On Wed 15 Feb 2012 at 10:07:52 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> In the confused thread I butchered, I missed this little snipped from
> Brian. I very much appreciate this explanation. I had it wrong.
You're being too hard on yourself. I get things wrong all the time and
it may be only months later I
Brian writes:
>> So, it seems there is no way around thinking both addresses are on a
>> single nic since there is only one ethernet wire attached to
>> localhost.
>
> As above; erroneous. Find out about MAC addresses and ARP. They are
> basic to communication on an ethernet network and will help
On Mon 13 Feb 2012 at 19:40:53 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:19:17 +, Brian wrote:
>
> > On Mon 13 Feb 2012 at 16:13:24 +, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> >> I trust logs rather than perceptions.
> >
> > The thread has moved on:
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:19:17 +, Brian wrote:
> On Mon 13 Feb 2012 at 16:13:24 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> I trust logs rather than perceptions.
>
> The thread has moved on:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/02/msg00975.html
>
> We should do the same.
I don't have additional sug
On Mon 13 Feb 2012 at 16:13:24 +, Camaleón wrote:
> I trust logs rather than perceptions.
The thread has moved on:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/02/msg00975.html
We should do the same.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubsc
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> I decided to try a third way; reverse the device names on the host.
>
> However I'm not really sure how to do that so that it persists thru
> updates.
>
> The way I did do it was to reverse the names in:
> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-ne
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:31:44 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 20:31:25 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:52:57 +, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > "the other ethernet port" is ambiguous but the second statement and
>> > the ifconfig output make it clearer.
>>
>> Well, all th
Andrei Popescu writes:
Harry wrote:
>> The way I did do it was to reverse the names in:
>> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
> ...
>> Can any anyone tell me if that will survive an upgrade?
Andrei responded:
> Yes
Harry wrote:
>> Or can anyone tell me if there is a better or canonical w
On Du, 12 feb 12, 23:42:08, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> To summarize it: How best to switch which network adapter is assigned
> eth0 and which to eth1.
...
> The way I did do it was to reverse the names in:
> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
...
> Can any anyone tell me if that will survive
I've made a thorough going mess of this thread by changing the game a
couple of times during the course of it. Very foolish of me, and a
number of people have put time and effort into trying to help.
Thank you.
I really am sorry for causing the confusion. My poorly thought out
posts and bad des
On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 20:31:25 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:52:57 +, Brian wrote:
>
> > "the other ethernet port" is ambiguous but the second statement and the
> > ifconfig output make it clearer.
>
> Well, all this issue is around an ethernet card that received its
> con
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:52:57 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 19:32:31 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:08:11 +, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > In the post you responded to there is:
>> >
>> >I have connected something to the other ethernet port now ... and
>> >so
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 13:34:45 -0500, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>> What explains this apparent anomaly?
>>
>> I can't explain why eth0 has an Ip address but it isn't "UP".
>
> It's also bothered me as as
On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 19:32:31 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:08:11 +, Brian wrote:
>
> > In the post you responded to there is:
> >
> >I have connected something to the other ethernet port now ... and so
> >ifconfig -a reports (with me doing nothing special but havi
On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 13:34:45 -0500, Tom H wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >
> > What explains this apparent anomaly?
>
> I can't explain why eth0 has an Ip address but it isn't "UP".
It's also bothered me as assigning an IP address automatically makes
eth0 'UP'
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:08:11 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 18:53:07 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:22:00 +, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > It means ifupdown was able to configure eth0 because there is now an
>> > ethernet cable attached to it.
>>
>> But Harry said th
On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 18:53:07 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:22:00 +, Brian wrote:
>
> > It means ifupdown was able to configure eth0 because there is now an
> > ethernet cable attached to it.
>
> But Harry said there was no cable connected to that card :-?
In the post you
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I post a few things following todays reboot
>
> I have connected something to the other ethernet port now ... and so
> ifconfig -a reports (with me doing nothing special but having
> rebooted):
>
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:4
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Jesse Thompson writes:
>> the interfaces file is really only going to come into pay during
>> bootup, or when using eg ifup/ifdown scripts.
>>
>> You indicated that you may have configured the interfaces by hand via
>> ifconfig; if so those
On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 11:39:45 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I have connected something to the other ethernet port now ... and so
> ifconfig -a reports (with me doing nothing special but having
> rebooted):
>
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:40:f4:b5:29:41
> inet addr:192.168.2
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:22:00 +, Brian wrote:
> On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 17:25:19 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:39:45 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>
>> > In the output below, and you can see the full dmesg from today along
>> > with the boot log from /var/log/boot at:
>> >
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Brian writes:
> and hostname -i shows:
>
> 127.0.1.1 192.168.1.42
AFAIK, these days this only works if "192.168.1.42" is in "/etc/hosts"
or in the nis/nisplus/ldap equivalent.
> I vaguely remember bringing up the second address with if
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:13:22 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>>
>>> So it appears at a superficial reckoning that dhcp has assigned an
>>> address to eth0, but that address appears to be attached to eth1 in
>>> ifconfig and ne
On Sun 12 Feb 2012 at 17:25:19 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:39:45 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> > In the output below, and you can see the full dmesg from today along
> > with the boot log from /var/log/boot at:
> >www.jtan.com/~reader/vu/disp.cgi
>
> [ 14.496990] r8169
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> I'm getting confused by what I see in /etc/network/interfaces,
> compared to what I see with ifconfig -a.
>
> What I see in /etc/network/interfaces:
>
> auto lo
> iface lo inet loopback
> allow-hotplug eth0
> iface eth0 inet dhcp
>
> Doe
On Sat 11 Feb 2012 at 17:29:25 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> A little more to the story is that the address shown in ifconfig -a
> for eth0 (192.168.1.54) is ping-able from around the network.
That's ok.
> There is only 1 ethernet wire connected to the machine and no
> wireless, so both addresses
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:39:45 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
(...)
> I've made the updates now but my kernel has not changed. Should it
> have? I have rebooted.
You need to install the kernel metapackage ("linux-image-686-pae") so it
can be automatically updated on every new v
Camaleón writes:
[...]
Harry wrote:
Running wheezy - 3.0.0-1-686-pae
>>>
Camaleón replied:
>>> Wheezy has now 3.1.0 :-?
>>
Harry:
>> I've missed a couple of updates... the last notice I received on my kde
>> desktop showed 200+... yikes.
Camaleón:
> He... yes, that hurts :-)
I've made
On Sat 11 Feb 2012 at 20:22:13 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
[Snip]
> And the actual network shows up on eth1 in ifconfig -a output:
>
> ifconfig -a
>eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:40:f4:b5:29:41
> UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> [...]
This is
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:16:36 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:13:22 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>
>>> Running wheezy - 3.0.0-1-686-pae
>>
>> Wheezy has now 3.1.0 :-?
>
> I've missed a couple of updates... the last notice I received on my kde
> desktop sh
Jesse Thompson writes:
> the interfaces file is really only going to come into pay during
> bootup, or when using eg ifup/ifdown scripts.
>
> You indicated that you may have configured the interfaces by hand via
> ifconfig; if so those changes will not survive a reboot. How long
> since your last
the interfaces file is really only going to come into pay during
bootup, or when using eg ifup/ifdown scripts.
You indicated that you may have configured the interfaces by hand via
ifconfig; if so those changes will not survive a reboot. How long
since your last reboot?
If it's safe to do on this
On Sat 11 Feb 2012 at 18:11:34 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Andrei Popescu writes:
>
> > Not necessarily, this could happen if you configure IP forwarding.
>
> The machine is not being used as router.
>
> I haven't configured forwarding purposely, how would I check to see if
> it is configured
Andrei Popescu writes:
> On Sb, 11 feb 12, 17:29:25, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>
>> A little more to the story is that the address shown in ifconfig -a
>> for eth0 (192.168.1.54) is ping-able from around the network.
>>
>> There is only 1 ethernet wire connected to the machine and no
>> wireless, so
On Sb, 11 feb 12, 17:29:25, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> A little more to the story is that the address shown in ifconfig -a
> for eth0 (192.168.1.54) is ping-able from around the network.
>
> There is only 1 ethernet wire connected to the machine and no
> wireless, so both addresses must be on the re
Brian writes:
> I can think of no way ifupdown is able to bring up an interface it has
> no knowledge of. Other network configuring programs could be in on the
> act though.
Its been a pretty good while since I set up networking but I think I
did it by hand edit of /etc/network/interfaces.. I'm
Camaleón writes:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:13:22 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
>> Running wheezy - 3.0.0-1-686-pae
>
> Wheezy has now 3.1.0 :-?
I've missed a couple of updates... the last notice I received on my
kde desktop showed 200+... yikes.
>> I'm getting confused by what I see in /etc/net
On Sat 11 Feb 2012 at 14:13:22 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Running wheezy - 3.0.0-1-686-pae
>
> I'm getting confused by what I see in /etc/network/interfaces,
> compared to what I see with ifconfig -a.
>
> What I see in /etc/network/interfaces:
>
> auto lo
> iface lo inet loopback
> all
On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 14:13:22 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Running wheezy - 3.0.0-1-686-pae
Wheezy has now 3.1.0 :-?
> I'm getting confused by what I see in /etc/network/interfaces, compared
> to what I see with ifconfig -a.
(...)
> So it appears at a superficial reckoning that dhcp has assign
Running wheezy - 3.0.0-1-686-pae
I'm getting confused by what I see in /etc/network/interfaces,
compared to what I see with ifconfig -a.
What I see in /etc/network/interfaces:
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet dhcp
Does not match what I see with ifconfig
40 matches
Mail list logo
