Update.

I contacted the company that made my router.

The support person led me through all of the things you guys suggested. No luck.

The support person concluded by process of elimination that there must be something off with my computer settings.

I was grateful when she didn't dump me the moment I told her I was running Linux. :-)

I do appreciate all of the effort you guys gave me in trying to figure this out, so I decided to post to let you
know how things ended.

Steve

On Saturday, January 21, 2023 at 8:02:49 AM UTC-5, Steve Mysterious wrote:
> Linux Mint 21.1
>
> Linksys Etherfast Cable/DSL VPN Router with 4 Port Switch
> Model: BEFVP41 ver2
>
> I have the ancient router above. It works.
>
> I haven't logged into it for years.
>
> I went to the manual to read how to log into the web interface. I was told to put 192.168.1.1 into the browser. It just timed out. I tried a different browser and got the same results.
>
> My guess is that browsers changed since the ancient manual for my ancient router was written.
>
> Is there anyway around this?
>
> Thanks for any clues

On 2023-01-22 18:12, Steve Mysterious wrote:
> Update.
>
> I contacted the company that made my router.
>
> The support person led me through all of the things you guys suggested. No luck.
>
> The support person concluded by process of elimination that there must be something off with my computer settings.
>
> I was grateful when she didn't dump me the moment I told her I was running Linux. :-)
>
> I do appreciate all of the effort you guys gave me in trying to figure this out, so I decided to post to let you
> know how things ended.

Assuming this is still correct:
<https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>

Basically you need to issue the command "ip addr" and "route". You will
probably not have an IP in the range 192.168.1.* nor a route to that
range. In order to connect to your router at 192.168.1.1 you first need
a route to it.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Assuming this is still correct:
> <https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>

It is.

> Basically you need to issue the command "ip addr" and "route". You will
> probably not have an IP in the range 192.168.1.* nor a route to that
> range. In order to connect to your router at 192.168.1.1 you first need
> a route to it.

I took a look at the manual page for those commands to see what they do.

Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?

If so, can you point me to a link that will teach me how to do that?

Happy Monday

On 2023-01-23 02:18, Steve Mysterious wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Assuming this is still correct:
>> <https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>
>
> It is.
>
>
>> Basically you need to issue the command "ip addr" and "route". You will
>> probably not have an IP in the range 192.168.1.* nor a route to that
>> range. In order to connect to your router at 192.168.1.1 you first need
>> a route to it.
>
> I took a look at the manual page for those commands to see what they do.
>
> Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?

You must do it, yes.

Just try to ping 192.168.1.1, it should give you "no route to host" or
some error. Not a time out.

> If so, can you point me to a link that will teach me how to do that?

Not at this moment... I know, more or less, how to do it, following my
nose, but I don't have a text for it.

Basically, assign a second address to the same ethernet hardware.

Or, create, temporarily, another "network manager" connection, manually,
that is on 192.168.1.10. When you activate it, you will loose internet
connection, but should gain access to the router, hopefully.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:18:19 -0800 (PST), Steve Mysterious wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Assuming this is still correct:
>> <https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>
>
> It is.
>
>
>> Basically you need to issue the command "ip addr" and "route". You will
>> probably not have an IP in the range 192.168.1.* nor a route to that
>> range. In order to connect to your router at 192.168.1.1 you first need
>> a route to it.
>
> I took a look at the manual page for those commands to see what they do.
>
> Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?

what is the result/output from running
ip route
in a root terminal.

FYI: I can suggest that you could create a ~/.signature file
with information about your setup. The information can help subject matter
exports with supplying actual commands or commands requesting information.

~/.signature file starts with dash dash space Return
Note: I have removed the space from end of dash dash line.

For example:
--
Running Mageia release 7 (Official) for x86_64 using
Kernel 5.5.15-desktop-3.mga7 on x86_64 DM=lightdm DE=xfce
grub Legacy OS boot

For testing your sig file use any group ending in .test.

