Inability to connect to the Internet

[johnbb]

I am new to Linux, but am endeavouring to understand the jargon and complexities.

I have a Dell Inspiron 6000 laptop. I have also managed to download Knoppix 5.0.1 and burn a CD using Windows XP and Nero.

My ISP is part of a cable TV setup requiring from me with XP, an ID and a password to access the broadband service theoretically working at 100Mbps, no dialing, no modem just a cable plugged into the computer at a socket named "Network Connector-(RJ-45)". They state that they have no Linux support for connection software.

I have tried Xandros and Mepis Linux distributions, and have the same problem as with Knoppix, an inability to configure a connection to the Internet. Probably due to my lack of Linux knowledge.

In Knoppix, and the other distributions, it seems to connect to the Internet one is expected to have a dial up system and other systems with cards that don't seem to be for me. Everything else works fine, or seems to so far.

Can someone advise me what to do please to connect.

My ISP details are:

Device type: PPPoE (WAN Miniport)
Server type:PPP
Transports:TCP/IP
Authentication:PAP
Compression:None
PPP Multilink framing:Off

I am not required to enter any address of any kind, or or dialup, just my ID and password. I hope I have given the correct information about my ISP to get a helpful answer.

Hopefully waiting

[Harry Kuhman]

I don't really know your situation, in most countries PPPoE is used for DSL, not for cable access. Knoppix does have a PPPoE client, but if you log in with PPPoE then you should really read my stock answer #4 (http://www.knoppix.net/wiki/User:Harry_Kuhman).

[johnbb]

Thank you for your quite prompt reply, but I sorry to have to say I am still none the wiser.

In Windows XP I don't need any special software to connect, all I do initially is to go to "network connections", then there is listed "Broadband connection", I then enter my ID and password. I am then connected without any bother. I then use a short cut to connect next time.

I have no router as mentioned in your answer #4, only the ISP "box", that has all labels removed, to connect the TV and the computer, and as I only have one computer, this is not a problem.

You say:"I don't really know your situation". What do I need to tell you to make things more clear ? Ask, and I'll try to clarify the situation.

[rusty]

Have you tried the utility for DSL/PPOE, it can be found at K->Knoppix->Network/Internet->ADSL/PPOE Configuration

[johnbb]

Yes, I've tried that with the result that it says the connection has been triggered.

However, using either browser supplied, there is no Internet connection.

In the 'Command Console' I have tried the command "ifconfig" the result is :

Ethernet HWaddr: 00 14 22 f2 c0 e1
INET6 addr: fe80 214 22ff fef2 c0e1 /64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNINGMUTICAST MTU:1500 Metric: 1
Rx Packets 101 Errors 0 Dropped 0 Overruns 0 Frame 0
TX Packets 87 Errors 0 Dropped 0 Carrier 0 Collisions 0 TXqueuelen 1000
Rx Bytes 6554 Tx Bytes 6474
Interrupt 19

Which to my novice's eyes looks as though I am connected BUT.... not to the browser

The commands "plog" suggested to be used to show the status, states:
"Tail cannot open /var/log/log/syslog for reading. Permission denied"

Which to me is gibberish, being a novice in Linux.

If however, this makes sense to someone more well informed, and can give me some plain English instructions as to how to get connected, I would be most grateful.

As I have said previouly, in Windows XP on this computer, getting connected is no problem. In this distribution of Linux it seems to be another matter.

[malaire]

In the 'Command Console' I have tried the command "ifconfig" the result is :

Ethernet HWaddr: 00 14 22 f2 c0 e1
INET6 addr: fe80 214 22ff fef2 c0e1 /64 Scope:Link
UP BROADCAST RUNNINGMUTICAST MTU:1500 Metric: 1
Rx Packets 101 Errors 0 Dropped 0 Overruns 0 Frame 0
TX Packets 87 Errors 0 Dropped 0 Carrier 0 Collisions 0 TXqueuelen 1000
Rx Bytes 6554 Tx Bytes 6474
Interrupt 19

Which to my novice's eyes looks as though I am connected BUT.... not to the browser


You could try commands ping 72.36.188.40 and ping www.knoppix.net to check if you are connected or not. Sometimes there have been reports that computer was connected to the Internet but Firefox still wasn't working. You could also try Konqueror instead of Firefox.

(ping-command checks if a certain internet-address can be reached from your computer)

[johnbb]

Thank for the Ping suggestion, I'll try it and let you know the outcome.

As for the browsers, I have used BOTH browsers and the don't appear to be connected.

From the information I gave above from the "ifconfig" command, could you explain as to what it all means.

Regards

[malaire]

From the information I gave above from the "ifconfig" command, could you explain as to what it all means.

I don't really understand that well enough to explain it properly.

[johnbb]

Thank you for coming back, even though you can't explain. It is appreciated.

I haven't yet had the opportunity to try the "Ping". I will let you know the outcome in due course, probably tomorrow.

I have tried DSL(Damn Small Linux) and also get the same problem. No ability to connect to the Internet with either browser supplied. The "ifconfig" command produces similar results to those previously given with Knoppix.

Lets hope someone will come forward with some practical advise and perhaps some authoritative explanations.

Regards

[ockham23]

Yes, I've tried that with the result that it says the connection has been triggered. Did you see a message like "Access concentrator found ..." when you ran the ADSL/PPPoE tool?

[Capricorny]

Try ping first with an explicit, known IP, like ping 72.36.188.40 and if that works, with a name, like ping www.knoppix.net (147 ms response time from here) or ping google.com. (116 ms). If IP ping works, but name ping doesn't , you could try with an explicit name server IP. As root, you may try the command

echo 'nameserver 193.212.1.10' >> /etc/resolv.conf (Don't know if that particular IP still belongs to a nameserver, you must check out some local ones and substitute the IP address.) Try with both DSL and Knoppix.

If that doesn't work, my advice is to check out people connecting successfully with Linux to your ISP.

[johnbb]

Sorry for delay in replying, but the computer is not the centre of my life, just part of it, and currently we have a typhoon affecting us here and having a boat computers are not THE priority.

Now "PING".

It does not work.

