Author Topic: Single NIC installation  (Read 14036 times)

reidfo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Single NIC installation
« on: April 01, 2007, 10:57:49 pm »
I would really like the option for a single NIC install, where LinuxMCE doesn't try to act as my router. For those of us with a perfectly good router already, and want to experiment with LinuxMCE, this is a big issue.

1audio

  • Addicted
  • *
  • Posts: 552
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2007, 08:16:56 am »
It can be done, I'm using it that way now. But you need LMCE to be the DHCP server to get the media directors to work and the PNP setup feature to work.

you configure the two functions under networking like this-
1) disable the router's DHCP server
2) Set the cores's IP to static and in the same range as the router.
3) enable the DHCP server and make sure its in a different range (LMCE uses 192.168.80 )

Elluminatus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2007, 11:45:55 am »
But I think the option that a Router can do all the DHCP stuff would be great to!!
Because all of us using a Ipcop router ore something like this it is not so nice to disable the easy to use configuration of the blue, orange and green net especially when you recognize that people would like to put Linuxmce in the DMZ...

Just my 2 cents
Elluminatus

Hugolp

  • Veteran
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2007, 01:11:40 am »
But if the linuxmce machine is not the dchp router it can not control when new media has been pluged and detect it to play it making the whole system more complicated.

Just make two networks like linuxmce suggest. One external with the router acting as a dchp server and the linuxmce core with an static ip, and the internal conected to the core that acts as a dchp server and nat firewall internet gateway. That way you plug your media directors to the internal network and the other computers to the external network. A pci gigabit ethernet card costed me 15 euros a month ago, and a gigabit 5 port swicht for my internal network costed me 25 euros, so its not expensive to do that set up.

Cryoniq

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2007, 05:47:58 am »
Single NIC option would be nice. I have struggled with problems currently which I belive is related to the fact that I set first NIC to 192.168.1.150 and second to, at first, 192.168.80.*

That didn't go well at all with shares etc it seems. Discovered nothing, since all equipment is in fact on the 192.168.1 network.

Why is that?

I have a hardware firewall/router with NAT, built in DHCP etc. All computers get their info from it and communicate through that device. It is small, cheap to run energywize etc. If I would make LMCE the router with DHCP enabled I would have to move all exisiting equipment over to the other network, which isn't practical at all. They already have what they need and a firewall to protect them and gateway. It would toss out IP to any other device in the home, either through ethernet or aerial wireless.

Another thing is that one might not want all features of LMCE. My interest was media playback and connect shares to it from where it could store and get videos, pictures, music from, as well play dvd's and rip them over to harddrive, either localy or remote network shares. Also when I choosen a good tv card use its TV features and use it as a VCR. And that is it, for the time being.

I am not saying to just have 1 NIC installed. I am saying that the install should have option to configure it with just 1 NIC, either ethernet or wireless NIC and it could talk through that and not act as a router, but mainly as a media station.

I also think that this is the main features that most are interested in at the moment. Not many have a home security system, nor security cameras, and they do not have the need for voice mail, don't have lighting system etc. I am pretty sure that the media features are in mind at a huge % of the crowd.
And as it is now, I would, as a developer, concentrate on those areas. I hope noone take offense for me saying that. I am really excited about LMCE and it is a task developers shall have credit for, even if it is a bit messy and weird atm.

LMCE with just the media features and functions working alone kick Windows MCE in the nuts many times over to start with. So it would be no shame at all sort out the installation, media part and option as it as a media center for tv, video and musik to start with. :P

jpelzer

  • First post!
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2007, 04:21:16 pm »
Talk about 'Single NIC' and 'no DHCP' seems to have veered from the original topic. One shouldn't need to use MCE as a router to use it as a DHCP server. This shouldn't even be a change within the core MCE, it's just adding an option to the install to NOT try to create a second network. My guess is that 99% of the users of MCE already have a router that is more functional than what MCE gives them (out of the box).

The best analogy for this that I can come up with is go to a store to buy an air freshener and be forced to buy a car to put it in.

PeteK

  • Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2007, 05:24:23 pm »
The thing to keep in mind is that this system was designed to be THE computing system in a house.  As such, it was assumed that the network for the home could be configured around it.  Actually, having two NICs and having your core act as your router for the devices attached to your LinuxMCE core makes a pretty nice sandbox to play with the system.  At least it does for me.  Jpelzer does bring up an excellent point in that DHCP can be utilized independently of the router (though I'm not sure LinuxMCE can do this right now).  I know Pluto gives the option of a single NIC install when the system is installed.  I guess the LinuxMCE developers removed that in the fork.  Is that correct?
 
