Nifty Fedora Mitch wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 09:56:16PM -0700, Paul Newell wrote:
Fedora:
Before I switched to F9, all my FC5 machines were happily chatting with
each other through a Linksys WRT54GL but none of them could see the net.
I upgraded one of them to F9 and it sees the net and can ssh to the
others. But the other two machines can no longer ssh into it F9 system.
I tried to play with things to fix it, but the best I could do was kill
the network connection so that the F9 system can't see the other machine
or the net. In other words, I screwed up. Since I can't figure out how
to get the network back alive by restoring prior conditions, I am
resigned to yet another re-install (the price of learning is lots of
starting over...)
That being said, I was hoping to get a bit of advice.
I suspect a change in Zeroconf since things appear mixed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroconf
If you have some hosts with 169.254.0.0/16 (link-local) addresses and
some with private/ public network numbers you have a mix of link local
and private nets we know what the issue is.
"The technique for IPv4 is called IPv4 Link-Local address assignment
(IPV4LL) in RFC 3927. However, Microsoft refers to this as Automatic
Private IP Addressing (APIPA) or Internet Protocol Automatic Configuration
(IPAC)."
The Linksys is the same model I use and I have had no need to make changes
You might have to reboot it once in a blue moon. I do keep IP addresses
below xxx.yyy.zzz.100 for fixed services and let it assign DHCP from 100 up...
There are four interesting network blocks for us common folk:
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
169.254.0.0/16 - 169.254.255.255 (link-local 169.254.0.0/16 prefix)
Link local sounds like "machines were happily chatting with each other
through a Linksys WRT54GL but none of them could see the net" to me.
--
Later mitch
Mitch:
I read through the zeroconf wiki link and, as noted in reply to Arthur,
confirmed that link-local seems to be on the F9 system. I also noted
that I saw no such info on the FC5 systems and I don't know whether
Avahi was part of that release.
I am not certain if I am reading the information you provided me
correctly, but it seems that since I am trying to keep all Linux boxes
on static adressses (192.168.2.{10,11,12}) and not have the LAN
controlled by DHCP, I would think I wouldn't be wanting link-local ...
but I might be completely misunderstanding this. If I could get name
resolution to work on ssh from Linux box to Linux box even if the
addresses are DHCP, then maybe link-local is something I should be
embracing. But since I am really clueless on all this network stuff, I
am feeling like I have to do static addresses that hostnames are tied to.
I tried to read some of the RFC links and they are way over my head.
I am receptive to trying things different than my FC5 setup, just need
enough info so I feel that I wearing a blindfold while I do it.
Thanks,
Paul
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