Using the formats suggested I get answers such as " unknown host", which I think indicates that there is no Internet connection, or recommendations as to how to use Ping. In other words I am using the wrong format. Not knowing the correct format, I can't try to do it correctly. I have followed the instructions that you gave in detail, but it does not seem to work.

Using "ifconfig" again I get the following answers:

erth1: Up broadcast running multicast. MTU 1500 Metric 1
Rx Packets 55 (all other headings are zero)
Tx Packets 59 (again all other headings are zero)
Rx Bytes 3580
Tx Bytes 4784
Interrupt 18

IO: Uplink running MTU 16436
Rx Packets 8 (all other headings zero)
Tx Packets 8 (again all other headings zero)
Rx Bytes 400 Tx Bytes 400

In reply to the qusetion on "Access concentrator", yes, this comes up and finds my "erth1" OK

I have also looked around for some other approach that would fit my requirements, and nothing appears to fit. Almost all relate to "dialups" that I don't need, or to entering addresses that again I don't need, at least in XP I don't. All I do there, as I have said before, is to enter my ID and password under the broadband setting in "networks".

I have now tried Knoppix, Xandros, and DSL(Damn Small Linux), and with all of them I am unable to connect to the Internet. They all seem to view access to the Internet as requiring a "dialup", that I don't need.

I think that It is time to forget attempting to get connected with Linux in any form, and revert to the devil I know, even with all it's faults.

Perhaps given some time Linux distributions will catch up with developments and make it easier for those of us who don't want to become computer boffins to use the Internet. I have been trying now for 2 years on and off to get into Linux, first with a wireless broadband network from the Yacht Club to my boat, and now ashore in a new house with cable TV and Broadband Internet, all with no success. I have been told that Linux is more stable than Windows and more secure, but if one cannot get connected what is the point.

One thing that has been of success during my attempts to use Linux, is that I discovered the browser FireFox that I now use in Windows XP. This browser I am really hooked on. It is excellent.

Thanks to those that have tried to assist me. Failing some sort of miracle advise, this I think is the END. Thank you all

[interceptor]

Come on people!

I have the same problem here...
Haven't you ever heard that some cable providers ask for username and pasword?

None of the tools provided with knopp ask for username or password, but try automatically to log in?

Is there any solution?

I simply have to enter ip address of the eth, user/pass and voila!

[Harry Kuhman]

Is there any solution?
Yes, there is a very simple solution. While I've actually never heard of any cable company that requires a login, the answer is what I've long been saying in these forums and in answer #4 (http://www.knoppix.net/wiki/User:Harry_Kuhman), anyone with a high speed connection should be using a router for a number of reasons. It's not the most important reason, but a router that works with your cable system will resolve this problem for you, when you boot Linux (or any other OS with an IP stack that does nomal DHCP discovery), you'll be on the Internet as soon as you boot.

[johnbb]

Thank you for continuing this thread, but I did indicate that there was no need to continue from my point of view as there does not appear to be an easy answer, although it is true that I would like to overcome this connection snag.

In reply to Harry, yes, BUT................... why should one need to go to the expense of buying a router, when with Windows XP it is not needed ?

There must be a simpler answer.

Subject to correction, I believe that my IP, Netvigator.com(part of PCCW) here in Hong Kong, uses a new method of providing TV via cable, that, now I'm on shaky ground, uses a modified system of streaming TV not used in the past. They are very tight lipped about the technical details. However, for a computer broadband connection, there is no dialing required and addresses are obtained automatically. All one does, as I have stated before, is under XP, is to go to "Network connections", and under "broadband" using PPPoE, enter my ID and password, and 'voila' I'm in, all connected.

Firewalls I have separate from the one Windows provide, antivirus and spy-ware programmes I also have independent of Microsoft. And so far, in 7 months of being 'connected' I have not had any virus or spy-ware problems or unwanted visitors.

Now coming back to Linux, ALL the connecting software that I have seen so far, is designed for 'dial-up' systems, that here in my case, is not needed.
.

[Harry Kuhman]

In reply to Harry, yes, BUT................... why should one need to go to the expense of buying a router, when with Windows XP it is not needed ?
Well, there are several answers to that. In spite of your belief that you have not been infected, there is plenty of evidence that most systems not behind a hardware firewall will be exploited within minutes of being put onto a high speed connection. Using software firewalls and scanners from more trusted sources than Microsoft is a good idea, but software firewalls can't protect against everything; by the time the information gets to the software firewall it has to go through the IP stack, and any exploit that causes a buffer overflow there will allow the exploit to take control in spite of the firewall (and we all should know about Microsoft and buffer overflows). I use software firewalls, but would never run on a high speed connection without a hardware firewall such as provided by a NAT router. And I'm frugal, but this is not an area that is worth trying to save a few bucks on.

So I reject your statement that the router is not needed with XP. You apparently can get the connection to work on Xp without a router, but that far from saying it's not needed; that would be like saying that backups or passwords are not needed either, or that the locks on your card door and ignition are not needed.

OK, so your're using a curious new technology and just refering to it as cable. You know that you need to use the pppoe software in Windows. Did you try using the pppoe software that comes with Knoppix? I'm not advocationg that, in fact I think it would be very stupid to do so, but you seem to want to be proven wrong the hard way, so since you are using pppoe in the much more vulnerable windows OS, why would you not try it in Knoppix?

[johnbb]

In answer to the question of did I use the PPPoE tool in Knoppix, of course I did, BUT.... do bear in mind that it is designed for a dial-up setup, and in my case it does not 'connect' as I don't need to dial.

As to routers in general, I have never used one in the past, going back some 15 years or so. Nor have I ever had any problems to date by not using one.

There is one thing I am not clear about and that is your differentiation between software firewalls and hardware firewalls. Could you perhaps explain further, as as I don't understand you.

Surely, any hardware needs software to work it, so how does one have a 'hardware firewall' that does not have any software ?

Are we talking of different interpretations of terminology ?

Lastly, it is NOT because of vulnerability that I am interested in changing to Linux, it is because of stability, that I am told Linux is very good at. So far for me vulnerability has never been a problem for me using Windows, as I use other protective programmes that seem to do their job.