At Mon, 23 Jan 2023 02:47:09 +0100 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> On 2023-01-23 02:18, Steve Mysterious wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >> Assuming this is still correct:
> >> <https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>
> >
> > It is.
> >
> >
> >> Basically you need to issue the command "ip addr" and "route". You will
> >> probably not have an IP in the range 192.168.1.* nor a route to that
> >> range. In order to connect to your router at 192.168.1.1 you first need
> >> a route to it.
> >
> > I took a look at the manual page for those commands to see what they do.
> >
> > Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?
>
> You must do it, yes.
>
> Just try to ping 192.168.1.1, it should give you "no route to host" or
> some error. Not a time out.
>
>
> > If so, can you point me to a link that will teach me how to do that?
>
> Not at this moment... I know, more or less, how to do it, following my
> nose, but I don't have a text for it.
>
> Basically, assign a second address to the same ethernet hardware.
>
> Or, create, temporarily, another "network manager" connection, manually,
> that is on 192.168.1.10. When you activate it, you will loose internet
> connection, but should gain access to the router, hopefully.

All of this assumes that OP is jacked into the LAN port(s) of the router (or
connecting via WiFi to the router's Access Point (assuming that this is a WiFi
router -- the above screen shot talks only about a *wired* connection).

The IP address in the screen shot is not a "private" (LAN) IP address [eg
192.168.x.y], it is a public IP address. This suggests that the OP is jacked
in the WAN directly and not into a router providing a private LAN behind a
NAT/firewall. Either the OP's computer is jacked directly into the WAN point
on the cable modem (you really don't want to do that) or the cable modem's WAN
port is jacked in his home switch (not router) [YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO DO
THAT]. Either way, you are not going to be able to log into the *router*.

>

--
Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 09:12:35 -0800 (PST), Steve Mysterious wrote:
>
> Update.
>
> I contacted the company that made my router.
>
> The support person led me through all of the things you guys suggested. No luck.
>
> The support person concluded by process of elimination that there must be something off with my computer settings.
>
> I was grateful when she didn't dump me the moment I told her I was running Linux. :-)

Lucky you. When my new DSL-Card (modem on a PCI card) in 2002 didn't work
well and I contacted the support I had to install Windows 2000 (luckily I
had the installation CD handy) to check things. Turned out the hardware
was indeed toast.

In 2007 I ordered new internet via phone. In the process I was asked what
operating system I run. I said "Linux". She: "What?". I repeated Linux
and she asked to tell whether I use Windows or Mac. So I replied
"Mac". At the end of the order I asked why she wanted to know the
OS. "That we can ship you your free virus scanner for your operating
system". After receiving the package, that CD included went unopened
straight to the garbage.

Not easy sometimes if you run Linux and need support...
--
Andreas

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 20:09:31 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-22 18:12, Steve Mysterious wrote:
>> Update.
>> I contacted the company that made my router.
>> The support person led me through all of the things you guys
>> suggested. No luck.
>> The support person concluded by process of elimination that there
>> must be something off with my computer settings.
>> I was grateful when she didn't dump me the moment I told her I was
>> running Linux. :-)
>> I do appreciate all of the effort you guys gave me in trying to
>> figure this out, so I decided to post to let you
>> know how things ended.
>
> Assuming this is still correct:
> <https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>

Just checked mine (MATE desktop) after I see yours now. Here (Ethernet
connection) I find an option "Link Negotiation" which is set to
"ignore". What does this do? Somewhat improves things (not that I can
complain) to change the setting?
--
Andreas

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:18:19 -0800 (PST), Steve Mysterious wrote:
>
> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Assuming this is still correct:
>> <https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>
>
> It is.
>
>
>> Basically you need to issue the command "ip addr" and "route". You will
>> probably not have an IP in the range 192.168.1.* nor a route to that
>> range. In order to connect to your router at 192.168.1.1 you first need
>> a route to it.
>
> I took a look at the manual page for those commands to see what they do.
>
> Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?

That's all odd. Shouldn't DNS not take care of everything? Or is that
box so old it doesn't know what DNS is?

> If so, can you point me to a link that will teach me how to do that?

Something like

/sbin/route add -net 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0

You need to replace eth0 with whatever the name of your device is.

Yes I know, "ip route" is better than "route", but still did not got used
to use it.
--
Andreas

https://news-commentaries.blogspot.com/

On 23/01/2023 01:18, Steve Mysterious wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Assuming this is still correct:
>> <https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>
>
> It is.
>
>
>> Basically you need to issue the command "ip addr" and "route". You will
>> probably not have an IP in the range 192.168.1.* nor a route to that
>> range. In order to connect to your router at 192.168.1.1 you first need
>> a route to it.
>
> I took a look at the manual page for those commands to see what they do.
>
> Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?
>
> If so, can you point me to a link that will teach me how to do that?
>
> Happy Monday
A good start is to make sure the PC is plugged into a LAN port first

Then DHCP will do the rest

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 23/01/2023 03:26, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 09:12:35 -0800 (PST), Steve Mysterious wrote:
>>
>> Update.
>>
>> I contacted the company that made my router.
>>
>> The support person led me through all of the things you guys suggested. No luck.
>>
>> The support person concluded by process of elimination that there must be something off with my computer settings.
>>
>> I was grateful when she didn't dump me the moment I told her I was running Linux. :-)
>
> Lucky you. When my new DSL-Card (modem on a PCI card) in 2002 didn't work
> well and I contacted the support I had to install Windows 2000 (luckily I
> had the installation CD handy) to check things. Turned out the hardware
> was indeed toast.
>
> In 2007 I ordered new internet via phone. In the process I was asked what
> operating system I run. I said "Linux". She: "What?". I repeated Linux
> and she asked to tell whether I use Windows or Mac. So I replied
> "Mac". At the end of the order I asked why she wanted to know the
> OS. "That we can ship you your free virus scanner for your operating
> system". After receiving the package, that CD included went unopened
> straight to the garbage.
>
> Not easy sometimes if you run Linux and need support...
I spent nearly 15 minutes on a phone call from India where they assured
me there is 'problem with your internet''
That's how long it took them to ask the vital question 'are you actually
running windows?'...

--
I would rather have questions that cannot be answered...
....than to have answers that cannot be questioned

Richard Feynman

On 23/01/2023 03:31, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> Just checked mine (MATE desktop) after I see yours now. Here (Ethernet
> connection) I find an option "Link Negotiation" which is set to
> "ignore". What does this do? Somewhat improves things (not that I can
> complain) to change the setting?

That can override Ethernet speed negotiation. Its not relevant.

What is relevant is the page "IPV4" connections which should be set to
"Automatic( DHCP)"

If you right click the network icon and select 'network information' it
would be helpful if you could post what it says.

--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 23/01/2023 02:57, Robert Heller wrote:

>
> The IP address in the screen shot is not a "private" (LAN) IP address [eg
> 192.168.x.y], it is a public IP address. This suggests that the OP is jacked
> in the WAN directly and not into a router providing a private LAN behind a
> NAT/firewall. Either the OP's computer is jacked directly into the WAN point
> on the cable modem (you really don't want to do that) or the cable modem's WAN
> port is jacked in his home switch (not router) [YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO DO
> THAT]. Either way, you are not going to be able to log into the *router*.
>

I think Steve really needs to describe what his cable layout is. Perform
a few tests. No need for anything clever until we check basics.

Test 1) Switch the router off, see if his PC still has a connection to
the internet. Reboot PC. Check "ip route" in a terminal/shell. Check if
internet works.

Test 2) If Test 1) cuts the internet. Switch the router on again.
Disconnect the modem Ethernet cable from the router WAN port, leave the
PC Ethernet cable connected to a router LAN port. Reboot PC. Check "ip
route" in a PC terminal/shell.

Report the results to us.

We know the router ain't routing, but we don't know why. Pushing the
wrong cable in the wrong port is my standard type of error. :-) But I
can imagine other failure modes, that might cause the router to act
purely as a switch or bridge.

On 2023-01-23 03:57, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Mon, 23 Jan 2023 02:47:09 +0100 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2023-01-23 02:18, Steve Mysterious wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> Assuming this is still correct:
>>>> <https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>
>>>
>>> It is.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Basically you need to issue the command "ip addr" and "route". You will
>>>> probably not have an IP in the range 192.168.1.* nor a route to that
>>>> range. In order to connect to your router at 192.168.1.1 you first need
>>>> a route to it.
>>>
>>> I took a look at the manual page for those commands to see what they do.
>>>
>>> Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?
>>
>> You must do it, yes.
>>
>> Just try to ping 192.168.1.1, it should give you "no route to host" or
>> some error. Not a time out.
>>
>>
>>> If so, can you point me to a link that will teach me how to do that?
>>
>> Not at this moment... I know, more or less, how to do it, following my
>> nose, but I don't have a text for it.
>>
>> Basically, assign a second address to the same ethernet hardware.
>>
>> Or, create, temporarily, another "network manager" connection, manually,
>> that is on 192.168.1.10. When you activate it, you will loose internet
>> connection, but should gain access to the router, hopefully.
>
> All of this assumes that OP is jacked into the LAN port(s) of the router (or
> connecting via WiFi to the router's Access Point (assuming that this is a WiFi
> router -- the above screen shot talks only about a *wired* connection).

More likely, the router is configured in modem mode or single user mode.
And he has a router, he said so.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-01-23 04:37, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:18:19 -0800 (PST), Steve Mysterious wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, January 22, 2023 at 2:14:38 PM UTC-5, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Assuming this is still correct:
>>> <https://i.paste.pics/5e2cb347c08743e31475fe8e3155eb58.png>
>>
>> It is.
>>
>>
>>> Basically you need to issue the command "ip addr" and "route". You will
>>> probably not have an IP in the range 192.168.1.* nor a route to that
>>> range. In order to connect to your router at 192.168.1.1 you first need
>>> a route to it.
>>
>> I took a look at the manual page for those commands to see what they do.
>>
>> Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?
>
> That's all odd. Shouldn't DNS not take care of everything? Or is that
> box so old it doesn't know what DNS is?

I guess you mean DHCP.

No, most probably the router intentionally will not publish the lan
interface.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 05:54:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2023 03:31, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> Just checked mine (MATE desktop) after I see yours now. Here (Ethernet
>> connection) I find an option "Link Negotiation" which is set to
>> "ignore". What does this do? Somewhat improves things (not that I can
>> complain) to change the setting?
>
> That can override Ethernet speed negotiation. Its not relevant.

OK, thanks. Will not temper with it.

> What is relevant is the page "IPV4" connections which should be set
> to "Automatic( DHCP)"

I set it manually to an IP address because I prefer it that way. Also
because I put the machine into the DMZ, because the router cannot not use
a "name" or MAC for a DMZ.

> If you right click the network icon and select 'network information'
> it would be helpful if you could post what it says.

I am NOT the one with the router issues. All fine here. But the poster
who initiated this discussion might as well do.
--
Andreas

On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 16:39:05 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-23 04:37, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:18:19 -0800 (PST), Steve Mysterious wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?
>> That's all odd. Shouldn't DNS not take care of everything? Or is
>> that
>> box so old it doesn't know what DNS is?
>
> I guess you mean DHCP.

Yes, sorry.

> No, most probably the router intentionally will not publish the lan
> interface.

Publish where?
--
Andreas

On 2023-01-24 01:13, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 16:39:05 +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-01-23 04:37, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 17:18:19 -0800 (PST), Steve Mysterious wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying I can make a route to 192.168.1.1 and my router?
>>> That's all odd. Shouldn't DNS not take care of everything? Or is
>>> that
>>> box so old it doesn't know what DNS is?
>>
>> I guess you mean DHCP.
>
> Yes, sorry.
>
>> No, most probably the router intentionally will not publish the lan
>> interface.
>
> Publish where?

Over DHCP. The router, which is giving a public IP (216.15.0.143), will
not also give a private (LAN) IP (on 192.168.1.*)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-01-23 14:20, Pancho wrote:
> On 23/01/2023 02:57, Robert Heller wrote:
>
>>
>> The IP address in the screen shot is not a "private" (LAN) IP
>> address [eg 192.168.x.y], it is a public IP address. This suggests
>> that the OP is jacked in the WAN directly and not into a router
>> providing a private LAN behind a NAT/firewall. Either the OP's
>> computer is jacked directly into the WAN point on the cable modem
>> (you really don't want to do that) or the cable modem's WAN port is
>> jacked in his home switch (not router) [YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO
>> DO THAT]. Either way, you are not going to be able to log into the
>> *router*.
>>
>
> I think Steve really needs to describe what his cable layout is.
> Perform a few tests. No need for anything clever until we check
> basics.
>
> Test 1) Switch the router off, see if his PC still has a
> connection to the internet. Reboot PC. Check "ip route" in a
> terminal/shell. Check if internet works.
>
> Test 2) If Test 1) cuts the internet. Switch the router on again.
> Disconnect the modem Ethernet cable from the router WAN port, leave
> the PC Ethernet cable connected to a router LAN port. Reboot PC.
> Check "ip route" in a PC terminal/shell.
>
> Report the results to us.
>
> We know the router ain't routing, but we don't know why.

Yes, we do. Or we have an educated guess.
The router is in single user mode.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 24/01/2023 00:12, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 05:54:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 23/01/2023 03:31, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> Just checked mine (MATE desktop) after I see yours now. Here (Ethernet
>>> connection) I find an option "Link Negotiation" which is set to
>>> "ignore". What does this do? Somewhat improves things (not that I can
>>> complain) to change the setting?
>>
>> That can override Ethernet speed negotiation. Its not relevant.
>
> OK, thanks. Will not temper with it.
>
>> What is relevant is the page "IPV4" connections which should be set
>> to "Automatic( DHCP)"
>
> I set it manually to an IP address because I prefer it that way. Also
> because I put the machine into the DMZ, because the router cannot not use
> a "name" or MAC for a DMZ.
>

>> If you right click the network icon and select 'network information'
>> it would be helpful if you could post what it says.
>
> I am NOT the one with the router issues. All fine here. But the poster
> who initiated this discussion might as well do.

--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

The Natural Philosopher, you didn't reply to anything I wrote, just
quoted me.
--
Andreas

On 24/01/2023 07:55, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher, you didn't reply to anything I wrote, just
> quoted me.
I know. I was going to say something then realised you weren't the OP
and hit the send button by accident instead of the cancel button.
..
--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:24:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 24/01/2023 07:55, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher, you didn't reply to anything I wrote, just
>> quoted me.
> I know. I was going to say something then realised you weren't the OP
> and hit the send button by accident instead of the cancel button.
> .

OK.

Just a note. You can right click your message and select "Delete message"
or similar in Thunderbird to cancel it.
--
Andreas

On 24/01/2023 23:02, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:24:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 24/01/2023 07:55, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher, you didn't reply to anything I wrote, just
>>> quoted me.
>> I know. I was going to say something then realised you weren't the OP
>> and hit the send button by accident instead of the cancel button.
>> .
>
> OK.
>
> Just a note. You can right click your message and select "Delete message"
> or similar in Thunderbird to cancel it.
Well it has already gone.

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

On 2023-01-25 00:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/01/2023 23:02, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:24:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/01/2023 07:55, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher, you didn't reply to anything I wrote, just
>>>> quoted me.
>>> I know. I was going to say something then realised you weren't the OP
>>> and hit the send button by accident instead of the cancel button.
>>> .
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> Just a note. You can right click your message and select "Delete message"
>> or similar in Thunderbird to cancel it.
> Well it has already gone.

That's the thing, in theory you can cancel it after being submitted.
Depends on the upstream nntp server honouring it. And it being able to
propagate the cancel.

--
Cheers, Carlos.