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