(no subject)
Apr. 26th, 2006 03:04 pmThis luser wannabe thinks he's a sysadmin because he's heard of tcpdump. *snicker*
Right. That's why you had to have the office manager ask the local techie to help you. Because the network didn't seem to be assigning automatic addresses. Go back to reading the script to your peers on the phone monkey fart.
Right. That's why you had to have the office manager ask the local techie to help you. Because the network didn't seem to be assigning automatic addresses. Go back to reading the script to your peers on the phone monkey fart.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 07:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 08:08 pm (UTC)While you're at it you might want to try a bit of socratic irony to find out what historically what you're letting yourself in for by posing a few dumb questions at the resident 'expert' to see what they say.
And while you're waiting for *that* you might as well have a poke around to see what's happening elsewhere. I personally can't see the problem..
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 10:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 12:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 01:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 07:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 08:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 08:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 08:32 pm (UTC)Link was live, the TCPdump was showing various IPs in use, trying one in approximately the right range didn't result in any success which is a simple enough thing to at least try. Everyone appears to be fine, the NIC is happy enough, time for grass roots fiddling..
What follows was crawling under the table, locating and trying a new socket and getting lucky. It appeared to be a bad/bizarre config on that port alone, or dodgy wiring on the TX side of the socket.
The context related purely to the actions of the in-house tech, NOT the problem leading to the question which had now been diagnosed and fixed.
Jumping to conclusions doesn't always give the intended result.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 08:18 pm (UTC)Provided that you give your box the same gateway that's being assigned.
Sysadmin was mildly silly. Techie was a fuckin' moron.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 11:55 pm (UTC)Agreed!
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 11:51 am (UTC)Disagree! The SA wasn't much better than the Techie (who should be fired).
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 02:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 10:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 01:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 01:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 10:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 11:55 am (UTC)This indicates a huge problem in the network. Give that the link lights glow and there still isn't a connection. I wuldn't even have tried tcpdump, which is mostly as useful as old dishwater.
The first thing is to find out why DHCP is borked.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 12:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 12:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 01:17 pm (UTC)My speaking to this person was an attempt to find out how the other machines in this office are connected.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 01:16 pm (UTC)I have no link lights. I have no access to the switch, router, or anything beyond the cable connected to my machine.
tcpdump showed me that the switch was at least partially working, as I could see things going to/from the router. Hence I knew that whatever the problem was, it lay beyond my machine and cable, and that I could legitimately take this to the company whose office this is, as it's their equipment and their problem.