Bug 8523 - plip configures properly but fails to pass packets back
plip configures properly but fails to pass packets back
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 8654
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Michael K. Johnson
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2000-01-16 23:44 EST by bob nelson
Modified: 2009-03-13 16:34 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2000-03-02 12:08:53 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description bob nelson 2000-01-16 23:44:15 EST
Note computer A and computer B are identical. They both
have bidirectional parallel ports correctly configured, as
shown below.

1). Kernel 2.2.12-20 i386
2). Stock out of the box RH 6.1 install
3). parport module loaded
4). parport_pc io=0x378 irq=7 dma=7 loaded
5). plip parport=0 module loaded
6). computer A-ifconfig plip0 pointopoint
7). computer B-ifconfig plip0 pointopoint
8). computer A-route 255.255.255 UH plip0
9). computer B-route 255.255.255 UH plip0
10). there are no plip timeout errors
11). ping never responds on either machine
12). tcpdump -i plip0 shows that the packets are getting
through, with an ``icmp: echo request'' but no reply. This is
the case on both machines.
13). netstat -i also shows the expected count on RX-OK for both
boxes, no errors or overruns.

So...there's no problem with the packets getting to each box...
it's as if the packets aren't dispatched thereafter.
Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2000-02-06 01:30:59 EST
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 8624 ***
Comment 2 fred-m 2000-02-13 05:30:59 EST
Could you tell which packages need to be updated?
(I guess it's the kernel, because I installed all updates).

Also: are you sure this is a duplicate of bug 8624?
Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2000-03-02 12:08:59 EST
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 8654 ***Oops, typed in the duplicate number wrong.
Comment 4 David Lawrence 2009-03-13 16:34:54 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 8654 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.