From: adam@address.invalid   
      
   Moe Trin wrote:   
   > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in   
   article   
   > , Adam wrote:   
      
   > I'd still have both _available_ if needed,   
      
   I'm not removing the wired configurations from the distros on eris   
   (except Fedora and CentOS where the wireless was so easy to set up that   
   I never bothered with the wired), so it should be simple to switch back   
   if I have a reason to.   
      
   >>> On a Debian derived system, see that "interface(5)" man page.   
   >   
   >> But that's a question for a Debian group, not here. :-)   
   >   
   > But I don't see you posting there.   
      
   How many distro-specific groups do you follow??? :-)  Getting   
   /etc/network/interfaces correct on Debian (and derivatives) isn't high   
   enough priority, and if/when I do look into it I'll do a web search first.   
      
   > And you're the one who is trying all those "other" distributions   
      
   I don't have formal criteria, but online support counts considerably.   
      
   > (and O/S - got FreeBSD running yet?).   
      
   It /was/ working, but temporarily adding the external HD confused it so   
   now it stops at the "mountroot" prompt.  I expect that to go away once I   
   move the external HD back to stolid (or wherever).  BTW my current   
   definition of "working" for FreeBSD means I could log in and get to a   
   command prompt and run a simple command or two.   
      
   >>>> [Fedora] does have an interface called "p32p1"   
   >   
   >> Here's its first line from ifconfig in two different sessions:   
   >   
   >> pan0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 7a:ee:3e:0e:3d:06   
   >> pan0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr f2:c3:c4:2c:91:63   
   >   
   > Both are non-existent MACs - noise?   
      
   Do all valid MACs begin with 00?  I gather the first three bytes are the   
   manufacturer (seldom the brand name on the equipment!), and the last   
   three bytes are supposed to be different for every device from that   
   manufacturer (or at least different for every device on the same network.)   
      
   > What is in the boot messages relating to Bluetooth?   
      
   Mostly devices and socket layers initialized, and   
   /etc/bluetooth/whatever not being found.  Next time I boot up Fedora I   
   should disable Bluetooth entirely.   
      
   >> 00:21:58.308752 IP 192.168.1.24.5353 > 224.0.0.251.5353:   
   >   
   > That's "avahi" and this is demonstrating one of the major security   
   > holes from those klownes.  That's not a local address, and Avahi has   
   > no business asking for it. The application you need to disable is   
   > "avahi-daemon".   
      
   Okay, I'm setting it to "disabled" or equivalent when I boot each   
   distro.  I gather that, given the fairly static nature of my little LAN,   
   I wouldn't have much use for it even if it was implemented decently.   
   However, over 100 Mageia packages depend on 'avahi' so I can't remove it   
   there.   
      
   > the problem you have is that the wired and wireless networks   
   > are independent and only know what's going on on the "other" one   
   > because the router is acting as a transparent bridge.   "Independent"   
   > networks are normally just that - there on different address ranges   
   > with designated routers connecting them.   
      
   So even though they use the same router and have the same WAN IP and are   
   all 192.168.1.0/26, the same box's wired and wireless are independent   
   networks?   
      
   >> It has four LAN ports (one switchable between LAN and WAN)   
      
   What would the WAN port be used for, anyway?  Is it effectively just the   
   output of the modem part of the DSL modem/router?  Could I plug another   
   router into that for a separate, totally independent LAN with a   
   different range of LAN IPs?   
      
   >> but I assume its wireless connection could be connected to several   
   >> computers.   
   >   
   > The number of ports is unimportant - there's nothing to prevent you   
   > from cascading a few 64 port switches - two levels would give you   
   > about 4000 hosts, three levels would be around a quarter million.   
   > The difference is the number of different networks.   
      
   But if all those came from a single router's LAN ports (including   
   wireless), then wouldn't that be a single network?   
      
   Update: "stolid" (or replacement?) will be getting here tomorrow   
   (Tuesday Oct 2).  I'll try to get it back to the state it was in before.   
      
   Adam   
   --   
   Registered Linux User #536473   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)