To throw my $.02 in:

1) Pluto provided an opportunity for a single NIC install, so performing that with LinuxMCE should be fairly easy to do, but:
2) The PNP functionality of the LinuxMCE system is really neat, and I think important to expand the attractiveness of the system beyond the hardcore tinkerers who are playing with it now.
3) I respectfully disagree with Cryoniq that the voicemail, lighting, security features are not that important.  If I want just a media center with tv and video, I can use Myth and be done.  The strength of LinuxMCE/Pluto lies in the fact that it ties together all the disparate peices of hardware and software to create a cohesive system that makes sense and can allow control of a complex system through a (semi-intuitive) interface.  The fact that there are a lot of issues with the implementation still means that that is where the developers (I hope to be included) should spend their effort, as that is the true magic happens.

Cryoniq

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2007, 11:16:02 pm »
The thing to keep in mind is that this system was designed to be THE computing system in a house.  As such, it was assumed that the network for the home could be configured around it.  Actually, having two NICs and having your core act as your router for the devices attached to your LinuxMCE core makes a pretty nice sandbox to play with the system.  At least it does for me.  Jpelzer does bring up an excellent point in that DHCP can be utilized independently of the router (though I'm not sure LinuxMCE can do this right now).  I know Pluto gives the option of a single NIC install when the system is installed.  I guess the LinuxMCE developers removed that in the fork.  Is that correct?
 
To throw my $.02 in:

1) Pluto provided an opportunity for a single NIC install, so performing that with LinuxMCE should be fairly easy to do, but:
2) The PNP functionality of the LinuxMCE system is really neat, and I think important to expand the attractiveness of the system beyond the hardcore tinkerers who are playing with it now.
3) I respectfully disagree with Cryoniq that the voicemail, lighting, security features are not that important.  If I want just a media center with tv and video, I can use Myth and be done.  The strength of LinuxMCE/Pluto lies in the fact that it ties together all the disparate peices of hardware and software to create a cohesive system that makes sense and can allow control of a complex system through a (semi-intuitive) interface.  The fact that there are a lot of issues with the implementation still means that that is where the developers (I hope to be included) should spend their effort, as that is the true magic happens.

Oh that is ok. I am just pointing out that right now there seem to be a need to fix the media functions. Of course voicemail. lighting, security features are important to LMCE as a whole; But we are in beta right now and one have to start somewhere and work from the top and out. The media functions like TV, Video, Music, Pictures, Remotes and mount of information via local drives and shares are what drawn most of the people towards LMCE. I discovered LMCE from a discussion on a IT news resource forum and many people thought it looked awesome and all made remarks about just those parts and issued strong interest for them.

Of course I realise that everyone cannot work on those things and some doesn't have the knowledge and experience of that, which will work and develope the voicemail, security etc. I am not saying those people should drop what they doing and turn on the media features. Just so noone think I am doing that.

I am sure these things are adressed as we.. uhm write.. and that it is a concern and goal of the developers as well naturally. So I point out that I am not ranting, even if it might seem like it. I just think LMCE got huge potential and I would love to see the interest explode around it. But in order for that the install have to be close to flawless and easy and the main parts that draw most people to it need to work.

I might seem irritated from time to time. But that is out of the fact that I discovered LMCE, watched the video and everything was under PR flag that it was just pop in ubuntu, download and install and things would be taken care of and ready for showtime. And that turned out to be very far away. So after spending several days and nights fiddling with it all and headaches it gets very frustrating.
I really hope people haven't been scared away experiencing the same as I have and that they stay tuned and realise this is a work in progress of course. :)

I will try do my best to submit feature requests and bug reports to make LMCE  grow and flourish :) And I will yell when something is wrong, but I do it out of love for LMCE (omg that was covered in pink and fluff!) :P

totallymaxed

  • LinuxMCE God
  • ****
  • Posts: 4351
    • View Profile
    • Dianemo - at home with technology
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2007, 12:33:11 am »
The thing to keep in mind is that this system was designed to be THE computing system in a house.  As such, it was assumed that the network for the home could be configured around it.  Actually, having two NICs and having your core act as your router for the devices attached to your LinuxMCE core makes a pretty nice sandbox to play with the system.  At least it does for me.  Jpelzer does bring up an excellent point in that DHCP can be utilized independently of the router (though I'm not sure LinuxMCE can do this right now).  I know Pluto gives the option of a single NIC install when the system is installed.  I guess the LinuxMCE developers removed that in the fork.  Is that correct?
 
