No IP assignment at TMobile hotspots

I'm kinda stuck on this one, and could use a pointer as to what to do
next.
Using a laptop running SuSE 9.1Pro with a Cisco Aironet 350 card,
I've been able to use my home WLAN (WEP encrypted) and a friend's
(unencrypted), in both cases taking IP addresses from the respective
DHCP servers, with no problems.
But at a Kniko's or Borders, while iwconfig and iwlist show me as
being associated to the "tmobile" AP, I never get an IP address.
Attempts to ping or traceroute result in "destination network
unreachable." I've used the tmobile APs at these same locations many
times before, using XP, with nary a problem.
This is a pretty serious problem for me, since I live by this laptop,
on the road anywhere from 8-10 months/year. If I can't connect to
broadband on the road (which is increasingly wireless rather than
wired, these days), I'm stuck.
So far, I've tried rebooting on location with the card slotted, and
'rcnetwork restart.' I've tried 'ifconfig down' and 'up' on the card,
as well. So far, nothing works. I've run out of tricks to try, and
Google comes up empty. Anybody have a suggestion?

Note that I'm crossposting this to alt.os.linux.suse and
comp.os.linux.networking, where you will likely find better
answers, or at least more discussion, for the systems admin
questions.

David McMillan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I'm kinda stuck on this one, and could use a pointer as
>to what to do next.
> Using a laptop running SuSE 9.1Pro with a Cisco Aironet
>350 card, I've been able to use my home WLAN (WEP encrypted) and
>a friend's (unencrypted), in both cases taking IP addresses from
>the respective DHCP servers, with no problems.

This appears to be a configuration problem with the DCHP client.

> But at a Kniko's or Borders, while iwconfig and iwlist
>show me as being associated to the "tmobile" AP, I never get an
>IP address. Attempts to ping or traceroute result in
>"destination network unreachable." I've used the tmobile APs at
>these same locations many times before, using XP, with nary a
>problem.

What does your route table look like?

> So far, I've tried rebooting on location with the card
>slotted, and 'rcnetwork restart.' I've tried 'ifconfig down'
>and 'up' on the card, as well. So far, nothing works. I've run
>out of tricks to try, and Google comes up empty. Anybody have a
>suggestion?

The interface appears to be working fine, as iwconfig shows it
associated with the AP. But doesn't seem to be a route to
the hosts you are trying to access, and it may not have DNS either.

I'm not familiar with SuSe, but if you post the output from

/sbin/route -n

and

/bin/cat /etc/resolv.conf

it will show what you have. (Throw in the output from iwconfig
too, so the route table will make sense.)

I'm not sure where the status messages from dhcpcd would be on a
SuSe box, but right after you connect to the AP it might be
interesting to look in /var/log and do a tail on a few of the
more likely logs to see what is there. /var/log/messages and
/var/log/syslog are good bets. Post what you find.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Note that I'm crossposting this to alt.os.linux.suse and
> comp.os.linux.networking

If you simply _must_ do that, then for heaven's sake, kindly set
Followup-To to point to _one_ group only. Sheesh.

(Followups have been set.)

Rick Moen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Note that I'm crossposting this to alt.os.linux.suse and
>> comp.os.linux.networking
>
>If you simply _must_ do that, then for heaven's sake, kindly set
>Followup-To to point to _one_ group only. Sheesh.

What you are suggesting is nonsense.

Setting followups to only one group when the whole point is to
attract discussion from multiple groups is counter productive.
Note that the post was on topic in the three groups posted to.

>(Followups have been set.)

However, when the expected response isn't worth reading, yes it
does have advantages... Hence I have set Followup-To for this
post as appropriate for your response, which nobody needs to
bother reading.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Rick Moen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Note that I'm crossposting this to alt.os.linux.suse and
>>> comp.os.linux.networking
>>
>>If you simply _must_ do that, then for heaven's sake, kindly set
>>Followup-To to point to _one_ group only. Sheesh.
>
> What you are suggesting is nonsense.
>
> Setting followups to only one group when the whole point is to
> attract discussion from multiple groups is counter productive.
> Note that the post was on topic in the three groups posted to.

What _you_ are suggesting is cheeky, arrogant, and antisocial. If
Usenet denizens had wanted all the groups to be joined at the hip,
they'd have stuck to just alt.babble.floyd and not bothered to newgroup
anything else.

But thank you for clarifying your standards of netiquette.

(Followups have been set, again.)

--
Cheers, "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first
Rick Moen woman she meets, and then teams up with three complete strangers
(E-Mail Removed) to kill again." -- Rick Polito's That TV Guy column,
describing the movie _The Wizard of Oz_

On Fri, 20 May 2005 14:14:07 -0400, Rick Moen wrote:

> In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Rick Moen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note that I'm crossposting this to alt.os.linux.suse and
>>>> comp.os.linux.networking
>>>
>>>If you simply _must_ do that, then for heaven's sake, kindly set
>>>Followup-To to point to _one_ group only. Sheesh.
>>
>> What you are suggesting is nonsense.
>>
>> Setting followups to only one group when the whole point is to attract
>> discussion from multiple groups is counter productive. Note that the
>> post was on topic in the three groups posted to.
>
> What _you_ are suggesting is cheeky, arrogant, and antisocial. If Usenet
> denizens had wanted all the groups to be joined at the hip, they'd have
> stuck to just alt.babble.floyd and not bothered to newgroup anything else.
>
> But thank you for clarifying your standards of netiquette.
>
> (Followups have been set, again.)

look up "usenet etiquette" +"cross posting" on google...

