No IP assignment at TMobile hotspots

I'm kinda stuck on this one, and could use a pointer as to what to do next. Using a laptop running SuSE 9.1Pro with a Cisco Aironet 350 card, I've been able to use my home WLAN (WEP encrypted) and a friend's (unencrypted), in both cases taking IP addresses from the respective DHCP servers, with no problems. But at a Kniko's or Borders, while iwconfig and iwlist show me as being associated to the "tmobile" AP, I never get an IP address. Attempts to ping or traceroute result in "destination network unreachable." I've used the tmobile APs at these same locations many times before, using XP, with nary a problem. This is a pretty serious problem for me, since I live by this laptop, on the road anywhere from 8-10 months/year. If I can't connect to broadband on the road (which is increasingly wireless rather than wired, these days), I'm stuck. So far, I've tried rebooting on location with the card slotted, and 'rcnetwork restart.' I've tried 'ifconfig down' and 'up' on the card, as well. So far, nothing works. I've run out of tricks to try, and Google comes up empty. Anybody have a suggestion?

Reply to
David McMillan
Loading thread data ...

This appears to be a configuration problem with the DCHP client.

What does your route table look like?

The interface appears to be working fine, as iwconfig shows it associated with the AP. But doesn't seem to be a route to the hosts you are trying to access, and it may not have DNS either.

I'm not familiar with SuSe, but if you post the output from

/sbin/route -n

and

/bin/cat /etc/resolv.conf

it will show what you have. (Throw in the output from iwconfig too, so the route table will make sense.)

I'm not sure where the status messages from dhcpcd would be on a SuSe box, but right after you connect to the AP it might be interesting to look in /var/log and do a tail on a few of the more likely logs to see what is there. /var/log/messages and /var/log/syslog are good bets. Post what you find.

Reply to
Floyd L. Davidson

If you simply _must_ do that, then for heaven's sake, kindly set Followup-To to point to _one_ group only. Sheesh.

(Followups have been set.)

Reply to
Rick Moen

What you are suggesting is nonsense.

Setting followups to only one group when the whole point is to attract discussion from multiple groups is counter productive. Note that the post was on topic in the three groups posted to.

However, when the expected response isn't worth reading, yes it does have advantages... Hence I have set Followup-To for this post as appropriate for your response, which nobody needs to bother reading.

Reply to
Floyd L. Davidson

What _you_ are suggesting is cheeky, arrogant, and antisocial. If Usenet denizens had wanted all the groups to be joined at the hip, they'd have stuck to just alt.babble.floyd and not bothered to newgroup anything else.

But thank you for clarifying your standards of netiquette.

(Followups have been set, again.)

Reply to
Rick Moen

look up "usenet etiquette" +"cross posting" on google...

Reply to
bryan

and i think you'll find that cross posting to a few related newsgroups is acceptable. if you read a cross posted post in one group, it will be marked as read and won't appear in the other newsgroups if you subscribe to them... that's if you have a proper newsreader.

cross posting to a lot of unrelated newsgroups is definitely frowned upon.

Reply to
bryan

He set you up with the followups though. You didn't override them, and ended up posting this to only the one newsgroup he specified, which he doesn't read... :-)

Another frowned on practice is avoiding cross-posting by multi-posting (same text posted to more than one newsgroup separately), *and* so is setting a Followups-To header to sidetrack responses away from some or all of the readers in a thread.

(I've restore one extra newsgroup, just for Rick's benefit.)

Reply to
Floyd L. Davidson

Lacking a logical argument, you resort to gratuitous insults.

But that *is* exactly why crossposting was added to Usenet in the second generation of software (it wasn't there to start with).

Do a little research Rick, *learn* something about it before you mouth off.

You've missed the fact that my original post was *precisely* appropriate per netiquette as described by eveyone who understands Usenet.

Again, you've set Followups to the newsgroup *least* appropriate for the original post. Like the rest of you post, that's not smart at all.

Reply to
Floyd L. Davidson

The merits should be evident to reasonable observers.

To join all groups at the hip, _and keep them that way_? I really don't think so.

It's (rarely) reasonable to cross-post to two groups; once in a blue moon to three, but then you set the one best fit for followups.

My interest was limited to the net-abuse matter; I disregarded your technical question. I can't recall seeing you around the SUSE or networking group, so I assumed you emerged from the wireless one, and had frankly hoped you'd crawl back there.

But, assuming you do have some technical concern, I'm sure it would be welcome with a specified follow-up group appropriate to it. Had you done so, you would not now be wasting everyone's time with dumbass attempts to attack the critic.

Reply to
Rick Moen

Amazing! You actually have the gall to quote where I carefully _disclosed_ setting followups (which I have, of course, done again), and then in the very next breath accuse me of "setting up" this other gentlman: That inconsistency for polemics' sake apparently doesn't bother you any more than the net-abuse. Oh well.

Reply to
Rick Moen

I usually use alt.dev.null for people like Rick. YMMV. :)

-- Jafo

Reply to
Jafo

So somebody reads it and replies to a different group, thereby removing his response from the eyes of subsequent readers in the other groups who may have even better ideas or who may see an error in the response. The problem with you netcop wannabes is that you fail to think an issue through, and instead try to force everybody into a Procrustean bed with your hard and fast one-size-fits-all rules.

Now that you've wasted time playing control freak, do you have anything to say about the subject, which in case you've forgotten is "No IP assignment at TMobile hotspots" for a guy running SuSE Linux? If so, just override my Followups line.

And if not, then just follow the line's instructions. :)

-- Jafo

Reply to
Jafo

Oh, poor child, who might actually have to read three groups in order to participate in three groups. How tragic.

...that our orbital mind control rays don't work except in the imaginations of the theatrically hypersensitive. Cry me a river, Jafo.

Follow-ups set, yet again.

Reply to
Rick Moen

You missed the point. What a surprise.

Reply to
Jafo

One thing I've often noticed, is that the reply to group is one that I don't subscribe to. That means if I want to see any replies to my message, I have to join a group I wouldn't have otherwise.

Reply to
James Knott

Reply to
Rick Moen

Didn't know that command before -- I'll try it Monday afternoon.

That I tried. Blank, except for a 'search ' that's part of the Windows workgroup I connect to at work. When I connect at home, that gets replaced by the DHCP server's search setting, and my ISP's nameservers IPs get appended as 'nameserver xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx'.

Gotcha.

Right. Looks like /var/lib/dhcpcd/dhcpcd-eth0.info might be the location. Will report back once I've tested it.

Reply to
David McMillan

It's been my experience that "pump" works better than "dhcpc" (however there are setups where "dhcpc" works and "pump" doesn't). I'd default to using "pump"- I've been browsing on Linux at T-Mobile hotspots for over two years on Linux.

-Kenny

Reply to
Kenneth Crudup

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.