Hi Again.

I'm sorry to waste bandwith again, the last messages I sent were
sent from Lotus Notes in compressed format, I deeply regret that.
Here is the message once again, hopefully uncompressed.

Hi Stefan

you wrote:
 > 
 >  > The connection takes place through a black box labeled COM21,
 >  > modelno. CP1100D. I do not know what kind of device it is, my
 >  > ISP calls it a cable modem.
 > 
 > And there's no configuration needed for this device? If it's running

Appearently not, at least not from Windows and I was given no further
instructions or documents on the modem. The only instructions was on
how to set up a Windows PC in the network control panel. I tried that,
and it works.

 > e.g. PPP over some lower level protocol configuration might be
 > neccessary for authentication and dialing (if there is some sort of
 > dialing). There should also be some way of configuring the ethernet
 > interface of the cable modem. I assume this cable modem works like a
 > ISDN router. I.e. it has an ethernet interface and an interface to
 > your provider. The interface to your provider can be set up
 > dynamically but the ethernet side needs to be configured statically
 > because it is your RiscPC's default gateway.

I guess your assumptions are right, but I really don't know.

 >  > I was given the following IP-information:
 >  > ip-address:		192.168.89.234
 >  > network-address:	192.168.89.0
 >  > gateway:		192.168.89.254
 > 
 > No address for a name server?

Yes, but it should not be necessary in order to ping the gateway,
should it?

 >  > /etc/mygate:
 >  > gateway
 > 
 > You could try using the ip address (192.168.89.254) instead of a name here.

I guess it is not necessary as I get the address when I ping gateway,
so my system knows the address of gateway.

 >  > /etc/ifconfig.em0:
 >  > inet riscpc.stofanet.dk  
 > 
 > Likewise. Try using an ip address.

I have tried. It does not make any difference :-(

 >  > Why is the gateway definition marked as unreachable (flag=R)?
 > 
 > Your etherm card probably has no connection to the cable modem's
 > interface. The cable modem's interface could e.g. be configured for a
 > different ip address.

I think it does have a connection, at least tcpdump shows

14:28:51.569822 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:52.569822 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:53.569822 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:54.569822 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:54.616370 arp who-has 192.168.92.51 tell (0xcc06a) 192.168.80.254
14:28:55.569838 arp who-has 192.168.89.254 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.89.234
14:28:56.623456 arp who-has 192.168.80.103 tell (0xcc02e) 192.168.80.254
14:28:56.896606 arp who-has 192.168.88.193 tell (0xcc07e) 192.168.80.254

etc.


 > What output do you get when doing an
 > 
 >    arp -a

root@nethotel:/etc => arp -a
nethotel.dk (192.168.89.234) at 00:00:a4:11:57:d8 permanent
root@nethotel:/etc => 

The problem might be that the Arp-request from my NetBSD (for
gateway) does not get a valid result, if any at all. I guess my
problem boils down to find the Ethernet-address (MAC-address) of
the cable-modem.

If it is impossible to get when running NetBSD, is it then possible
to get it under Windows? If so, I could get it from there and
set it up for arp/rarpd on NetBSD?

I just did that. Getting the MAC-address of the CAble Modem with
Windows arp -a command was easy. It appears that IP-addresses
192.168.80.254 and 192.168.89.254 both refer to the Cable MOdem
MAC. I put the address 192.168.89.254 with the MAC-address into
/etc/ethers and started an rarpd, but there is still issued/broadcated
an arp-request when I ping 192.168.89.254. Why doesn't the rarpd
answer the request?


 >  > And why does it take so long to display a netstat -r by names?
 > 
 > My guess is that the name lookup tries to contact your name server,
 > runs on a timeout and then tries a name lookup by using /etc/hosts.

I guess you are right, but my /etc/resolv.conf file says

lookup file bind

so it ought to work the other way around with consequently lesser
delay. But it does not, why?

 > Can you ping your own interface (192.168.89.234)?

Yep.

 > From the output of the above commands I'd expect it to work. If your
 > own interface actually works then the next step is to try to ping the
 > gateway.

I did, as you noticed
 >  > 
 >  > The ping gateway returns:
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:20 # ping gateway
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:20 PING gateway (192.168.89.254): 56 data bytes
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:27 ping: sendto: Host is down
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:28 ping: sendto: Host is down
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:29 ping: sendto: Host is down
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:30 ping: sendto: Host is down
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:31 ping: sendto: Host is down
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:31 ^C
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:32 ----gateway PING Statistics----
 >  > 1998-10-15 19:16:32 11 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
 > 
 > So the name lookup works but it looks like your gateway is down.



 >  > Before anyone suggest my hardware may be faulty I can say that I tested
 >  > the cable modem with a PC, and it worked flawlessly. But during boot of
 >  > NetBSD/arm32 I have noticed, that when booting and the RiscPC is 
 >  > connected to a PC the boot messages show:
 >  > 
 >  > Oct  8 18:02:02 nethotel /netbsd: em0 at podulebus0 [ netslot 0 ]:
 >  > Oct  8 18:02:02 nethotel /netbsd: em0: Ethernet address 00:00:a4:11:57:d8
 >  > Oct  8 18:02:02 nethotel /netbsd: em0: 16KB buffer memory, UTP
 >  > 
 >  > OK, the PC might have been turned off at time of NetBSD boot. But when
 >  > booting with the RiscPC connected to the cable modem, I get:
 >  > 
 >  > Oct 17 13:31:32 riscpc /netbsd: em0 at podulebus0 [ netslot 0 ]:
 >  > Oct 17 13:31:32 riscpc /netbsd: em0: Ethernet address 00:00:a4:11:57:d8
 >  > Oct 17 13:31:32 riscpc /netbsd: em0: 16KB buffer memory, UTP reverse polarity, link OK, UTP
 >  > 
 >  > Is the reverse polarity the cause of the troubles?
 >  > I am using an Atomwide RiscPC EtherM card.
 > 
 > I don't think so. It seems that the arm32 driver is just a little
 > more verbose that the i386 driver.

Hmm, odd. I have only seen the above boot message (UTP reverse
polarity) once. But then again it does not seem to matter.


The next is still valid:

 >  > If anybody cares to answer then please do so by email, as it is
 >  > currently impossibly for me to download news using my current
 >  > telephone-based ISP.
 >  > 
 >  > Best regards
 >  >    Ib-Michael
 > 

Thank you for your time. Regards
   Ib-Michael
-- 
Ib-Michael Martinsen		Email at work: dtpimm@dsg.dk
Fidomail:      2:234/181.9	Email at home: imm@nethotel.dk

Running NetBSD/arm32 v1.3a on an Acorn RiscPC with a 202MHz StrongArm.