On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:19:09 +0000, bryan wrote:

> On Fri, 20 May 2005 14:14:07 -0400, Rick Moen wrote:
>
>> In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Rick Moen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Note that I'm crossposting this to alt.os.linux.suse and
>>>>> comp.os.linux.networking
>>>>
>>>>If you simply _must_ do that, then for heaven's sake, kindly set
>>>>Followup-To to point to _one_ group only. Sheesh.
>>>
>>> What you are suggesting is nonsense.
>>>
>>> Setting followups to only one group when the whole point is to attract
>>> discussion from multiple groups is counter productive. Note that the
>>> post was on topic in the three groups posted to.
>>
>> What _you_ are suggesting is cheeky, arrogant, and antisocial. If
>> Usenet denizens had wanted all the groups to be joined at the hip,
>> they'd have stuck to just alt.babble.floyd and not bothered to newgroup
>> anything else.
>>
>> But thank you for clarifying your standards of netiquette.
>>
>> (Followups have been set, again.)
>
> look up "usenet etiquette" +"cross posting" on google...

and i think you'll find that cross posting to a few related newsgroups is
acceptable. if you read a cross posted post in one group, it will be
marked as read and won't appear in the other newsgroups if you subscribe
to them... that's if you have a proper newsreader.

cross posting to a lot of unrelated newsgroups is definitely frowned upon.

Rick Moen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Rick Moen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note that I'm crossposting this to alt.os.linux.suse and
>>>> comp.os.linux.networking
>>>
>>>If you simply _must_ do that, then for heaven's sake, kindly set
>>>Followup-To to point to _one_ group only. Sheesh.
>>
>> What you are suggesting is nonsense.
>>
>> Setting followups to only one group when the whole point is to
>> attract discussion from multiple groups is counter productive.
>> Note that the post was on topic in the three groups posted to.
>
>What _you_ are suggesting is cheeky, arrogant, and antisocial. If

Lacking a logical argument, you resort to gratuitous insults.

>Usenet denizens had wanted all the groups to be joined at the hip,

But that *is* exactly why crossposting was added to Usenet in
the second generation of software (it wasn't there to start
with).

Do a little research Rick, *learn* something about it before you
mouth off.

>they'd have stuck to just alt.babble.floyd and not bothered to newgroup
>anything else.
>
>But thank you for clarifying your standards of netiquette.

You've missed the fact that my original post was *precisely*
appropriate per netiquette as described by eveyone who
understands Usenet.

>(Followups have been set, again.)

Again, you've set Followups to the newsgroup *least* appropriate
for the original post. Like the rest of you post, that's not
smart at all.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

In alt.os.linux.suse Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>What _you_ are suggesting is cheeky, arrogant, and antisocial.
>
> Lacking a logical argument, you resort to gratuitous insults.

The merits should be evident to reasonable observers.

>>Usenet denizens had wanted all the groups to be joined at the hip,
>
> But that *is* exactly why crossposting was added to Usenet in
> the second generation of software (it wasn't there to start
> with).

To join all groups at the hip, _and keep them that way_? I really don't
think so.

It's (rarely) reasonable to cross-post to two groups; once in a blue
moon to three, but then you set the one best fit for followups.

> Again, you've set Followups to the newsgroup *least* appropriate
> for the original post.

My interest was limited to the net-abuse matter; I disregarded your
technical question. I can't recall seeing you around the SUSE or
networking group, so I assumed you emerged from the wireless one, and
had frankly hoped you'd crawl back there.

But, assuming you do have some technical concern, I'm sure it would be
welcome with a specified follow-up group appropriate to it. Had you
done so, you would not now be wasting everyone's time with dumbass
attempts to attack the critic.

bryan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:19:09 +0000, bryan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 14:14:07 -0400, Rick Moen wrote:
>>> (Followups have been set, again.)

He set you up with the followups though. You didn't override
them, and ended up posting this to only the one newsgroup he
specified, which he doesn't read... :-)

>> look up "usenet etiquette" +"cross posting" on google...
>
>and i think you'll find that cross posting to a few related newsgroups is
>acceptable. if you read a cross posted post in one group, it will be
>marked as read and won't appear in the other newsgroups if you subscribe
>to them... that's if you have a proper newsreader.
>
>cross posting to a lot of unrelated newsgroups is definitely frowned upon.

Another frowned on practice is avoiding cross-posting by
multi-posting (same text posted to more than one newsgroup
separately), *and* so is setting a Followups-To header to
sidetrack responses away from some or all of the readers in a
thread.

(I've restore one extra newsgroup, just for Rick's benefit.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)