LinuxMCE as DHCP server, NOT gateway!

[unsolicited]

I'm tired of arguing. Make a patch that keeps our functionality that allows what you want, or....set it up like we say.

I'm not arguing. I hear you and substantially agree with what you're saying. 'These are our design goals.' 'It works for the intent for which it was designed.' 'All contributions welcome that enhance. (And not break.)'

But, I'll add ... I'm tired of the attitude - in some aspects it's overwhelming. IF YOU MUST BE THE GATEWAY - BE THE GATEWAY. WITH ALL THE DYNAMIC SPECIFICATIONS (especially due to convergence) THAT THAT IMPLIES. OTHERWISE, STOP BEING THE GATEWAY. This is the crux of the noise - be a gateway, or don't be a gateway - pick one. As a design direction.

What you're really getting at, but is often overshadowed - hey, people, we've come this far. It's a good thing. Yes, we all recognize there's lots to do yet. We'll get there, some day, maybe. This stuff doesn't just spring in to being instantaneously.

And, also overshadowed - hey people, it's free. It's what it is. We'd all like to make it 'better'. But our hours are already tapped out. If you (the user) want it to be better, then we need you to contribute some of your own hours to help us make it better. It's 'free' only in $, it is what it is. If you want it to be different, and the community agrees with those differences, it's up to you (the user) to contribute them. If LinuxMCE works for you and satisfies all of your requirements, we're really happy for you, and quite gratified. But if it doesn't, well, only you can make it better.

Mr. User, please reference: http://wiki.linuxmce.com/index.php/LinuxMCE_wiki:Site_support

Now I get your perspective - forest and trees. And your fatigue - just how many times can you say the same thing over and over without getting at least a little testy. Particularly as they are repeated distractions from actually moving forward.

There's a basic constraint: (gateway) all or nothing. But the nature of the environment is most of the time you must integrate with, or seamlessly transition from, the current environment. The constraint means two states: 'broken', or 'working'. Broken = bad. Working takes some non-zero time to accomplish. And that's the rub. Unfortunately. But that's the way it is. Sorry 'bout that. So, the irritation is understandable, on every side. People want drop in, fire and forget, functionality. Unrealistically - that doesn't happen, for these type of applications, even in the pay world.

No doubt, on the list of things to do, is the be a gateway or not issue(s).

Let me iterate here ... thank you for being here.

[tschak909]

Well put.

-Thom

[Rusty_Shackleford]

I'm new to LinuxMCE, but not new to networking.  Why not setup another subnet for LinuxMCE?  Leave your existing network in place, setup your core, plug the internet facing nic into your current network, give it a static IP address, then plugin either a cheap switch or another wifi ap (with a different SSId and channel) to the internal NIC on the core, then hang all your MDs off that? 

I believe this would also limit traffic on the LinuxMCE network to only media traffic so you should reduce the chance of stuttering or other media issues.

Hopefully this will work because that's what I intend to attempt to do.

[unsolicited]

I'm new to LinuxMCE, but not new to networking.  Why not setup another subnet for LinuxMCE?  ...

Every device in the house has some level of media capability. Or the point of presence for a bluetooth dongle, and so on and so forth. A second network would mean duplicating devices.

[Dale_K]

I'm new to LinuxMCE, but not new to networking.  Why not setup another subnet for LinuxMCE?  Leave your existing network in place, setup your core, plug the internet facing nic into your current network, give it a static IP address, then plugin either a cheap switch or another wifi ap (with a different SSId and channel) to the internal NIC on the core, then hang all your MDs off that? 

I believe this would also limit traffic on the LinuxMCE network to only media traffic so you should reduce the chance of stuttering or other media issues.

Hopefully this will work because that's what I intend to attempt to do.

This configuration works swimmingly and is exactly how I run my setup.

LinuxMCE external network plugged into wireless router that serves my home computer networking and internet access.  LinuxMCE gets dynamic 192.168.1.x address.

LinuxMCE internal network plugged into a switch that also has a wireless access point attached.  Running the default 192.168.80.x subnet.

All LinuxMCE related equipment is connected to the internal network via hardwire or wireless to the accesspoint.

The only special configuration is I have to open the LinuxMCE firewall to allow communication from my PC's to LinuxMCE through the external interface. (The 192.168.1.x subnet).

