On Tuesday 01 March 2005 12:35, you wrote: > On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said: > > > They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right. > > > Same network. They both end up with gateway=192.168.0.1, > > > netmask=255.255.255.0. But ofcourse they do not have the same IP > > > addresses. > > > > I don't suppose your network people would be willing to change it thusly: > > > > wired ports: gateway 192.168.0.1, netmask 255.255.255.128.0 > > wireless: gateway 192.168.128.1, netmask 255.255.255.128.0 > > > > Or move the wireless up to 192.168.1.1 if they think that would confuse > > things too much. > > > > There's a limit to how far we should bend over backwards to support > > stupid networking decisions. 192.168 *is* a /16, might as well use it. ;) > > > > If they won't, you're pretty much stuck with binding applications to one > > interface or another. > > If the goal is to primarily use wired link and seamlessly swith to wireless > then look into bonding driver in failover mode with wired interface as > primary. This way you have only one address and userspace does not notice > anything.
Damn Having to configure the interfaces using bonding was not really the answer I was expecting. I did not think linux would be that rigid. I figured if poodoze is able to do it (seamlessly mind you), surely linux (with some tinkering) would be able to do it also. The goal was to have the networking on the laptop work as perfectly as crapdoze does. Perhaps I should and this topic to my list of software issues that no-one else cares about. "man that list is getting big". maybe one day I'll develop the balls to get deep into the code. -- Jarne Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Siliconriver.com.au - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
