Partha Bagchi wrote:
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Perhaps that is my problem.
I don't believe 'netstat -m' exists? What am I looking for here?
I have always combined the two letters, but I'm sure "netstat -r -n" will do the
same thing, verify that the routing table contains no surprises.
Also, do you expect the output of tcpdump when I am further away from
the router? I should mention that the router is in the basement and I
am able to get a fine signal on the ground floor. When I step outside
a few feet away that I cannot get a signal. I did not have this
problem with Fedora 10, same hardware.
If I read your original post right, you said you had a 40% signal. You might
enter "iwconfig" from a command line and see what the values are for working and
non-working. If you run tcpdump on the wireless NIC you *may* see packets being
sent and ICMP error packets coming back. I'm just suggesting that it will
provide more information at a low cost in time.
Are you familiar with ath9k?
One of the machines I have used required that driver, but I'm not a regular
user. I have chased wireless problems on at least six or seven laptops, so I can
suggest things which have provided useful information in the past. The network
list or wireless list might also be worth reading or asking, but a change
between Fedora versions is likely to be release related.
I expect the laptop will show something on tcpdump, which may or may not be
useful. As noted, it's a low cost thing to try, I usually get all the cheap
information I can and see if something sticks out.
--
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