I have run this configuration from day one and I'm very happy with it.  There is no impact on my internal network or my LinuxMCE network and I don't get any annoying 'found new shit' on my Core everytime I plug a laptop/hdd/whatever into my network.  It has the added benefit of maintaining internet connectivity on my PC network even when my Core is down.  (Which is pretty frequent due to my tinkering).

[unsolicited]

... and I don't get any annoying 'found new shit' ...

(-:

I'm not disputing or disagreeing with anything you say, but the intent of the first post in the thread was to attempt to work within the framework of the design of LinuxMCE. As we are so often told to do. And, theoretically, if not in practice, once the core is built, it's built. (Not in practice in the sense that functionality is evolving, not static.)

If I understand correctly, could you not accomplish the same functionality you mention by turning off the firewall and DHCP in the core? (Everything being on the same network.)

[tschak909]

*shakes-his-head*

You guys are needlessly complicating your setups.

Why? WHY?!?!

The system is MEANT to integrate into your home. It's MEANT to consolidate all your technology. If you don't let it do that, you don't get the full benefits of the system. Plain and simple.

The more you fight what this system tries to do, the less you can use it.

But that's fine, you control freaks just keep going on, and breaking the system.

-Thom

[Dale_K]

... and I don't get any annoying 'found new shit' ...

(-:

I'm not disputing or disagreeing with anything you say, but the intent of the first post in the thread was to attempt to work within the framework of the design of LinuxMCE. As we are so often told to do. And, theoretically, if not in practice, once the core is built, it's built. (Not in practice in the sense that functionality is evolving, not static.)

What I mean by that is that when my kids comes over and plug their laptops in or connect to the wireless, LMCE would give me the 'found new shit'.  With my PC network and LMCE network separate, my Core will only detect hardware I intentionally want to connect to LMCE.

If I understand correctly, could you not accomplish the same functionality you mention by turning off the firewall and DHCP in the core? (Everything being on the same network.)

No, the Core MUST be the DHCP server for your LMCE installation.  I don't know exactly why other than an ass-ton of stuff stops working if it isn't.

[tschak909]

Sure, people plug in their laptops, but you just tell it not to ask about it again. Problem solved.

*shake-head*

-Thom

[Dale_K]

Sure, people plug in their laptops, but you just tell it not to ask about it again. Problem solved.

*shake-head*

-Thom

Or, never deal with it at all.
*shake-head*

[hari]

i like vlans

*shake head*

[Zaerc]

I like ice-cream.

*nod head*

[tschak909]

ROFLMAO.

I'm just trying to prove a point really... The more you guys fight the system, the less it works for you. It's a smart home, and if you spend a bit of time using it as intended, it will work better in the long run.

-Thom

[Dale_K]

ROFLMAO.

I'm just trying to prove a point really... The more you guys fight the system, the less it works for you. It's a smart home, and if you spend a bit of time using it as intended, it will work better in the long run.

-Thom

I think I just disagree in my specific situation.  If it were a case of my system was complete and running all the time, I might agree.  But a good example is that my Core is down right now (I crashed it, again).  If the system were setup 'as intended' I would have no internet on any of my PC's.  This is not acceptable.  I do a lot of stuff with my internet connection including hosting a Teamspeak Server, FTP Server and Web Server on a Win2K3 box.  My wife and I play WoW as well so "I know you can't play while I'm at work because the LMCE server is down." would most likely end in divorce and quite possibly physical harm to my person.

In the separate physical network configuration I am taking nothing away from the LMCE installation.  As far as my Core is concerned the setup IS 'as intended', it's just blind to my PC network.

I'm not saying my configuration is better or worse than any other.  I'm saying it's a viable option for those that are in similar circumstances and I have yet to see any negative reprocussions as a result of this configuration.

[hari]

your mileage may vary, but I'm doing quite some strange things with my core (my development core is my main lmce system :-). I'm telecommuter and never had unplanned outages because of the core. The nat/routing itself is rock solid. And it boots quite fast, my vpn client session on my workstation does even survive when i reboot the core. If things would go really bad, I could also directly connect to the DSL/Router/WLAN combo from my provider.

If you really want to separate things, given the total cost of a "proper" LMCE installation with a few gadgets, a VLAN capable switch does not really add much. Then you can patch your outlets to the lmce network or your other network. Done.

br, Hari