Partha Bagchi wrote:
I am testing RC1. I have to say that using ath9k is more problematic
than before. Now, I can't get a signal in my backyard, where the
connection icon shows a 40% signal, ping says destination host is
unreachable when pinging the router:
ping 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
From 192.168.1.102 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
^C
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 5224ms
I believe that you will find this is a rounting problem, and IIRC there is a
default route to the destination, else you would get "no route to host," but
some network node refused to pass the packets, and retuned the ICMP packets
saying so.
If "netstat -rn" doesn't shed any light on this, use of tcpdump may. I don't
find any useful (to me) information in the rest of this, it is as I expect. I
suppose that you could get this behavior if the route were in place but the
router didn't correctly handle the packets, or wasn't passing icmp. You comment
on "nearer" suggests that.
My experience has been that other than the fact that the checkbox for starting a
connection at boot is still a decoration rather than a feature, FC11 is working
slightly better than FC10 on my laptops.
Hope any of this helps.
uname -a
Linux Bordeaux 2.6.29.4-167.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Wed May 27 17:28:22
EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
lspci:
...
06:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc. AR928X
Wireless Network Adapter (PCI-Express) (rev 01)
...
[partha@Bordeaux ~]$ rpm -qa |grep -i network
NetworkManager-gnome-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586
NetworkManager-vpnc-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586
system-config-network-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch
NetworkManager-glib-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586
NetworkManager-openvpn-0.7.0.99-1.fc11.i586
system-config-network-tui-1.5.97-1.fc11.noarch
NetworkManager-0.7.1-4.git20090414.fc11.i586
NetworkManager-openconnect-0.7.0.99-4.fc11.i586
No additional information in /var/log/messages.
Was working fine in Fedora 10 and also, works fine when I am"nearer"
to the router. Seems to me some sort of regression.
Thanks,
Partha
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:22 PM, James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:10 +0100, Paul Black wrote:
2009/5/28 James Laska wrote:
Where can we get RC1?
I've buried the link under the "What to test" section -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Fedora_11_RC1_Install_Test_Results#What_To_Test
Will these be available via rsync?
I've tried the instructions here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Building_an_ISO_image_for_testing
and they don't work; "rsync rsync://alt.fedoraproject.org/alt" shows
the stage directory is not present.
Sorry, I don't believe these will be available for rsync. My
understanding is they are made available for high-bandwith testers to
assist with release candidate validation.
Thanks,
James
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
