvlan_cs: This is LinkSys/D-Link card, not
a Wavelan IEEE card :-(

Script done on Fri Jun 8 10:45:11 2001

by **Ralf Bart** » Thu, 14 Jun 2001 00:38:03

Quote:
> However, I cannot even ping my gateway!

Hi!

I've also had the same problem with an ELSA AirLancer-MC11.
Everything went fine, but it simply won't ping oder connect to anything.

Here's the solution:

Edit the file /etc/sysconfig/pcmcia

You will find a line that contains 'PCIC_OPTS'

After the '=' add the following: irq_mode=0

Save and Exit the file, restart pcmcia oder just reboot, and your
wireless lan will work fine...

Greets, Ralf

by **Bas Vermeul** » Thu, 14 Jun 2001 17:28:16

Did you try the orinoco_cs driver? I've got a DWL-650 running with it,
as long as I only use a 'default' essid. (In infrastructure mode)
You may have more success with that driver (2.4.5 has it I believe).

by **D Knisel** » Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:44:08

The orinoco_cs driver works well, but for some reason, Redhat (7.1) doesn't
build/install that driver in the default installation configuration (they
use wavlan_cs instead). You have to add the correct wireless options and
build your own kernel and modules. Then you have to add the correct entries
in /etc/pcmcia/config.

With the orinoco_cs driver, you can set all of the new options for 802.11b
(encryption, etc.) in /etc/pcmcia/wireless.opts.

D. Knisely

Quote:> Did you try the orinoco_cs driver? I've got a DWL-650 running with it,
> as long as I only use a 'default' essid. (In infrastructure mode)
> You may have more success with that driver (2.4.5 has it I believe).

Very Computer

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)

RedHat 7.1 Network trouble (wireless: D-Link DWL-650, LinkSys BEFWS14)