Stability however, has been my major problem, even with XP. This I was hoping Linux would rectify. Talking to other Windows users, they seem to be resigned to crashes , re-instalations and unexplained hick ups.

This however, all detracts from the original problem of getting connected to the Internet.

[Harry Kuhman]

In answer to the question of did I use the PPPoE tool in Knoppix, of course I did, BUT.... do bear in mind that it is designed for a dial-up setup, and in my case it does not 'connect' as I don't need to dial.
I have no idea why you say this. PPPoE as contained in Knoppix is intended for use with DSL/ADSL, no dialing involved. Of course, I don't normally use it, as I use a router and that takes care of all the PPPoE, but that is what was there the last time that I looked at it.


As to routers in general, I have never used one in the past, going back some 15 years or so. Nor have I ever had any problems to date by not using one.
At least none that you know of. But the threats are getting worse with rootkits and such to hide the infection. I hope that you are correct.


There is one thing I am not clear about and that is your differentiation between software firewalls and hardware firewalls. Could you perhaps explain further, as as I don't understand you.
Well, a software firewall is just that, software that runs in your computer that tries to prevent traffic that you don't want, so acts like a firewall. But software has a lot of limitations. As I mentioned, by the time a packet gets to the software firewall it has to pass through a lot of the IP stack, and any buffer overflow exploit there could be exploited before the firewall gets a chance to stop it. And, of course, if a computer is compromised, the compromise can over ride anything that you think the firewall is doing.

I do use software fiewalls. One thing that I want my software firewall to do is warn me when any software tries to "phone home". I choose what software accesses the Internet, not the software manufacturer. I also like the ability to examine the exe and know when it has changed and let me confirm that I accept the change before software can access the Internet. And I do use many tools including the software firewall and the hosts file to restrict access to sites that I don't want acces to. As a result I see far less problems due to over agressive advertisements.

A hardware firewall is extra hardware that runs outside your computer. Sure, there is a software portion to it, but it runs in it's own computer and is generally much harder to get past or corrupt that a software firewall running on Microsoft OSs. There have been some router manufacturers that have been amazingly sloppy and have released products that can be compromised (including routers with built in master back doors), but overall most routers are much more secure than software firewalls. Any home router does NAT or Network Address Translation and just this provides a simple but effective firewall function: any incoming but unexpected packet from an unknown source is not forwarded to any of the computers behind the NAT router because the router did not request it and does not know which computer to route it to. This can be defeated if you wish to run a server by adding router rules for that packet's port, or if you foolishly put a computer into the "DMZ", but unless you over ride it any NAT router is a very effective firewall. In addition to the NAT feature, many routers now boast that they include a firewall, which generally means that they do extra inspection of the packets and try to spot other known exploits. Some forms of this inspection are often refered to as SPI or Stateful Packet Inspection. This can be good, but it's often hard to get good data on what the router firewall is really doing and what it will and will not catch. I don't look for or demand SPI firewalls, but I insist on using a router that at the least gives me NAT protection.

It is worth mentioning that a hardware router can't tell what software in the computer is sending a packet. So if it sees an e-mail packet go out it just thinks you are sending e-mail, you need that software firewall to know if the mail was sent by your e-mail client, by some spyware trying to phone home, or by some hacker who has taken over your system and is using it to send spam. But in all likelyhood, if the hacker gets control he will disable the firewall and let you think it's still working.

And, of course, no firewall, hardware or software, protects you if you do things that invite malware in. That includes surfing dangerous sites, but what is dangerous keeps growing; many large popular sites have recently been found to contain hacker attacks (youtube and microsoft to name just two), so you can never be too safe. One extra advantage of using a hardware firewall is that even if you get infested, a hardware firewall protected by password may well help block a hacker's commands into your computer. And the firewall can further be configured to help protect you. I never use IRC, for example, and much of the current malware now infesting computers contacts it's new master by IRC, so I have IRC traffic blocked in my router by a routing rule that I added.


Are we talking of different interpretations of terminology ?
Hopefully I have already answered this, they are two very different and seperate things.


Lastly, it is NOT because of vulnerability that I am interested in changing to Linux, it is because of stability, that I am told Linux is very god at. So far for me vulnerability has never been a problem for me using Windows, as I use other protective programmes that seem to do their job.

Stability however, has been my major problem, even with XP. This I was hoping Linux would rectify. Talking to other Windows users, they seem to be resigned to crashes , re-instalations and unexplained hick ups.

This however, all detracts from the original problem of getting connected to the Internet.
Yes, I believe that you will find Linux much more stable.

[rusty]

After you've run the ADSL/PPOE Configuration , try, from a root shell: ifconfig e(r)th1 up. The run ifconfig again without any options to see what it reports. I'm wondering if you need to manually invoke a dhcp client once the connection has been established.

Eventually a linux distro or a method will surface on how to connect to that particular network, but since it seems new the linux people haven't yet caught up with it.

[johnbb]

To "Harry",

Thank you for the detailed explanation on routers and Firewalls.

This particular piece of equipment seems to be a subject in it's self. Much of what you say is currently going over my head. Gradually, perhaps I'll come to understand it all. To make sure that I understand some of what you are saying, "a Hardware firewall", using your terminology, is a router with a firewall software built in. Whereas a "software firewall" is a firewall in the PC.

Question:

How does one control the built in software in the router ? Does one use an editor either for Windows or Linux or what ?

However, much of what you say about firewalls, my current Firewall in my PC already does.

It is an old version from 2003, but I like it because on the one hand I understand most of it's jargon, and secondly it is very easy to control and one is able to only allow specific software to pass items through it, and anything not sanctioned is brought to one's attention for a decision. It is a free one for personal use by Kerio, version 2.1.5 They have newer versions but their complicated nature is beyond my capabilities.

As you say there are problems with some routers and their firewalls, could you recommend a router with it's own firewall that you feel is good ? I would prefer a wireless router with a printer socket if possible.

Referring to the PPPoE in the Knoppix CD from the "Moving to Linux" book, as far as I can find, ALL the PPPoE tools given require dialing steps, whereas as I have said I do not need this.

