On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 12:23 -0700, Kam Leo wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005 12:09 PM, Mark Nixon <manixdk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 14:36 -0300, Pedro Macedo wrote: > > > Em Seg, 2005-04-04 às 19:23 +0200, Mark Nixon escreveu: > > > > Darn, it's hard to formulate an appropriate subject sometimes. > > > > > > > > I have a little peer-to-peer network. I have an ADSL modem and a switch, > > > > to which I have 4 computers connected, > > > > > > > > As far as I have been able to suss out, my ADSL modem or my switch is > > > > assigning the 10.0.* addresses. <big snip> > > > > But all my machines can access the Internet, even if my Linux machine is > > turned off. They just can't print. Which is OK. > > > > But I've solved the problem, I think. > > > > I ran "iptables stop" > > > > then ran "iptables -A INPUT -p -ALL -i eth0 -s 10.0.0.0/5" > > > > then ran "service iptables start" > > > > This seems to have worked, as I now can see my SAMBA share directories > > from my wife's (10.0.0.2) machine. > > > > I don't think I need 10.0.0.0/24, as my switch can only take 4 machines, > > but maybe I'm wrong? > > > > > -- > > > Pedro Macedo > > > > > It's not the number of machines that are attached to your switch that > matters. It's the range of IP addresses. You would need to use fixed > IP addresses for all your machines or have your DHCP server restricted > to the range of addresses that it can assign. > Ahh. I've just talked to my son, and he mentioned something about my ADSL router also being a DHC source, which means (I think) that every time I change my LAN config just a little, I'll get assigned a new "10.0.*" number, so what you and Pedro write is starting to make sense. If a take a machine off and add a machine, change an ethernet card, or whatever, my router could assign a 10.0.0.* number that would keep increasing, right? As far as I can see, with the 3-4 machines I have on my little LAN, it's not worth assigning fixed addresses? Thanks to all for their help so far. Mark
