Re: connecting to two networks simultaneously on buster
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:00:52 -0500
- From: David Wright <deblis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: connecting to two networks simultaneously on buster
I don't think I understand any part of your answer as it has too many
promouns (this and thats) and not enough nouns (specifics).
On Fri 24 Aug 2018 at 13:50:50 (+0200), Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-08-22 19:09:24 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 22 Aug 2018 at 10:29:01 (+1000), Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > > Static configuration is by necessity (basically) custom setup - i.e.
> > > requires manual intervention.
> > >
> > > Automatic means the above /e/n/i lines would look like this instead:
> > >
> > > # the USB network for my Gemini
> > > auto enp0s29u1u1
> > > iface enp0s29u1u1 inet dhcp
> > >
> > >
> > > But of course for network-manager, it would by default use dhcp, and
> > > you would not manually configure for DHCP in your /e/n/i file.
> > >
> > > Always remember you can do an in-foreground one shot DHCP like so:
> > >
> > > sudo dhclient -d enp0s29u1u1
> > >
> > > which has the benefit that you can easily kill it as desired with a
> > > CTRL-c, AND you can monitor its output immediately, AND you will see
> > > immediately if you got the device/ interface name wrong. What's not
> > > to like?
> > I'm not sure I understand using DHCP to get the ipaddr for the
> > network running through the USB connection. Could you explain?
> That's the usual way to do it,
Where is the DHCP server running that hands out the dynamic address?
If it's the wireless router, what does that know about a direct link
between the workstation and the laptop that doesn't pass through it?
> because you don't necessarily know
> what IP address you should get, and it can entirely be dynamic.
Where does "should" come into this? The example used the address
10.15.19.80 at one end (we aren't told the other end). This has
no relationship to the wireless network that both devices are
connected to (reported as 192[.168].xxx).
> Moreover, one often wants to do this to use the phone's modem,
> and this will also set up a default route automatically (but this
> is not what you want, AFAIK).
So "this" process, whatever it is, doesn't do the correct thing. and
yet we were asked "What's not to like?". Nevertheless, I'd like to
know what "this" process is as it should be the answer to my
knuckle-rapping problem which is very similar to the OP's:
. two computers connected to a wireless router with IPv4,
. a direct link between the two computers (CAT5 cable in my case),
. the direct link must (de)configure itself when the cable is (dis)connected,
. the direct link must never get set up as the default route,
. that's Never, even if the computers are booted while the CAT5 cable
is attached but the router's wireless signal is temporarily absent.
I do this very simply, just by using IPv6 over the cable:
but what's being discussed in this thread should be able to do
what was demanded by the anti-IPv6linklocals. I posted my logs
of my failure, but the problem with their method wasn't diagnosed.