I don't think this is so unusual now, as this problem is mentioned earlier in this thread by "interceptor", who has the same problem.

==============
To "rusty",

I have tried using 'ifconfig' previously, and the results are shown earlier in this thread. However, no one has yet to explain the meaning of the answers in plain English without the use of jargon.

I would welcome anyone who would do so for me.

Regards

[Harry Kuhman]

To make sure that I understand some of what you are saying, "a Hardware firewall", using your terminology, is a router with a firewall software built in. Whereas a "software firewall" is a firewall in the PC.
Well, almost. There are lots of ways to construct a hardware firewall. They don't all have to include a NAT router. But the inverse is true, any common home NAT router will serve as a basic firewall and keep unwanted packets from unexpected sources out of your computers. And yes, a software firewall is firewall software that you run on your PC (The free Kerio firewall is a great software firewall, there are a lot of bad ones out there including ones from some pretty big names). A good software firewall has it's place but it is not safe to only run a software firewall. And yes, I actually do like version 2.15 more than the newer versions. The newer versions do some extra things that are good, but they do a lot of things that I don't want them doing, like checksumming software that never accesses the network. I don't want a software nanny, just a software firewall, so I prefer 2.15. But you're not geting the basic concept of protection from incoming buffer overflows if you trust a software firewall to protect you. Such packets must be kept out of the computer, by the time the software firewall could examine them your system can be compromised. I use both, but if I could only have one it would be a hardware firewall or router, not a software firewall.


How does one control the built in software in the router ? Does one use an editor either for Windows or Linux or what ?
All home routers that I've used or seen have a web interface and are accessed and configured by putting an IP address into a browser in a computer connected to the router. After a password login (you should always change the default password, and this is absolutely critical on a wireless router), you can configure the router. This ranges from simple things like the type of connection to the ISP and username/password for the ISP if needed, to advanced firewall and routing functions, including forwarding certain ports to certain computers inside you local network (for example, if you want to run a web server you would forward port 80 to the computer that will be running the server software, that will let incoming traffic on that port be routed to the proper computer). You can also usually block certain outbound ports or traffic to certain ip addresses or IP ranges if you wish (for example, I mentioned that I don't want to use IRC or let any software in my systems access IRC, so I created a rule to block port 6667 outbound, the common IRC port. Most routers can block by port, by IP address, by domain name and even by MAC address. Features vary widely between routters. Some, for example can apply rules based on time of day and by individual local computers (great, for example, if you have children and you want to control when their systems have internet access but still give yourself access 24/7). Others have features to track your IP address when your ISP assigns you a changing "dynamic IP". Some support secure incoming connections or Virtual Private Networks (VPN). The list of features is huge. My best advice is to find some routers that are sold in your area and look up the manuals on-line (most are available in PDF form on the manufacturer's websites). Read through several to get a feel for how they work and what differences you see.


As you say there are problems with some routers and their firewalls, could you recommend a router with it's own firewall that you feel is good ? I would prefer a wireless router with a printer socket if possible.
Sure, there are problems with some hardware. Netgear is the one that had some models that had the "secret" back door (http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/365069) in them. It was actually the factory in China that made the back door (and used their own phone number as the master password), so if they make routers for other brands they may have been affected also. Word is that Netgear didn't fix it either, they just changed the login information, and hackers know the new login. D-link has has some with buffer overflow security problems (http://research.eeye.com/html/advisories/published/AD20060714.html). Some routers just don't work as well as others, some may not have a feature that you think you want or need. Some keep better logs, and so on. All, as far as I know, do basic Network Address Translation and this will serve to keep packets out. In addition many try to look for known problems in packets and keep them out of your system. even when they come from a outside computer that you inniated the connection to.

I don't have much use for a printer port on a router. I put the printer on the computer and then share it with the other computers on my network. If you want them you can get print servers, even wireless ones, that allow you to locate a printer away from the router. And some printers now come with their own network print server in them, a design that I like a lot more that trying to use a print server built into a router. So I can't recommend a router with an embedded print server, but you'll certainly come across information about these while you shop and compare models.

I don't know that I can make a good recommendation for you either. One issue is that often the same router sold in different countries will have different firmware and different feature. And it's very hard to evaluate what features a stranger needs. Most new users that I have to convince to use a router consider cost a overwelming issue. In these cases I suggest they look for special sales and if the find an extremely low cost model (which I often find here), they look at it's features, read it's manual, and determine if it's right for them. If you get your first router cheap enough it doesn't have to do much more than protect you with the NAT firewall to be useful, and the experience can be a big help in knowing how to evaluate other routers if you want to step up. If your main concern isn't cost then there is a Linksys Wiress that is particularly interesting, the WRT54GL, that opens the door to all kinds of magic: it runs Linux and the good hacker community (http://www.seattlewireless.net/LinksysWrt54g#head-54ed53a2e05c227f96165daaa2891a542ab08167) has come up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G) with all sorts (ttp://www.lifehacker.com/software/router/hack-attack-turn-your-60-router-into-a-600-router-178132.php) of enhancements for it (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040527.html). Follow the links and then do searching on Google, there is plenty more. If I had to recommend one router it would be this. But I don't have one myself, I don't need it and really don't have the time to do a lot of work with it that would justify getting it.


Referring to the PPPoE in the Knoppix CD from the "Moving to Linux" book, as far as I can find, ALL the PPPoE tools given require dialing steps, whereas as I have said I do not need this.
All I can say here is that I've never used PPPoE with dial-up and I have used it with Knoppix on an ADSL connection, no dialing involved. I did the PPPoE connection only as a test to answer some questions a friend had. It worked. But as I say, I just don't trust putting a computer naked on the Internet without a NAT firewall. In this case I was about to install Debian, so I ran my tests with Knoppix and PPPoE, got my frend his answers, then before attaching that computer to the rest of my network, I wipped it's hard disk and got ready to install Debian (I then hooked back up to my router and did a Debian net-install). Yes, this was likely over cautious, particularly since I went on-line with Knoppix, not Windows, but my point is that I would not have done it even with Knoppix if I wasn't about to erase the computer anyway. That's why I am not doing it again to walk you through the steps that I took. But it's there.

