On 5/28/25 17:06, accipiter wrote:
On 5/27/25 7:40 PM, Titus Newswanger wrote:
On 5/26/25 14:20, accipiter wrote:
Attempting to delete/remove the connection entry with the wrong data
simply caused the defective connection entry to be replicated, only
now with yet another UUID. It is this err
On Wed, 28 May 2025, accipiter wrote:
> On 5/27/25 7:40 PM, Titus Newswanger wrote:
>>
>> On 5/26/25 14:20, accipiter wrote:
>>> Attempting to delete/remove the connection entry with the wrong data
>>> simply caused the defective connection entry to be replicated, only
>>> now with yet another UUI
On 5/27/25 7:40 PM, Titus Newswanger wrote:
On 5/26/25 14:20, accipiter wrote:
Attempting to delete/remove the connection entry with the wrong data
simply caused the defective connection entry to be replicated, only
now with yet another UUID. It is this erroneous connection entry that
appear
On 28/05/2025 09:06, accipiter wrote:
but also had IP4 parameters with the 169.254... crap.
Ignore it, it should not harm as an additional address. It is a
link-local address and it should not prevent routing to the gateway.
It *may* mean that some tool is trying to get an IP address through
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 19:06:22 -0700, accipiter wrote:
> At first it didn't seem to do any good, mis-replicating the eth0 connection
> when I killed that particular eth0 using its UUID. But then I tried killing
> *both* eth0 connections, then trying to re-edit / create the eth0 connection
> - an
On 5/26/25 14:20, accipiter wrote:
Attempting to delete/remove the connection entry with the wrong data
simply caused the defective connection entry to be replicated, only
now with yet another UUID. It is this erroneous connection entry that
appears connected to the eth0 device.
I had a simil
On 5/26/25 7:40 PM, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 27/05/2025 02:20, accipiter wrote:
nmcli c edit eth0
[...]
Attempting to delete/remove the connection entry with the wrong data
simply caused the defective connection entry to be replicated, only
now with yet another UUID.
Is there a chance that
On 28/05/2025 06:44, accipiter wrote:
Oh - sorry forgot: there's *nothing* in /etc/network/interfaces.d/
While I have no reason to not trust you, it would be more convincing to
post exact command and its output, e.g.
grep -RE '^\s*[^#]' /etc/network/interfaces /etc/network/interfaces.d
In
On 5/26/25 11:10 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 08:46:37PM -0700, accipiter wrote:
In the past it was the old standard /etc/network/interfaces setup. I had
commented-out all the lines associated with 'eth0', but it's possible
there's something that I haven't adequately kille
On 5/26/25 9:40 PM, Charles Curley wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:46:37 -0700
accipiter wrote:
If you are using Network Manager, you should not have anything else
setting up interfaces that NM manages for you. What did you use for
the purpose in the past?
In the past it was the old standar
On 5/26/25 11:10 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 08:46:37PM -0700, accipiter wrote:
In the past it was the old standard /etc/network/interfaces setup. I had
commented-out all the lines associated with 'eth0', but it's possible
there's something that I haven't adequately kille
On 5/26/25 15:20, accipiter wrote:
I updated an old laptop to bookworm - but on reboot the hard-wired
ethernet connection wouldn't work.
Maybe the ethernet hardware is unsupported? Can you see in journalctl
where the module loads? You can find the driver name with
ls -l /sys/class/net//
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 20:46:37 -0700, accipiter wrote:
> On 5/26/25 6:20 PM, Charles Curley wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 May 2025 12:20:22 -0700
> > accipiter wrote:
> >
> > > it showed not 1 but 2 entries for eth0 - though with different UUIDs.
> >
> > If you are using Network Manager, you should no
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 08:46:37PM -0700, accipiter wrote:
> In the past it was the old standard /etc/network/interfaces setup. I had
> commented-out all the lines associated with 'eth0', but it's possible
> there's something that I haven't adequately killed off. Is
> there some way to ensur
On 5/26/25 6:20 PM, Charles Curley wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 12:20:22 -0700
accipiter wrote:
it showed not 1 but 2 entries for eth0 - though with different UUIDs.
If you are using Network Manager, you should not have anything else
setting up interfaces that NM manages for you. What did you
On Mon, 26 May 2025 20:46:37 -0700
accipiter wrote:
> > If you are using Network Manager, you should not have anything else
> > setting up interfaces that NM manages for you. What did you use for
> > the purpose in the past?
> >
> In the past it was the old standard /etc/network/interfaces set
On 5/26/25 7:40 PM, Max Nikulin wrote:
On 27/05/2025 02:20, accipiter wrote:
nmcli c edit eth0
[...]
Attempting to delete/remove the connection entry with the wrong data
simply caused the defective connection entry to be replicated, only
now with yet another UUID.
Is there a chance that
On 27/05/2025 02:20, accipiter wrote:
nmcli c edit eth0
[...]
Attempting to delete/remove the connection entry with the wrong data
simply caused the defective connection entry to be replicated, only now
with yet another UUID.
Is there a chance that NetworkManager is under control of netp
On Mon, 26 May 2025 12:20:22 -0700
accipiter wrote:
> it showed not 1 but 2 entries for eth0 - though with different UUIDs.
If you are using Network Manager, you should not have anything else
setting up interfaces that NM manages for you. What did you use for the
purpose in the past?
--
Does a
I updated an old laptop to bookworm - but on reboot the hard-wired
ethernet connection wouldn't work. Trying to manually configure the
networking via
nmcli c edit eth0
appeared to work ('print' gave the right values) BUT networking still
didn't work. Old standby /sbin/ifconfig showed the o
20 matches
Mail list logo
