wireless, Broadcom & jaunty

[Derek Broughton]

Joep L. Blom wrote:

> Derek Broughton wrote:

>> I would _suspect_ it's not network configuration - I don't like that "No
>> such device" message, but there are a few things that could be network
>> related.
>> 
>> First, I suggested deleting the udev rule, and you said it had no effect,
>> but it _can't_ have no effect.  If you don't have any udev rule
>> mentioning
>> eth0, it wouldn't say "udev: renamed network interface wlan0 to eth0". 
>> So
>> I'd recommend removing that rule, and restarting udev.  If it still shows
>> as eth0, reboot.
> Interesting suggestion.
> I  renamed the rule 70-persistent-net.rules to ~.old and restarted udev
> (sudo service udev restart). It didn't make a new rule but ifconfig gave
> me: eth0:avahi Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0c:76:71:bd:44
> inet addr:169.354.6.148 Bcast 169.254.255.255 Mask: 255.255.0.0
> UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> 
> Apparently because the ~-net.rules doesn't exist it gives some standard
> apparently hard-coded IP address to the card, which than can be reached
> (pinged).

No, this is the avahi-daemon (zeroconfig).  IF you don't get a dhcp address 
before dhclient times out, avahi kicks in and gives you a private IP that 
makes it possible for other systems on your LAN to see you.

>> Second, what happens when you do "sudo dhclient eth0" (or "wlan0" if you
>> get
>> the device back to wlan0)?  wicd isn't even managing that much.
> sudo dhclient is trying to an address by sending out DHCPDISCOVER
> packets on port 67 with varying time-intervals and the last line is:
> No DHCPOFFERS received. (which is correct)

Well, no it isn't.  I mean, I'm sure it didn't get any, but it means your 
router is either not listening, or your NIC is not talking, or both of those 
are happening but your NIC isn't _hearing_ a response.  None of those are 
good.
>> 
>> Third, do you have a good reason for using wicd?  I have no problem
>> recommending wicd for people who can't use NetworkManager, for whatever
>> reason, but frankly I don't believe it's any better than NM, it just has
>> its own set of problems.
> Yes, I have a very good reason for wicd as NM simply didn't work
> reliably (at least in Hardy)

I would consider that not a good reason :-)  But in any case, it doesn't 
appear relevant.  I was concerned that wicd didn't seem to be initiating 
dhclient, but if dhclient doesn't work from the command line anyway, the 
problem doesn't seem to be with wicd.

> and now am accustomed to wicd (which I
> think is now the preferred network manager in Ubuntu) 

It's not, and afaict not likely to become so.

> and I haven't
> tried NM again. It was a suggestion of Noop who gives very sound and
> well documented advices.

As I said, I have no problem recommending it in the cases where NM isn't 
working, but the ubuntu development work goes into NM, so that's the 
baseline to test.  I'd still like to see what happens with Network manager, 
but I really don't think that's the problem.

I'm still concerned about the device showing up on eth0.  What's in your 
/etc/network/interfaces?

-- 
derek