[johnbb]

To Harry,

Thank you for your very detailed explanation or routers. I have made a printed copy for reference IF I get round to buying one again.

I should add that I bought one about 3 months ago, and did not find it of any help whatsoever. In fact I found it a bit of a hindrance, so much so that I no longer use it. However, in the light of your detailed explanation, I may get around to trying it out again.
=====================================
To others

All this talk of routers appears to me to detract from the initial direction of this thread, namely how to connect to the Internet using Linux, when all the connecting tools appear to require dialing-up a connection, when in my case, and others too, we don't need to dial anything, as all we need in Windows XP is, an ID and a password. No modem either just a connection into the computer's "network" socket from the cable provider.

This may or may not be new technology, but surely there is someone who could give authorititive advise without the need for routers and the like.

[Harry Kuhman]

.. but surely there is someone who could give authorititive advise without the need for routers and the like.
Maybe your system is so new that Knoppix doesn't support it, although I rather doubt that. I think it's more likely that Rusty and I tried to point you in the proper direction but that you hit another problem and abandoned that approach.

[rec9140]

All this talk of routers appears to me to detract from the initial direction of this thread, namely how to connect to the Internet using Linux, when all the connecting tools appear to require dialing-up a connection, when in my case, and others too, we don't need to dial anything, as all we need in Windows XP is, an ID and a password. No modem either just a connection into the computer's "network" socket from the cable provider.

This may or may not be new technology, but surely there is someone who could give authorititive advise without the need for routers and the like.

Basically what your cableco has done has moved the typical cable modem to some box thats probably on the side of your dwelling or may even be inside a equipment cabinent someplace. They then run you an Cat 5 cable to plug into the network card of your PC. This is rather unique to use PPPoE on a cable based plant, but since its outside the US, thats probably not that unusual. If your video service comes this way to then its probably some form of IPTV.

PPPoE be it under Linux or Winvirus is still dialing. Thats part of PPPoE. Winvirus just is doing a better job of hiding it from you. If you ran an install CD or on the intial setup it asked for user name and password at some point. Thats now stored in the PC setup for that connectoid. PPP of the PPPoE is Point to Point Protocol or PPP its whats used on all those dialup modems. You can have something called SLIP or Serial Line Interface Protocol, PPP became the defacto standard for most connections unless you really needed SLIP for some reason. You can also have another ancient technology called UUCP or Unix to Unix Copy Protocol. For years before the internet boom UUCP was the way most got their email and NNTP (news) from a ISP or mostly university/colleges. PPPoE is just doing PPP Over Eterhnet, thus the oE. You can also have PPPoA which is PPP OVER ATM. The point of this is that PPP = DIALING in some manner some how some way. This link has some good info to understand PPP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-Point_Protocol and for SLIP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Line_Internet_Protocol

Thats why under winvirus XP you enter a user name and password, thats what its for to connect= dialing.

In Linux you are going to have to go through the dialing steps to get the PPPoE connection established so that you can get an IP etc. on the ISP's network. Till you "connect" to the ISP you really don't have a connection to the internet, but only to the ISP. The PPPoE script is there to set up what it needs to talk to the internet. It may not be dialing in the traditional sense of dialing a phone number, but its still dialing.

A router would probably solve this problem instantly as there is some incomptability between the PPPoE stack in Linux and your ISP's, or some obscure setting that is not getting set by Linux that winvirus is setting. The router would create the PPPoE connection from your ISP to the router, then you feed the PLAIN JANE Ethernet out to Linux. Zero issues with plain jane ethernet and Linux.

If you have another computer and a HUB (NOT A SWTICH) a HUB. Take the hub plug the cable from the cableco into the uplink port of the hub, plug one computer into another port, plug you winvirus xp computer into another (COMPUTER OFF). Turn on the spare computer if it doesn't have it install ethereal so you can snoop on the winvirus computer you normally use to connect to the internet. With capture on turn on the winvirus computer and connect to the internet. Then post the log of ethereal here. Something in there may show some setting that the normal PPPoE setup is missing and can be corrected.

Far simpler would be a router which would solve the issue, instantly. Also its a more secure connection. I insist on a router for any system I troubleshoot. No router, I don't work on it till you install it or I install one. Doens't matter Linux, Winvirus, mcrap, AS/400, router. No its not to make money, router is at cost to them and installed free. With out it troubleshooting some issues is just asking for more trouble.

[Harry Kuhman]

PPPoE be it under Linux or Winvirus is still dialing.
What are you talking about? I've used PPPoE in Knoppix, the same setup that Rusty gave the exact menu location for. It goes out and finds the PPPoE connection just fine. It requires the username and password, It does not require a phone number or any dialing; my DSL is always on and no dialing is needed. There is no dialing. There is no dial-tone. There is no modem in my computer, only an ethernet card (which connects to a DSL box loosely called a modem that then connects to the DSL line coming in. PPPoE under Linux and Knoppix does not need to involve dialing.

I have only used PPPoE as a test and wiped the hard disk after it, I normally always use a router (which does the PPPoE itself, again without being told any phone number to dial, only username and password when connecting) for my connections, but PPPoE does work without dialing, I just advise strongly against using it.

[johnbb]

To rec9140,

Thank YOU.

However, I'll need to digest your advise and information SLOWLY. I ain't so young as I used to be. It seems that we have got back to routers again though.

Have you also looked at the "ifconfig" results I posted earlier ?

Could you perhaps explain the jargon there in plain English ? Currently it is gibberish to me in it's current form.

I do happen to have another laptop, namely my old computer, to try out your suggestions, but...... what is a "HUB" ? I'm new at this don't forget.

Why though is the Windows XP connection tool called "Winvirus" ? It would lead one to believe that it was an anti-virus tool with a name like that.

Thank you though, for another point of view that at least sounds authoritative, confirming Harry's opinion on routers too.

You certainly seem to have disturbed "Harry" I see. I had not better get involved here. I think it better I sit it out on the side and watch you two "experts".