To throw my $.02 in:

1) Pluto provided an opportunity for a single NIC install, so performing that with LinuxMCE should be fairly easy to do, but:
2) The PNP functionality of the LinuxMCE system is really neat, and I think important to expand the attractiveness of the system beyond the hardcore tinkerers who are playing with it now.
3) I respectfully disagree with Cryoniq that the voicemail, lighting, security features are not that important.  If I want just a media center with tv and video, I can use Myth and be done.  The strength of LinuxMCE/Pluto lies in the fact that it ties together all the disparate peices of hardware and software to create a cohesive system that makes sense and can allow control of a complex system through a (semi-intuitive) interface.  The fact that there are a lot of issues with the implementation still means that that is where the developers (I hope to be included) should spend their effort, as that is the true magic happens.

All our Core's are single NIC now... and we have no problems with that config under lmce at all. It works fine... no different to the way it did under Pluto in fact.
Andy Herron,
Convergent Home Technologies Ltd
United Kingdom
@herron

Dianemo S Now Shipping on Ubuntu 12.04LTS
Build your system on the latest Ubuntu LTS OS Release!

Get a Dianemo S License: http://forum.linuxmce.org/index.php?topic=8880.0
iOS Orbiter: http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php/Dianemo_iOS_Orbiter
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dianemo-Home-Automation/226019387454465

Sales & Info:
http://www.dianemo.co.uk

bobpaul

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2007, 07:26:25 pm »
All our Core's are single NIC now... and we have no problems with that config under lmce at all. It works fine... no different to the way it did under Pluto in fact.

How exactly is that configured?

It seems to me I should be able to do at least 1 of 2 setups for Single NIC setup:

NIC has two IP addresses.
Main router is 192.168.1.1 which has DHCP disabled. LMCE runs static 192.168.1.10 to connect to the router (and thus internet) and static 192.168.80.1 to serve DHCP and gateway for other systems on the network, routing traffic to 192.168.1.1 router. This doubles the traffic on the NIC as data comes in on the .80.x network and leaves the same port bound for the .1.x network. The main router would have to have an entry for the .80.x network if port forwarding was required on client machines. It's also possible the main router config tool only allows forwarding to addresses on the .1.x network, regardless of manual routing table entries (Linksys stock firmware, for example).
This seems to be the default for LMCE, or am I wrong?

LMCE for DHCP only, no routing.
Main router is 192.168.1.1 with DHCP disabled. LMCE runs static 192.168.1.10 to serve as DHCP server. DHCP packets setup clients to use 192.168.1.1 as default gateway but to network boot from 192.168.1.10. All computers are still on the .1.x network, so no considerations need to be made from the main router perspective for things like port forwarding.
This is how I would prefer and intend to setup and seems to be the most sensible setup for a single NIC system.

During the install I told it my network base was 192.168.1 and it immediately assigned a second IP to the NIC of 192.168.1.1, causing a conflict with my main router. It seems I need to manually configure the network to set it up as I want.

bobpaul

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2007, 07:43:06 am »
Ok. I made SOME progress on option 2, though option 1 seems to be the default and works fine, I don't like it cause I'm pretty sure that would double internet bound traffic on that 1 link making that a significant congestion point (not to mention that it already has all of that media streaming out of it).

If you edit /etc/dhcp3/dhcpd.conf and change "option routers" to 192.198.1.1 it will setup your default gateway to be that. You can now turn off DHCP on your router and LinuxMCE will take over DHCP, but set your actual router up as the default gateway. If you want, you can also add additional nameserver lines to list your actual router as a name server, your isp's nameservers, etc. This works fine and LinuxMCE can detect new devices, but network boot doesn't work.

The problem is that network boot requires that the primary default gateway (router) is LinuxMCE. The work around would appear to be setting up groups. Comment out the two lines beginning "filename" and "option pxe" in the subnet group. This will prevent pxe boot from most of your machines.

