Re: Complicated networking problem

[Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@fprintf.net>]

On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 13:27 +1000, Jarne Cook wrote:
>On Tuesday 01 March 2005 12:35, you wrote:
>> On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said:
>> > > They are both using dhcp to the same simple network.  That's right. 
>> > > Same network.  They both end up with gateway=192.168.0.1,
>> > > netmask=255.255.255.0. But ofcourse they do not have the same IP
>> > > addresses.
>> >
>> > I don't suppose your network people would be willing to change it thusly:
>> >
>> > wired ports:  gateway 192.168.0.1, netmask 255.255.255.128.0
>> > wireless:     gateway 192.168.128.1, netmask 255.255.255.128.0
>> >
>> > Or move the wireless up to 192.168.1.1 if they think that would confuse
>> > things too much.
>> >
>> > There's a limit to how far we should bend over backwards to support
>> > stupid networking decisions. 192.168 *is* a /16, might as well use it. ;)
>> >
>> > If they won't, you're pretty much stuck with binding applications to one
>> > interface or another.
>>
>> If the goal is to primarily use wired link and seamlessly swith to wireless
>> then look into bonding driver in failover mode with wired interface as
>> primary. This way you have only one address and userspace does not notice
>> anything.
>
>Damn
>
>Having to configure the interfaces using bonding was not really the answer I 
>was expecting.
>
>I did not think linux would be that rigid.  I figured if poodoze is able to do 
>it (seamlessly mind you), surely linux (with some tinkering) would be able to 
>do it also.
>
>The goal was to have the networking on the laptop work as perfectly as 
>crapdoze does.  
>
>Perhaps I should and this topic to my list of software issues that no-one else 
>cares about. "man that list is getting big".  maybe one day I'll develop the 
>balls to get deep into the code.
>
>

Check out NetworkManager.  It will do what you want.

Daniel