Regards
=============

To Harry,


You said:


"I've used PPPoE in Knoppix, the same setup that Rusty gave the exact menu location for. It goes out and finds the PPPoE connection just fine. It requires the username and password, It does not require a phone number or any dialing; my DSL is always on and no dialing is needed. There is no dialing."

Here I think you have not noted that my version of Knoppix DOES include the dialing step and phone number requirement in connecting. I think we have different versions. I've always assumed that this dialing step, because I have no number to enter, has been the stumbling block.

Where did you get your version ? Perhaps I could download the same version to try out to see if there is any change, if you could let me know the source.

Mine came, as I previously said, from the "Moving to Linux" book by Marcel Gagne. All the connection tools in this version have the "dial-up" step needing a phone number.

Please don't assume that your advise on routers has been ignored. It has not, and if I can find a place locally to get a router that meets your ideas on specs, I will get a new one. The one I already bought some time ago, does not seem to meet the specs that you advocate. In the mean time, would l like to endeavour to get connected without one as a first step, to prove a point if nothing else.

Regards

[rec9140]

PPPoE be it under Linux or Winvirus is still dialing.
What are you talking about? I've used PPPoE in Knoppix, the same setup that Rusty gave the exact menu location for. It goes out and finds the PPPoE connection just fine. It requires the username and password, It does not require a phone number or any dialing; my DSL is always on and no dialing is needed. There is no dialing. There is no dial-tone. There is no modem in my computer, only an ethernet card (which connects to a DSL box loosely called a modem that then connects to the DSL line coming in. PPPoE under Linux and Knoppix does not need to involve dialing.
.

You and the oringal poster are confusing dialing with POTS and dialing numbers.

PPP as I posted still dials .. ....

NO it does not dial a phone number

NO there is not a dial tone.

NO modem involved.

Again, your taking the traditional route of "dialing" to task.

Step back and think outside the constraints of the standard definition of dialing, use connect if that works better.

PPPoE is a way for ISP's to oversell their network as its not always on, unelss you get a router, which every time the session times out it reconnects. Which they probably are trying to prevent by saying it you need winvurs XP to connect, and not compatible with routers or Linux or mcrapx.


PPPoE has to connect for each session (routers will time out, just they reconnect automatically), and the session is very similar to a dial up, just uses Ethernet as the transport versus V.90/92 and a POTS line.

[johnbb]

Reading other threads on this same subject, and gleaning "How to" on my current Windows XP connection to my IP, below are the details for you, to interpret. That is if it is of any help solving this 'connection' problem in Linux.

My previous "ifconfig" results I have posted earlier in this thread.

Regards to you both.


Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ipconfig

Windows IP Configuration


Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
Autoconfiguration IP Address. . . : 169.254.115.35
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.0.0
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . :

PPP adapter netvigator:

Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 219.79.83.158
Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.255
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 219.79.83.158
[/quote]

[Harry Kuhman]

Here I think you have not noted that my version of Knoppix DOES include the dialing step and phone number requirement in connecting. I think we have different versions. I've always assumed that this dialing step, because I have no number to enter, has been the stumbling block.
There are 2 different discussions going on about this issue, you might want to read this thread (http://www.knoppix.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25578) also. But as to your above statement, in this thread and not the other Rusty point you to exactly the pppoe setup in Knoppix, it does not use dialing, You responded to him:

Yes, I've tried that with the result that it says the connection has been triggered.

However, using either browser supplied, there is no Internet connection.... and then you dropped it and have been insisting that pppoe needs dialing, which it does not. Read the other thread for an idea of what may be going on.

[rec9140]

However, I'll need to digest your advise and information SLOWLY. I ain't so young as I used to be. It seems that we have got back to routers again though.

A router will solve the issue. There seems to be a resistance to them for some reason. A simple inexpensive even in HK, device will solve your issue and let you connect via Knoppix or probably any other Linux.

Just as a test, pick another current live Linux CD and downaload it like Kubuntu or PCLinuxOS Big Daddy, try to set them up for the PPPoE connection see what happens and posts.


Have you also looked at the "ifconfig" results I posted earlier ?

Yes.



Could you perhaps explain the jargon there in plain English ? Currently it is gibberish to me in it's current form.
I do happen to have another laptop, namely my old computer, to try out your suggestions, but...... what is a "HUB" ? I'm new at this don't forget.


This is a very advanced troubleshooting method.......

A hub is a way you connect computers to a network, you need one of these over a similar device called a switch. The reasons are beyond this discussion, but hubs and switches work different and to "snoop" on the network you need a hub.
http://www.directron.com/vis8por10hub.html Thats an example...... Being in HK go to your local computer "row" and tell them you need a network HUB, you will need to be persistent as they will try to sell you a switch. Be sure you get a HUB.


Network Cable in from your ISP (The one you plug into the PC now) ======== to Hub Uplink port (VERY IMPORTANT)======== plug laptop into another port any port on the hub=========plug the XP PC into another port on the hub. You will have 3 wires plugged into the hub now.

Either install on the laptop a copy of etherreal or use a disc like Knoppix and run it from the CD.

You want to capture the packets that the XP sends out to see what its doing. Setup ethereal see: http://www.ethereal.com/faq.html

Once you have the log you can post it and possibly there will be something that triggers a way to find out what the issue with your ISP.

A router for the cost of the switch would solve this whole problem and not require more of time investment.




Why though is the Windows XP connection tool called "Winvirus" ? It would lead one to believe that it was an anti-virus tool with a name like that.


Winvirus is my name for windows. Its nothing but a virus that infects systems from the start. I am getting rid of it from my systems. I no longer install it to the systems I build. Spyware/virus infected are wiped clean and Linux installed or bare drive. I am just tired of the same nonsense over and over on a daily basis with it. I use Linux 99% for work. I have one winvirus based program that still is required. Its days are numbered due to a change to a different system for this program.

[Harry Kuhman]

PPP as I posted still dials .. ....

NO it does not dial a phone number

NO there is not a dial tone.

NO modem involved.

Again, your taking the traditional route of "dialing" to task.

