Hi,

Juan Garcia wrote:
> I only have sis0 and an0.  I don't have any means of adding another 
> interface.  (No usb, no isa, no pci bus.)

Erhm, I might be mistaken, but to my knowledge, Soekriss Engineering 
has never made a board with less than two 10/100 interfaces (ie. sis0 
and sis1), so unless you actually have such a board(?), it really MUST 
be some problem with your sis1 interface, probably one of the issues 
David mentioned:

David Kitchens wrote:
> From this description it sounds like you have a bad port on your soekris. I
> have setup many of these and I've not seen your issue at all. Try taking out
> the aironet card and see if the console detects the other sis port. I
> suppose it could be a hardware conflict with the aironet card that is
> shutting down the sis port.

Have you tried looking at the console while the board boots? Perhaps 
this will provide a clue to what's wrong.

= = =

On a more general note (to Manuel et.al.):

As Fred Weston mentioned, there does seem to be two (minor) issues 
with m0n0wall (unless these are both by design?) One regarding 
interface assignment on hardware configurations with only two NICs, 
and one regarding the use of wireless NICs for the WAN interface.

The fist issue is probably due to the assumption that if you have only 
two interfaces, you'd typically always want one to be WAN. Unless 
there is some very good reason why this should be enforced, I guess it 
would be nice if it were possible to assign a NIC to OPT1 instead of 
WAN, even when only two NICs are present. (Would be useful for LAN-LAN 
filtering bridges, using m0n0wall as an AP and so on.)

I guess this could be achieved by allowing a selection of "None" for 
the WAN interface, causing the OPT1 dropdown to be shown.

An alternative (more flexible but also much more elaborate) solution 
could be: Instead of the built-in assumptions made for the first two 
interfaces (LAN and WAN), all NICs could be allowed to have arbitrary 
"friendly-names" (like currently allowed for OPTx interfaces only), 
and then having a drop-down on each interface page, where one would 
specify what "kind" of interface it should be (ie. "WAN" or "LAN" and 
possibly a few others, such as "DMZ"), causing m0n0wall to display the 
corrosponding options (ie. the usual WAN or LAN pages, for "DMZ" the 
same page as for LAN could be used, perhaps with the addition of some 
easy way to have a typical DMZ configuration auto-configured, by 
applying some settings to the NAT and Firewall pages etc.)

While the above would allow greater flexibility than the first 
solution, it would also mean some rather severe changes in how 
m0n0wall is configured (at least from the users point of view), which 
might not be according to the "master-plan" for m0n0wall?

The second issue (which I haven't confirmed) is that it would appear 
that the WAN interface page doesn't show the usual wireless options 
when a wireless NIC has been assigned to it. Like with the first 
issue, unless there are some good reasons for not allowing this, I 
think this too should be made possible (I can, at least in theory, 
imagine a setup, where one used a wireless bridge between m0n0wall and 
the ISP provided device. Why anyone would risk using a wireless 
connection on the "wrong" side of the firewall, that I can't answer?)

I gues this would be done by having m0n0wall behave the same way on 
the WAN page as it currently does on the OPTx page (and, I must 
assume, the LAN page), making it add the wireless options when it 
detects a wireless NIC has been selected for the interface in question.

I hasten to say that I'm perfectly happy with the way things are now, 
for both these issues, as my setup is pretty straight forward (TP NICs 
for WAN and LAN, wireless on OPT1) and getting even "straighter", as 
my plan is to replace the wireless NIC with a TP one, and using a 
vanilla AP to provide the wireless link instead.


Regards,

Adam.