Its my understanding that all that is needed is the cx... ID for their DHCP
servers. In windows, it happens to be the same number if I remember right.
If @Home required "SMB/NetBEUI" then they would be leaving a rather large
hole in their users computers.
>From the rfc @ [http://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2131.txt]
DHCP defines a new 'client identifier' option that is used to pass an
explicit client identifier to a DHCP server. This change eliminates
the overloading of the 'chaddr' field in BOOTP messages, where
'chaddr' is used both as a hardware address for transmission of BOOTP
reply messages and as a client identifier. The 'client identifier'
is an opaque key, not to be interpreted by the server; for example,
the 'client identifier' may contain a hardware address, identical to
the contents of the 'chaddr' field, or it may contain another type of
identifier, such as a DNS name. The 'client identifier' chosen by a
DHCP client MUST be unique to that client within the subnet to which
the client is attached. If the client uses a 'client identifier' in
one message, it MUST use that same identifier in all subsequent
messages, to ensure that all servers correctly identify the client.
>From what I know, the cx number is the 'client identifier' mentioned in the
rfc. Now unless @Home stopped using the DHCP protocol 'client identifier'
to determine address allocation, there should not be any problem using
non-windows devices(linux boxen, linksys Cable/DSL routers, etc) to connect
to the @Home network.
John Albee
guesswho911@home.com
-----Original Message-----
From:
plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
[
mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of George
Toft
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 9:45 AM
To:
plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
Subject: Re: Cox now insists on DHCP protocol
Let me understand this - Cox *requires* the use of SMB/NetBEUI [with
Windows]? Where's the defibrillator?
George
Nathan England wrote:
>
> Forgive my ignorance...
> I used cox for about 3 weeks at a prior address, until I moved.
> They didn't have the area finished so they were only giving the Cox
> @home Express option, which was just half speed for half the price..
>
> I played a lot with the dhcp trying to get it to work. I had no other
> choice. I can't remember real well, but I did get it to work.
>
> I set eth0 to be static at 192.168.1.1 then setup samba to be on the
> @home workgroup like they want the windows systems.
> I set the 'netbios name = ' to whatever the name was, I forget now..
>
> I would wait a few minutes and try smbclient -U% -L //mynetbiosname
> and as long as it worked I would then
>
> ifconfig eth0 down
> dhcpcd
>
> Then it would pick up an ip and if I waited a few minutes.. I could try
> smbclient -U% -L //mynetbiosname and it would list a cox machine as the
> domain master..
> after which cox' network couldn't tell I wasn't a windows box and the
> internet would start working.
> I was under the impression that they had ip checking setup and only
> allowed access if the netbiosname was in their database.
>
> I may be completely wrong, but it's worth a shot to anyone who must
> play. I hope this helps in the battle somewhere. If someone does get it
> to work, please post back here for anyone else who might be having
> problems.. I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing working results.
>
> Sorry I can't give more details, but that was over a year ago now and
> only a 3 week stent..
>
> nathan
>
> On Thu, 2001-10-25 at 22:44, tim cutler wrote:
> > Like most linux users on Cox@home, I have a static IP address. Now,
> > Cox@home has sent me email and tells me that they have "identified" my
> > computer as having a static address and not using DHCP protocol. They
> > are now insisting on my computer to adopt the DHCP protocol.
> >
> > I never managed to get DHCP protocol to work on my linux and wound up
> > using a static IP address (as was recommended here, thanks) to good
effect.
> >
> > I've tried the linux netcfg GUI, selecting "DHCP" for the protocol. As
> > soon as I do that, I'm off the network.
> >
> > So, my trial and error begins again. I'm looking for any breadcrumb
> > clues to speed this unpleasant process up. I prefer NOT to use the f!@**
> > netcfg GUI (I hate that GUI; unless it works EVERY time it should always
> > tell you what files it's "fixing"). I would rather get pointed to any
> > /etc/ files that matter.
> >
> > I have RedHat 7.1. I don't get why this is so hard for linux.
> >
> > tc
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> >
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
________________________________________________
See
http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post
to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)