I'm not sure what you mean by dialing. Most of the rest of the world uses it to imply some way to route a call or connection. But PPPoE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pppoe) does not route the call. It can't connect to different locations. It only connectes to the dslam that is on the other side of the DSL line. The complain here was that PPPoE software can't be used because it requires a phone number and the user doesn't have one to give it. That's just bogus.

What PPPoE does is encapsulate the normal ethernet packet inside another packet. Encapsulation is not dialing and has nothing to do with dialing, the two are not related. Many dial up systems do use Point-to-point Protocol (PPP), but that is different than PPPoE, even though the PPP in PPPoE stands for the same thing.

[Harry Kuhman]

I do happen to have another laptop, namely my old computer, to try out your suggestions, but...... what is a "HUB" ? I'm new at this don't forget.
There are three common devices (although hubs are becoming less common) used in local networking, routers, switches and hubs. I'll try to explain each here.

Back in the old days of ethernet, all connections were on one coax cable that snaked from computer to computer. Ethernet used a great system called colosion detection to determine if two computers tried to transmit at the same time. This coax system had some problems but worked pretty well. As networks became more popular people looked for ways to deploy networks on twisted pair wires, such as the many telephone wires already run in buildings. After a rough start, the industry quickly adopted Cat-3 and then Cat-5 twisted pair wiring. This is used a simgle connection between 2 devices, not the daisy chaining that was done with early ethernet coax systems.

Well, connecting only 2 devices isn't all that handy, so a hub was designed to be one of those devices. A hub is basically a box with many ethernet connectors on it, any ethernet traffic that comes in on any one connector, or "port", is echoed out on all of the other ports. Early hubs also had a coax connector on them for connection to older coax ethernet, although these types of hubs are very hard to find now (as are hubs in general, see the section on switches below). So hubs would allow you to connect your computers together with the systems all wired into a hub, often called a "star pattern". Breaking the connection at one computer did not break the chain and did not affect the rest of the network, as could happen with coax systems.

Hubs are ok, but the next evolution was the "switch". This is not some device with toggles or dials on it; in network terms a switch is a box very much like a hub. the difference is that while the hub just echos everything it sees out all of the other ports, the switch is inteligent and it learns what devices are on each ethernet cable. As it receves an inbound packet, it sends it out only on the ethernet port or posts that the traffic is intended for. This has a few important advantages. One is that it allows for better use of the network, if computer A is transfering large amount of data to computer B, it in no way affects transfers between computers C and D, as it would if a hub were used. Another is security. Traffic between computer A and B should not be able to be seen on computer C's ethernet port with a switch, as it would with a hub. With a hub one could put a protocol analyzer on computer C's ethernet connection and see all of the network's traffic. With a switch the only traffice on this connection should be traffic intended for computer C. I stress the word should because hackers have figured ways to beat this, such as ARP poisoning, but switches are still a better choice for most users rather than hubs. There are other advantages to switches that I will not get into here.

I'll mention routers here also. A router is basicall inteligent like a switch, but it does more things than a simple switch. While a switch builds it's own simple routing table a router can be programmed with a complex routing table. Advanced routers like those that make up the backbone on the Internet can choose to route traffic based on many factors in addition to the destination and can do error recovery and other features. For our purposes in this thread we have been talking about simple home or "soho" routers when we use the term. These will have firewall rules in them, they can do protocol encapsulation (PPPoE/PPPoA), they do NAT translation. Basically insead of just forwarding a packet on the proper port, when the packet goes to the port connected to the outside workd the router completely rebuilds the packet. It puts it's own return address on the packet. It may change the reply-to port number, and it may make any number of other changes to the packet before sending it to the Internet. When a packet comes it it determines from tables it keeps where that packet needs to be routed to, again rebiulds the packet putting a new destination address on it and perhaps changing the port number as well as other changes, and then sends it on the the local network. You'll usually see mention in router spec sheets that a home router includes a 4 port switch (although a very few don't), which means that it functions as a 5 port ethernet switch with one of those 5 ports internally connected to the router for traffic to and from the Internet connection.

At first switches were very expensive when compared to hubs (which were not inexpensive themselves). But economies of scale have kicked in and switches are now very inexpensive, so much so that they have almost completely replaced hubs. About the only really nice thing about hubs any more is that they will let you monitor another connection if you interconnect a hub in the ethernet connection and run a protocol analyzer or protocol anlyzer software such as ethereal (now call Wireshark, although the copy included in Knoppix is still ethereal). Without a hub you can't easily listen in on other ethernet connections that are made on twisted pair wires. But you can still run such software on one of the two endpoints and capture the data (obviously you can only do this after the computer has booted and it has to be a computer that you can run protocol sniffing software on).

That, in very limited terms, is a quick overview of hubs, switches and routers. Any questions?

[rec9140]

I'm not sure what you mean by dialing. Most of the rest of the world uses it to imply some way to route a call or connection. But PPPoE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pppoe) does not route the call. It can't connect to different locations. It only connectes to the dslam that is on the other side of the DSL line. The complain here was that PPPoE software can't be used because it requires a phone number and the user doesn't have one to give it. That's just bogus.



Plain and simple we do not agree, and we are not going to agree except to disagree.

I am very aware of how PPPoE works, for the non computer persons, the process of connecting PPPoE is called dialing, if that term you can not deal with use connect. I've found that persons who do not understand the underlying technology from an ISP help desk perspective can under stand "dials/connect" regardless of the fact that PPPoE is not dialing a phone number. PPPoE MUST CONNECT, if PPPoE is not connected there is no connection to outside network or internet.

PPPoE for all purposes is a "connect up" connection that can and does time out, all ISP settable. I can make your PPPoE connection time out after 30 seconds if I wanted to and you would have to keep reconnecting it. The ISP may not expire it as quick as a real V.90/92 dial MODEM connection but it does time out. The only thing that has changed in the equation is the transport mechanism, which in this case its Ethernet, its still PPP. Its still a connect up connection. Its not the same as a traditional QAM based cable co or a regular DSL circuit.

winvirus XP is hiding the fact that you are CONNECTING UP the PPP very similar to a NORMAL MODEM DIAL UP PPP. In the whole equation the only thing that changed is the transport mechanism ethernet versus a modem. At the end of the day its still PPP.

