Wireless and LAN
in [Linux Networking]
|
From: unruh on 12 Jul 2010 12:41 On 2010-07-13, sl(a)exabyte <ecp_gen(a)my-rialto.com> wrote: > I have 2 desktop computers on my desktop connected to a desktop switch. > > One of the computers has a wireless device connected via a USB port. This > wireless > device is used to connect to a Cisco wireless Access Point, via which > intenet traffic passes. > > If I disable the LAN on the computer with wireless device, I can access > internet. > > I am wondering how to configure the PC so that wireless LAN and LAN can work > together. Since you do not tell us what you want, it is an impossible question to answer. Both cannot be "used" to access the web at the same time. But one can be used to access specific places on the the web while the other is used to access in general. Look at "routing". > > Thanks. > >
From: sl on 13 Jul 2010 13:59 >>> >> I apologise because the PCs are running XP; I don't read the windows >> networking group. > > Then what does it have to do with Linux ? Why don't you ask in a general > TCP/IP group ? Generally I avoid subscribing to many newsgroup; and I think this case applies to both windows and Linux. My apology. >> On LAN fixed IP: 192.168.43.x >> >> On wireless LAN: DHCP 192.168.2.x >> Broadband modem connected to router, LAN IP: 192.168.1.1 > > If a default route is defined on the LAN interface, delete it. I was thinking about this question last night on bed. I figured that when a network request is issued, the computer does not know which network to send the request. In my case, I supposed the computer direct the request to the desktop switch. So I thought, why don't I remove the default gateway entry for LAN. There is entry there because the gateway was reached via the desktop switch in previous network; ..ie have a gateway entry on wireless LAN, but leave the gateway entry for LAN empty. I did that this morning, and the PC now accesses internet via wireless device, and the LAN is working normally. Thanks.
From: Keith Keller on 12 Jul 2010 23:14 On 2010-07-13, sl(a)exabyte <ecp_gen(a)my-rialto.com> wrote: > >>>> >>> I apologise because the PCs are running XP; I don't read the windows >>> networking group. >> >> Then what does it have to do with Linux ? Why don't you ask in a general >> TCP/IP group ? > > Generally I avoid subscribing to many newsgroup; and I think this case > applies to both > windows and Linux. My apology. Unless your Cisco WAP is running linux, it does not. Please be courteous next time and be sure your post is on-topic. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: sl on 13 Jul 2010 10:03
>>>> I apologise because the PCs are running XP; I don't read the windows >>>> networking group. >>> >>> Then what does it have to do with Linux ? Why don't you ask in a general >>> TCP/IP group ? >> >> Generally I avoid subscribing to many newsgroup; and I think this case >> applies to both >> windows and Linux. My apology. > > Unless your Cisco WAP is running linux, it does not. Please be > courteous next time and be sure your post is on-topic. > > --keith > I think I understand the open-source people are strenuously defending this tuft against "windows" encrouchment; I for one, don't like to see windows domineering. I am just curious, if my problem is in the the realm of Linux, isn't the method of leaving the entry of default gateway empty the same with Linux ? |