In <20100210084608.gu14...@think.homelan>, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> I don't know anything about these scripts. When do they run?
Udev is a daemon, started fairly early in the boot process. It communicates
with the kernel. It evaluates the rules
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:46:08AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM:
> > > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
> > I don't know anything about these scripts. When do they run? And
On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM:
> > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >
> >> So, are you saying it didn't happen? Couldn't have happened? Shouldn't
> >> have
> >> happened? I'm imagining things? Are you kidding
Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM:
> On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> So, are you saying it didn't happen? Couldn't have happened? Shouldn't have
>> happened? I'm imagining things? Are you kidding?
>
> No, I'm saying that under normal circumstances it should
On Mon,08.Feb.10, 20:07:36, Frank Miles wrote:
> I won't belabor this.
>
> Putting in a different NIC fixed things. No fuss, though interesting that it
> (presumably udev) wanted to call it eth2. I can live with that.
Of course it did, eth0 and eth1 were already taken ;)
Regards,
Andrei
--
Of
On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> So, are you saying it didn't happen? Couldn't have happened? Shouldn't have
> happened? I'm imagining things? Are you kidding?
No, I'm saying that under normal circumstances it should work.
> It broke. I fixed it by manually editing the p
I won't belabor this.
Putting in a different NIC fixed things. No fuss, though interesting that it
(presumably udev) wanted to call it eth2. I can live with that.
Thanks again, everyone!
-Frank
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsu
Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/8/2010 2:29 PM:
> On Mon,08.Feb.10, 01:15:43, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps the kernel brings eth1 into existence by first establishing it as
>>> eth0, then renaming it to eth1; then bringing the "real" eth0 into
>>> existence.
>>
>> The above can happen when yo
On Mon,08.Feb.10, 01:15:43, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > Perhaps the kernel brings eth1 into existence by first establishing it as
> > eth0, then renaming it to eth1; then bringing the "real" eth0 into
> > existence.
>
> The above can happen when you add NICs to the system. I hate UDEV for this,
>
Frank Miles put forth on 2/8/2010 10:32 AM:
> Thanks so much to Stan, Tom H, and Cameleon!
>
> It seems that the consensus is that it's a NIC problem. In case
> it wasn't previously clear, the RealTek 8169 is part of the Gigabyte
> motherboard.
>
> I thought that I'd escaped non-free-firmware he
Thanks so much to Stan, Tom H, and Cameleon!
It seems that the consensus is that it's a NIC problem. In case
it wasn't previously clear, the RealTek 8169 is part of the Gigabyte
motherboard.
I thought that I'd escaped non-free-firmware hell by getting a MB
with the graphics based on an Intel ch
Hi Frank, sorry you're going through such pains here. Did the same myself not
long ago.
Frank Miles put forth on 2/7/2010 12:41 PM:
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [6.156559] r8169 Gigabit Ethernet
> driver 2.3LK-NAPI loaded
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [6.156573] r8169 :02:00.0
... ok, started...
[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 0xc9c4e000,xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx, XID 083000c0 IRQ 32
>> [ 6.317161] eth1: RTL8168d/8111d at 0xc9c4e000,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
>> [
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 0xc9000
> I made a minor effort earlier to suppress the IPv6 modules, but [a] didn't
> succeed
Add
ipv6.disable=1
to the grub kernel/linux line to disable ipv6 (without recompiling the kernel)
but it cannot be the problem.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
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 0xc9000
> That file includes:
> # PCI device 0x10ec:0x8168 (r8169)
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
> ATTR{address}=="xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1",
> KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
> # PCI device 0x10b7:0x9050 (3c59x)
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="
[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 0xc9c4e000, xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx,
XID 083000c0 IRQ 32
[6.384830] eth1
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:41:46 -0800, Frank Miles wrote:
> Thanks, Camaleon (sorry - don't know how to generate the proper
> characters).
Still "us-ascii"? ;-) No problem.
> That file includes:
>
> # PCI device 0x10ec:0x8168 (r8169)
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
> ATTR{addres
Thanks, Camaleon (sorry - don't know how to generate the proper characters).
