| 1 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> [14-11-29 07:32]: |
| 2 |
> On 29/11/2014 08:14, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > After your email I read the output of dmesg more precisely ... and now |
| 5 |
> > knowing (due to your post :) what to look for and found that |
| 6 |
> > the detection of another usb-ethernet-device attached to my PC created |
| 7 |
> > another usb<n> (first: usb0, second: usb1). |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > I put the first Arietta into the net 192.168.10.x and the second |
| 10 |
> > Arietta into net 192.168.11.x and do two different ifconfig for usb0 |
| 11 |
> > and the other one for usb1 and TADA! - I could ssh into both! |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > This is not THAT elegant (wasting a complete subnet), but it proofes, |
| 14 |
> > that both boards are /relly/ ok... |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> In truth you are not wasting a complete subnet (whatever that is), you |
| 18 |
> have merely specified a range 256 times larger than what you want to have. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> In networking you are not limited to ranges that end on an octet |
| 21 |
> boundary (we got rid of *that* limitation 10+ years ago). Instead just |
| 22 |
> do this: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> board #1: 192.168.0.100/32 |
| 25 |
> board #2: 192.168.0.101/32 |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Now you have specified "subnet" that are each exactly one ip address |
| 28 |
> wide. All modern software know what to do with this. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Adapt the addresses to your own network design and you should be good to go. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Alan |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> -- |
| 39 |
> Alan McKinnon |
| 40 |
> alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Hi Alan, |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
thanks a lot for that ! 8) |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Best regards, |
| 49 |
Meino |
Archives