Now alter the following like so:
Code: [Select]
# PXE booting machines
group {
        option routers 192.168.1.10;
        next-server 192.168.1.10;
        filename "/tftpboot/pxelinux.0";
        option pxelinux.reboottime = 30;

        host vmware { hardware ethernet 00:0c:29:0c:66:f4; }
}

I added the option routers line and the host line. The option routers line means "for machines that boot from PXE, use this as the default gateway instead of the default declared above." The host line means "this host arbitrarily called vmware has the hardware address of __ and belongs to this group" That is to say, if you have to declare each machine you want to network boot to be IN the network boot group. Only the machines listed (each on it's own line with name and mac) will boot form the network and use LMCE as their default gateway. That way, it will only be THOSE machines who double their internet traffic, and chances are these machines won't access the internet, unless they also double as a PC.

Unfortunately, the above doesn't work. I'm declaring how a host is in a group improperly, and I can't figure it out from the man page. If someone with dhcpd experience can correct me, that'd be great. Until then, all but network boot works.

bobpaul

  • Regular Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2007, 12:43:10 am »
I got it! The host declaration also requires a fixed-address line to set a static-dhcp address. According to the manpage, this is not so, but when I added that in, it worked. So, modify for your use the attached config. Results are as follows:

Pro:
*Only 1 network is run, 192.168.1.x
*Most hosts on the network utilize the main router, 192.168.1.1

Con:
*Machines that PXE boot will use LMCE as their default gateway. This then routes the traffic back out the same nic to the main router.
*Machines using PXE boot must be listed individually
*Machines use PXE boot must have a fixed-address applied by dhcp. This is not a big deal, but requires more coordination on your part.

/etc/dhcp/dhcpd.conf
Code: [Select]
# option definitions common to all supported networks...
#option domain-name "fugue.com";
#option domain-name-servers toccata.fugue.com;
option domain-name-servers 192.168.1.10;   #I'm running dnsmasq on the LMCE Core
option domain-name-servers 192.168.1.1;
authoritative;

option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;

# lease IPs for 1 day, maximum 1 week
default-lease-time 86400;
max-lease-time 604800;

allow booting;
allow bootp;

option space pxelinux;
option pxelinux.magic code 208 = string;
option pxelinux.configfile code 209 = text;
option pxelinux.pathprefix code 210 = text;
option pxelinux.reboottime code 211 = unsigned integer 32;

subnet 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
        next-server 192.168.1.10;
        option routers 192.168.1.1;

        default-lease-time 86400;
        max-lease-time 604800;
        pool {
                 allow unknown-clients;
                 range 192.168.1.151 192.168.1.254;
        }
}

# PXE booting machines
group {   
        next-server 192.168.1.10;
        option routers 192.168.1.10;
        filename "/tftpboot/pxelinux.0";
        option pxelinux.reboottime = 30;

        host vmware {
               hardware ethernet 00:0c:29:0c:66:f4;
               fixed-address 192.168.1.20;
         }
}

# regular machines
group {
}

# CORE (1) has bad mac address:

Change the IPs to match your network. Change the name "vmware" to some name for that host. Change the mac address to match your host's mac address. Change the fixed-address to something that won't cause conflicts.
To add hosts, add more host sections in that group.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2007, 12:47:45 am by bobpaul »

totallymaxed

  • LinuxMCE God
  • ****
  • Posts: 4351
    • View Profile
    • Dianemo - at home with technology
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2007, 05:19:33 pm »
All our Core's are single NIC now... and we have no problems with that config under lmce at all. It works fine... no different to the way it did under Pluto in fact.

How exactly is that configured?

It seems to me I should be able to do at least 1 of 2 setups for Single NIC setup:

NIC has two IP addresses.
Main router is 192.168.1.1 which has DHCP disabled. LMCE runs static 192.168.1.10 to connect to the router (and thus internet) and static 192.168.80.1 to serve DHCP and gateway for other systems on the network, routing traffic to 192.168.1.1 router. This doubles the traffic on the NIC as data comes in on the .80.x network and leaves the same port bound for the .1.x network. The main router would have to have an entry for the .80.x network if port forwarding was required on client machines. It's also possible the main router config tool only allows forwarding to addresses on the .1.x network, regardless of manual routing table entries (Linksys stock firmware, for example).
This seems to be the default for LMCE, or am I wrong?