Turn the computer off the connection is terminated, till you turn the computer back on AND make a request to the internet.

You and I are not going to agree, and thats the end of it. This side discussion does not solve the issue at hand. The whole point of it in my post is that PPPoE has to connect and its got a user/pass associated with it, and most non computer people can understand that it has to connecct aka dial (even if its the wrong term and not really dialing any thing) to operate. Dial and conncet are synonmous in the non computer aka real world.

Geting a router would solve the issue, there is some resistance to doing so by the original poster. There is a incompatbility with the PPPoE setup of Knoppix and possibly other Linux variants. Trying a different distro may solve the issue and then it cab be determined that its a Knoppix issue v. a Linix issue.

The sniffing of the packets sent by the system from another computer is a pretty advanced test and may not be the least resitance route to get them onto Linux, a router would. I would like to solve an issue with onboard Highpoint IDE RAID controllers and my Soyo Dragon Ultra motherboard. I am sure that all that stuff on the screen from the kernel panic and stacks and CPU registers means something to a kernel level programmer, it doesn't mean a thing to me as I don't do that type of programming.

Time to part ways and agree to disagree.

[rusty]

johnbb: I see that there is a Hong Kong LUG (Linux Users Group) nad their mailing list might be a place to look for help.

http://www.linux.org.hk/en

In my previous post I sugested that you might need to start your dhcp client manually. Another way of doing this is to open a root shell and type: netcardconfig, after doing the ppoe thing.

Cheers.

[Harry Kuhman]

Time to part ways and agree to disagree.
OK, my last word on this. I don't care if you want to call plugging the ethernet connector into an always on cable system dialing, What standard you use to define dialing isn't important. But you're ignoring the user's complaint that he can't use what he calls PPPoE dialing software because he doesn't have a phone number to connect to. We both seem to agree that PPPoE doesn't need or use a phone number. He's confusing PPPoE with PPP modem software also included in Knoppix. You seem to be adding to his confusion when you say that PPPoE is dialing. I'll say no more on this.

[johnbb]

Gentlemen,

May I intervene here ?

Referring to this "dialing' or "connecting" debate, The "Moving to Linux" version of a 'Live CD' of Knoppix that I have been using, ONLY has "dialing" tools for connecting, requiring a telephone number AND will NOT go any further in connecting without a telephone number, referring one back to the requirement for a phone number.

So whether it is "dialing" or "connecting" is academic as it will not progress further in the process of CONNECTING to the ISP, no matter what either of you say.

There is one exception, that only seems to "trigger" the connection without providing a continuous connection

Could you perhaps advise on where(the URL) I could download a more compliant version of a "Live CD or DVD" of Knoppix, that does not prevent one omitting the telephone number.

===============
Both of you seemed to have missed my posting of the Windows XP results of "ipconfig". An explanation as to whether this is of any help would be appreciated.
++++++++++++++++++

I think you two will be pleased to hear that yesterday, after a dental appointment I went to a computer mall nearby to look at ROUTERS.

Pricing does not seem to be a problem, however, the mere mention of Linux produced a shaking of heads and blank looks. As I speak Chinese it was not a language problem. I proceeded to ask in more detail about routers finding that Asus was the brand with the most models on sale in a number of shops, and would like your opinions on the following.

I have a D-Link router, but it has software problems and the local agent is not very helpful or inclined to sort out the problem.
Consequently I chose Asus in my browsing as the local agent is very helpful and good with problems, at least they were, with my past two Asus computers.

The models I saw both had NAT, a built in firewall etc. they were:

WL-500g
WL-566gM

Generally, I have found here that it is not always the quality of the equipment, that is THE most important point to consider, although it is important. It is the quality of the service of the agent here that is of vital importance, for updates and when problems arise.

If you have different ideas on other brands or models, please quote them if not here, by private message and I will search more.

Regards to you both.(Harry & Rec9140)

============

To Rusty,

Referring to the Hong Kong LUG (Linux Users Group), it appears to be defunct.

One cannot register with them, being presented with a blank screen, and e-mails to the officers of the group are returned as 'unknown'.

Hong Kong seems to be a Linux desert, unless you know otherwise.

Thanks for bringing this up though, your efforts are appreciated.

[Harry Kuhman]

..version of a 'Live CD' of Knoppix that I have been using, ONLY has "dialing" tools for connecting, requiring a telephone number ...
You're wrong. Rusty pointed you at the correct link (http://www.knoppix.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=107504#107504). You even said you tried it, and it worked, but you ran in to another problem.

[johnbb]

Harry,

Thank you for your voluminous writings on this thread, I have even printed them out, but I've had enough, I'm not getting anywhere whatsoever.

I am not a computer geek, boffin or what have you. All I want is a stable system that works.

Linux, it seems, will have to be left for another day.

Thank you and Rec9140 and Rusty, please end this thread hence forth.

Regards

[johnbb]

A sequel to the thread..................

To Harry in particular, and others who tried to help me,

Success !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm connected.

Not with Knoppix yet, but with "Freespire's Linux" LiveCD. also a Debian Linux, AND, wait for it Harry..........., A ROUTER. In particular, not a wireless router, but one connected via ethernet cables.

I need now to eat humble pie.

Harry, you were correct, on setting up the router, everything was automatically connected with the computer, the browsers and with no setting up of the Linux system even. Everything just seemed to 'click' and fit together. Also the same with the Windows XP setup, everything connected smoothly, AND it appears that the booting process in Windows is somewhat quicker than without the router, why I have no idea.

Harry, it's now your turn to tell me "I told you so".

It was not because of the Linux problem that I got the router though, it was in fact to help out a friend to share my Internet connection that the router was bought. It was not expensive and complied with your recommended specifications, i.e. Built in Firewall and "Nat" etc. it is made in Taiwan and the brand is "Planet".

Thank you for your advise, BUT........... without the router it seems STILL to be almost impossible to connect via Linux at the present time, without additional software being installed for the type of connection that I am using. Namely, PPPoE/DSL without any dialing or phone numbers being required to connect to my ISP.

Regards