On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:36:13 -0800, Frank Miles wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>I fail to see what it's doing, but I cannot see any reference to "eth1",
>>it's like only one interace is being recognized :-?
>>
>>What is the output of "dmesg | grep eth"?
>
> [ 6.317161] eth1: RTL8168d/8111d at 0xffffc90000c4e000,xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx,
> XID 083000c0 IRQ 32
> [ 6.384830] eth1: unable to apply firmware patch
> [ 7.190453] udev: renamed network interface eth1 to eth0
> [ 7.229390] udev: renamed network interface eth0_rename to eth1
> [ 11.276999] r8169: eth0: link up
> [ 11.277005] r8169: eth0: link up
> [ 12.215716] eth1: setting full-duplex.
> [ 21.531029] eth0: no IPv6 routers present
> [ 22.599867] eth1: no IPv6 routers present
>
> Again, eth1 is working fine; eth0 seems completely
> blocked/nonfunctional, despite all the configuration files and netstats
> looking fine.
Errr, sir... something goes wrong here.
As per your "/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules":
eth0 -> realtek
eth1 -> 3com
But that is not what dmesg says above.
Also, there is no "link up" or "link down" for eth1 but *both" eth0 going
up. Not sure how to interpret that.
> I made a minor effort earlier to suppress the IPv6 modules, but [a]
> didn't succeed; and [b] hadn't suppressed them earlier with the
> one-interface system so wasn't convinced it was worth trying - why
> shouldn't this cause eth1 to quit as well as eth0? Also the previous
> system showed some indications of IPv6 in its reports, and it worked
> fine.
I don't think this issue can have any relation with ipv6 :-?.
How about your "/etc/network/interfaces"?
Besides, you can make a quick probe by disabling "eth1" and test if the
network works as expected ("ping" et al) and then disable "eth0" and
perform the same test. I mean, test the network adapters "separately".
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