LMCE for DHCP only, no routing.
Main router is 192.168.1.1 with DHCP disabled. LMCE runs static 192.168.1.10 to serve as DHCP server. DHCP packets setup clients to use 192.168.1.1 as default gateway but to network boot from 192.168.1.10. All computers are still on the .1.x network, so no considerations need to be made from the main router perspective for things like port forwarding.
This is how I would prefer and intend to setup and seems to be the most sensible setup for a single NIC system.

During the install I told it my network base was 192.168.1 and it immediately assigned a second IP to the NIC of 192.168.1.1, causing a conflict with my main router. It seems I need to manually configure the network to set it up as I want.

Here is how we setup all our Pluto/lmce systems;

The Hybrid/Core has a single NIC. Physically the Hybrid/Core is connected to the LAN port of a Wireless AP/Router the other MD's are also connected to LAN ports on the Wireless AP/Router. The broadband is connected to the WAN port on the Wireless AP/Router.

The Hybrid/Core is configured with its Internal LAN in the IP address range 192.168.80.2 to 80.128 for MD's and 80.129 to 80.240 for none MD devices. The Hybrid/Core is on the fixed address of 192.168.80.1. The External WAN side address the Hybrid/Core is set to a fixed address of 192.168.20.99 and its gateway address is set to 192.168.20.1 (which is the Wireless AP/Router)

We have several Core's setup this way and it wirks fine. Hope this helps

Andrew
Andy Herron,
Convergent Home Technologies Ltd
United Kingdom
@herron

Dianemo S Now Shipping on Ubuntu 12.04LTS
Build your system on the latest Ubuntu LTS OS Release!

Get a Dianemo S License: http://forum.linuxmce.org/index.php?topic=8880.0
iOS Orbiter: http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php/Dianemo_iOS_Orbiter
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dianemo-Home-Automation/226019387454465

Sales & Info:
http://www.dianemo.co.uk

ariznaf

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2007, 01:54:06 am »
I have a LMCE installation similar to the one described byt TotallyMaxed and the core works perfectly: it has 192.168.1.250 as external ip address (connected to a adsl router in 192.168.1.254) and an internal addresss 192.168.2.250 acting as a DHCP server in that net.
I have turned off the DHCP server in the ADSL router.
I have other computer (running windows vista) that takes addresses from LMCE dhcp server (it take 192.168.2.249 address) and using the MCE as its gateway...
BTW when the MCE computer is down - it shouldn't but i am testing the MCE hybrid install and the MD isn't working yet- i have configured a second static address in my vista computer as 192.168.1.1 and the gateway IP address of the adsl router 192.168.1.254. Thus i can surf internet in the vista computer even if the MCE computer is turned off, just have to reboot or reload the network interfaces.

I agree that DHCP server in LMCE is crucial for its functionality. If you want just a media server, there are many other options. Media server is just one of the things the LMCE can do. It is a residential gateway and thus it is the central point of communications and security of our home network. It has to take control of IP given and new devices connected, and for that, being the DHCP server makes lot of sense.
Taking control of all devices in the home assures security and future changes and developement in the LMCE without afecting the devices and without having to install software in the devices to interoperate with the LMCE system.

Anyway you can turn off the DHCP server in MCE, but you loose the new device detection from LMCE: for detecting a device it has to ask for an IP - it cannot be detected if you use a static ip, either- and LMCE must serve the IP addresses.

May be there are other ways of detecting new devices, but are not so clean.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2007, 02:26:17 am by ariznaf »

ant_tm

  • Guest
Re: Single NIC installation
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2007, 12:12:05 am »
The problem with the 2 router method (your existing router and the core system as a router with DHCP services enabled on the internal network with effectively a DMZ in between) is that the most people have a wireless router as their existing router.  This means that wireless devices get their IP addresses assigned by your original router in the DMZ and so LMCE never sees them.  A default 1 network card installation option seems so much more obvious to me.

Note: I don't actually have a wireless router - I've been using IPCOP for a long time - but everyone I know that doesn't consider tinering with linux as a hobby does.  I see LMCE as a router as adding too much complexity.  I could use LMCE as the only router but I think manually configuring the flexability of IPCOP into LMCE would be similar to sticking forks into my thighs.  My life gets more complicated next week when I do join that group in the first paragraph when the d-link wireless-N router I have ordered turns up (I was possessed when I ordered it :)  Can anyone say "3 router solution" ?  At the moment I think I will just configure it as an access point :)