[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Dear Simon, > > It seems as though 192.168.1.107 is for the Ethernet, and > > 192.168.1.99 is for the wireless interface. The 192.168.1.71 > > (Ethernet) address is listed with a prefix length of 32 instead of > > the usual 24; maybe this is the difference? As for the wireless > > interface, I can only see one IP address so maybe there were only > > three in total. > > If you have one host with two interfaces, both UP, on (different?) > 192.168.1.0/24 networks this has to be a recipe for trouble. Not quite, it's one host with two interfaces, on the same 192.168.1.0/24 network, one interface with an extra address on a 192.168.1.0/32 network which doesn't seem to exist anywhere else. And that extra address has itself listed as its broadcast address. > I think we've reached the point of "stop doing that", or supply a > network diagram and explanation for why you think this should work at > all. In all seriousness, stop doing what? As far as I'm aware, it should be possible to have two interfaces to a host (at least on the same 192.168.1.0/24 network, which they are). The existence of that extra address stumps me though. I've attached a quickly drawn diagram of the entire network in this house; there are, very occasionally, additional Wi-Fi devices connected but these don't seem to be related to the issue. All the Powerline <-> Ethernet adapters are of the same model. As always, thank you for your help; best wishes, Sebastian -- - Freenode: 'seabass' - Matrix: '@seabass:chat.weho.st'
Attachment:
network.png
Description: PNG image
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG https://mailman.dcglug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq
