[sf-lug] thanks for the help : need help with wifi access

[James Stockford]

thank you for the previous and this latest.

The EA6900 is the replacement device, which
works. I had an older, similar device that
"died".
     It seems to me that such devices are more
than access points in that they incorporate
a four port switch, an ethernet connector for
internet-modem, and a lot of software.
     I use wired connections if possible; at
home my laptop is often connected both by
wire and by wi-fi, careless of me.




On 1/9/19 1:26 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Jim Stockford (jim at well.com):
>
>> I should have written "doohickey" rather than "gizmo".
>> It was a hardware thing that's got Linksys written on it.
>> It is a router plus a four-port switch plus antennae for
>> a wifi access point, along with a dhcp server and other
>> software. I do not know the correct name for these
>> things. By "died" I mean is no longer electrically or
>> otherwise functional.
> OK, are you basically now saying that what 'died' was your _WAP_ (your
> wireless access point)?   In other words, an external, separately
> powered piece of electronics that's not a component of your laptop in
> any way?  If so, your initial problem description was not only confusing
> but also deeply misleading.  Seriously, consider starting over.  Take it
> from the top and say what your problem is, describing the specific
> symptom and what has occurred and what resulted from your doing things,
> in chronological order.
>
> Reading further down, where you say what 'died' was a Linksys model
> EA6900, we find that, indeed, you were referring to your WAP -- and the
> natural inference that you were talking about some component of your
> laptop is false.
> https://www.linksys.com/us/p/P-EA6900/
>
>> I'm saying that not only did my doohickey die, but my laptop's
>> ability to use wi-fi ceased, if not deceased. I'm guessing that
>> the death of the doohickey somehow created damage to my
>> laptop's networking software. The IP address for my laptop
>> changed from 192.168.1.something to 169.?.?.?
> One, no, your WAP dying is not going to create any sort of damage to
> your laptop's hardware or software.
> JS: Then this is coincidence, although it seems a reasonable
> guess that at least the absence of internet access might
> trigger my laptop's internal software to drop the LAN address
> and establish (what might be a default) 169.* non-connectable
> IP address.
> Two, you are still not bothering to provide raw data about your
> situtation, as witness your saying '169.?.?.?'.  What this tells me is
> that you are still winging it, attempting to detail the facts from
> memory instead of producing them in real time so you can transcribe
> them accurately.
> JS: I have no idea how to reinstitute the 169.* IP address.
>
> Three, an interface ending up with a 169.0.0.0 IP address merely means
> that it requested a DHCP address (broadcast a DHCPDISCOVER message), but
> received no DHCP lease in response.  It means you are attempting DHCP
> client mode on that interface but didn't get a DHCP address.
> JS: yes, the external device had electronically died, so internal
> DHCP server was not responsive.
>
>
> Four, you _know_ there is nothing wrong with your laptop's wireless
> adapter, for the reasons Bobbie posted separately.
> JS: Yes, we'd verified that the laptop hardware was
> working thanks to Bobbie's Ubuntu Studio USB stick.
>>> Is the new one perhaps an Intel Wireless-AC model 9260-series
>>> wireless/Bluetooth card in M.2 2230 physical format, one like this (as
>>> suggested by your dmesg output)?
>>> JS: The new external "wi-fi access point" is a Linksys EA6900.
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Intel-Wireless-Ac-9260-2230-Gigabit/dp/B079QJQF4Y
>>> My point is, you haven't even told us what the wireless hardware in
>>> question _is_ (make and model), let alone why it should be surprising to
>>> have a lack of functionality if something 'died'.
>>> JS: I left my old, dead wifi access point (+ more) at the shop
>>> and brought home my working Linksys EA6900; I don't recall the
>>> model of the doohickey that died, only that it was Linksys.
>> I hope that's cleared up.
> Well, you just ignored the question (several lines above this one).
>
> Fortunately, I'm pretty certain that your wireless network adapter is an
> Intel Wireless-AC model 9260-series M.2 2230 card.  It would have been
> nice to have you confirm that, but I think I've read the few entrails
> you've provided accurately enough, despite the confusing wild goose
> chase about 'dead' wireless hardware that turns out to be completely
> separate from your laptop.  But lack of clarity on that wasted a good
> bit of time on several people's part.
> JS: I tried to be descriptive, sorry for failure. I did invite people
> to send me commands to use and for which I would post results.
>
>> JS: the symptoms are that my laptop does not show any wifi access
>> points, none at all, and that using Settings and choosing "Wi-Fi" the
>> information panel shows "No Wi-Fi Adaptor <CR> Make sure you have a
>> Wi-Fi adapter plugged and turned on" The physical wifi components are
>> built-in, probably on the motherboard. This is a ZaReason re-branded
>> laptop that ZaReason labels it Ultralap 6440 i5"
> One, you haven't established that there are WAPs to find.  So, for
> example, you have a replacement WAP to replace the one that 'died', but
> have you verified that it's fully usable by wifi client machines?
> You've cross-checked that machines -do- connect and get DHCP leases?
> If not, then it's not clear that even if your laptop has no problems
> that it ought to do likewise.
> JS: At home there are many access points available, though most
> are locked. At home there are other computers that see my wifi
> access point. I used  iwlist scanning  after I'd set up my external
> wifi access point doohickey; the command showed no access point names.
>
> Two, you keep talking about 'Settings' as if everyone had exactly the
> same Desktop Environment you do, such that everyone would automatically
> know what you're talking about.  As I said before, I am _guessing_ you
> are talking about some GNOME Desktop Environment networking app.  You
> could have clarified, but didn't, and instead you're just repeating the
> same vague thing.
> JS: best I can tell, identifying my OS as Ubuntu 18.04 and referring
> to "Settings" follows the writing conventions I've seen on the Internet.
> The Settings icon is a box wrench image and a socket wrench image in
> a criss-cross. Click Settings to get a Settings window that has several
> panels, the leftmost of which shows Wi-Fi at the top.
>
>
> Three, now that you _finally_ at least identified your laptop as a
> ZeReason UltraLap 6440 i5, one can check their Web site and verify that,
> indeed, my guess is correct and you ave an Intel
> Wireless-AC model 9260-series card in the laptop's M.2 socket.
> JS: Thank you again; I had no way to learn that information.
>
>
>
>> # iwconfig
>> lo        no wireless extensions.
>>
>> enp58s0f1  no wireless extensions.
>>
>> wlp59s0   IEEE 802.11  ESSID:off/any
>>            Mode:Managed  Access Point: Not-Associated Tx-Power=off
>>            Retry short limit:7   RTS thr:off   Fragment thr:off
>>            Encryption key:off
>>            Power Management:on
> OK, so, there you see your wireless interface listed with device name
> wlp59s0.  iwconfig appears to see nothing wrong with it.  The
> description is of a network interface that is ready for action, but not
> associated with any WAP at the moment.
>
> Maybe you just haven't yet set up your new WAP.  I wouldn't know.
> JS: Other computers in the house can see and access the "WAP".
>>> Just running through marginally relevant suggestions you find on
>>> https://ubuntuforums.org/ is a poor substitute for diagnosis and
>>> testing.
>> I don't know what to do. I'm guessing trying things
>> in some sequence.
> Please consider _not_ just 'trying things in some sequence'.   When users
> take that approach, they usually just stumble around introducing new
> variables into the diagnostic situation, which is the opposite of
> progress.  I keep pleading with people on this mailing list to cease
> this 'Well, I threw at the problem a bunch of random suggestions from
> ubuntuforums.org and read some tea leaves, but nothing worked' approach,
> and I'm not sure anyone is yet listening.
> JS: You're restating my point. To be effective one must enter commands
> in some sequence. I do not know what is that sequence, so I do not
> enter commands that I do not know.
>
> You really should only do things after making sure you know why you are
> doing them, and what they will do.  Seriously.
> JS: I think I am sufficiently cautious. I do not issue commands of which
> I am unsure. Probably too cautious.
>
>
>>> What wouldn't hurt is removing and then reloading the iwlwifi module:
>>>
>>> $ sudo modprobe -r iwlwifi
>>> $ sudo modprobe iwlwifi
>>>
>>> JS: DONE. Need to reboot?
> Abso-frigging-lutely _no_.
>
> This is not Microsoft Windows.
>
>
>> Results were to turn Airplane Mode on. I turned it off.
> Here, I'll say it again:  Please concentrate on giving raw information.
> The above is an interpretation on your part, not the raw details.
> JS: No. Airplane mode was off before I toggled modprobe as you suggested.
> After toggling modprobe, airplane mode was on, and it seems reasonable
> that the change in airplane mode status was a result of toggling
> modprobe. That is the only affect I can notice. If there are commands
> I should use to verify affect, please let me know.
> JS: By now you probably understand that I am using the GUI mostly.
>
>
> Jim, we've now gone a few rounds, and had to do a lot of guessing,
> because your problem description was vague, which means getting to the
> facts has been a bit like pulling teeth, even aside from the irrelevant
> and confusing red herring about the 'dead' wifi hardware.  I'm a bit
> worn out, and I should probably move on to other things.
>
> In an ideal world, we would have had a coherent account, in
> chronological order, of what happened, which would help with the vital
> question of what if anything _changed_.  E.g., if (as seemed the case
> initially) you had had occasion to change the wireless adapter in your
> laptop, then I would have advised you to take steps including going into
> the motherboard BIOS Setup and making sure that the wireless
> functionality is hardware-enabled there, and that Secure Boot is still
> switched off.  However, unfortunately we have had nothing like such an
> account from you.
> JS: I'm not aware of having written anything about the internal
> wifi adapter, although early in this thread Bobbie wrote that
> She'd loaded Ubuntu Studio into my laptop and verified that the
> laptop hardware was working correctly. My problem was that my
> home access point had died and subsequently my laptop was not
> able to "see" any access points, and clearly this is a matter
> of network misconfiguration. I had not done any network configuration
> prior to the mishap.
>
> That is part of why I suggested that you start over again, from the top.
> Which advice I notice you've elected to ignore.  Well, good luck.
> JS: I have responded as best I can to your comments.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/<br>
> Related Information <br>
> http://www.shallowsky.com/blog/<br>
> http://explainshell.com/ <br>