OT: wlan0 is sssloooow

On 11/27/06, Sergio Polini <sp_rm_ityahoo.it> wrote:
> NB: ping www.google.com is slow, ping 192.168.2.1 is
either too much
> slow or blocked.
> route is slow, route -n is fast.

Ok, two things to try.  First, remove the 192.168.2.1
nameserver from
resolve.conf.  That "nameserver" may be broken and
unable to resolve
names on the internet.  This should help the "ping
www.google.com"
case.

Second, does "ping -I wlan0 192.168.2.1" work
better?

Oh, one last thing....you don't have any firewall rules
enabled,
right?  (iptables --list)

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-usergentoo.org mailing list

Richard Fish:
> Ok, two things to try.  First, remove the 192.168.2.1
nameserver
> from resolve.conf.  That "nameserver" may be
broken and unable to
> resolve names on the internet.  This should help the
"ping
> www.google.com" case.

Yes, I've already said that, but.... you are great! 
I read your message this morning quickly, when I was going
to work, 
and didn'understand it.
Then I've spoken to a colleague of mine, a true network
guru, a very 
capable ethical hacker, and I've understood! (I suppose....)
My wireless router:
a) runs a (WAN) DHCP client to get its IP address and the IP
addresses 
of my provider's nameservers;
b) it get those IP addresses to send them to me when I run a
DHCP 
client; my wireless router runs a (LAN) DHCP server too, but
it is 
*not* a nameserver;
c) my DHCP client was configured as usual, i.e.
"replace 
my /etc/resolv.conf"; I've added

dhcpcd_toynet="-R -h sergio"
               ^^

to /etc/conf.d/wireless and restarted /etc/init.d/net.wlan0.
Now... there is no line "nameserver 192.168.2.1"
in 
my /etc/resolv.conf and ping www.google.com is fast 

BTW: This evening I've started running Windows at first.
ipconfig /all 
showed three nameservers, and 192.168.2.1 was the first one.
However, when I ran nslookup, the message was clear:
192.168.2.1 is 
not a nameserver. Why the difference between fast (Windows)
and slow 
(my previous Gentoo box) Internet pings? Perhaps because the
Windows 
timeout is short: 2 seconds. I do not know how to eventually
set such 
a timeout in Linux....

> Second, does "ping -I wlan0 192.168.2.1" work
better?

Nope. ping <-I wlan0 or -n> 192.168.2.1 is still
blocked.
Well, it's just a nuisance, but I'll keep looking for a
solution.
Any hints would be greately appreciated 
That's not strange, because:

sergio ~ # nmap -sS -O -PI -PT 192.168.2.1

Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org
/nmap/ ) at 2006-11-28 
22:21 CET
Interesting ports on 192.168.2.1:
Not shown: 1678 closed ports
PORT     STATE    SERVICE
80/tcp   open     http
4662/tcp filtered edonkey
MAC Address: 00:17:3F:0C:19:12 (Belkin)
Device type: broadband router
Running: Netgear embedded
OS details: Netgear Wireless router or Netgear
FM114P/REPOTEC IP515H 
Router & Print Server

Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 4.834
seconds

i.e., port 7 (Echo) looks closed. Does Windows' ping (which
works) 
speak eDonkey? (very OT question 

> Oh, one last thing....you don't have any firewall rules
enabled,
> right?  (iptables --list)

Right. I wish to configure my real (wire and wireless
connection to my 
ISP) and virtual (VMWare) networks, and then enable
iptables.

Thanks a lot, as usual 
Sergio

PS: I wish to thank Thomas Sjolshagen (private message) and
Hans de 
Hartog too. If one doesn't feel lonely when he tries to
solve a 
problem, well.... that helps a lot! My English is poor, but
I hope 
that you understand what I mean 
-- 
gentoo-usergentoo.org mailing list