That file includes:
# PCI device 0x10ec:0x8168 (r8169)
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0",
ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
# PCI device
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:07:03 -0800, Frank Miles wrote:
(...)
> There is one troubling line in the logs from boot:
> udev: renamed network interface eth0 to eth1
> Doing an "ifdown eth1" does not fix the eth0 problem.
Mmm... check your "/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules", there
sho
> Shaddy just rejoiced over my response (see ``purity -p
> nerd|grep ^100'') ;-), and felt an irresistible compulsion to rephrase
> it. Besides, s/he has other problems like replying both to me and the
> list, and [1]TOFU, besides being rude.
>
> [1] http://www.vranx.de/mail/tofu.html
>
I since
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:23:22PM -0800, Nano Nano wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:46:58AM +0800, Shaddy.Baddah wrote:
> > Finally! Thank you Jan. Some of the suggestions are pretty convenient, like
> > dmesg, which should give you the vendor details, but that would break down
> > if they are
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:46:58AM +0800, Shaddy.Baddah wrote:
> Finally! Thank you Jan. Some of the suggestions are pretty convenient, like
> dmesg, which should give you the vendor details, but that would break down
> if they are the same vendor. And considering this is the absolute correct
> way
al Message-
From: Jan Minar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 10:42 AM
To: Debian Users List
Subject: Re: eth0/eth1 which one?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:40:11AM -0800, Lars Jensen wrote:
> I have two network cards on my machine How do I tell which one is eth0
>
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:40:11AM -0800, Lars Jensen wrote:
> I have two network cards on my machine How do I tell which one is eth0
> and which one is eth1 ?
Quite a bunch of interesting replies :-) Here is mine:
Each and every ethernet card has its own unique MAC number, this number
usually i
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:02:42 -0800
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:40:11AM -0800, Lars Jensen wrote:
> > I have two network cards on my machine How do I tell which one is eth0
> > and which one is eth1 ?
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:40:11AM -0800, Lars Jensen wrote:
> I have two network cards on my machine How do I tell which one is eth0
> and which one is eth1 ?
If you have DHCP on your segment, then you can plug one in and see
which iface gets the IP.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:40:11AM -0800, Lars Jensen wrote:
> I have two network cards on my machine How do I tell which one is eth0
> and which one is eth1 ?
If the cards use different modules, `dmesg' should give you some
information on which card is is served by which driver.
But if the cards
On 02/12/2004 04:40 PM, Lars Jensen wrote:
I have two network cards on my machine How do I tell which one is eth0
and which one is eth1 ?
dmesg can give you a hint:
$ dmesg | grep 'eth[01]'
--
Hamilton Coutinho | Feanor - license issues are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | important. If we do
Lars Jensen wrote:
> I have two network cards on my machine How do I tell which one is eth0
> and which one is eth1 ?
Unplug one and run ifconfig -a. The one with "no carrier" is the one you
unplugged.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:40:11AM -0800, Lars Jensen wrote:
> I have two network cards on my machine How do I tell which one is eth0
> and which one is eth1 ?
>
> Thanks,
> Lars.
ping something and look at the link lights
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsub
On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:25:43PM -0500, Sean Morgan wrote:
> Also, I can't for the life of me see why a cable company would lock on to
> a MAC address.
RCN in the northeast US does exactly this.
Personally I was happy (when I was in charge of such things) to
instruct the modem to recognise one
On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 11:25:43PM -0500, Sean Morgan wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:44:19 -0500
>
> Also, I can't for the life of me see why a cable company would lock on to
> a MAC address. Roadrunner doesn't do this, and it would be really
> incompetent for a cable company to authenticate on
Sean Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, I can't for the life of me see why a cable company would lock on to
> a MAC address. Roadrunner doesn't do this, and it would be really
Roadrunner in Eastern Mass. does do this. They're so kind as to even
put the mac address as the hostname, like
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 10:44:19 -0500
dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 08:13:53AM +0100, Eric Smith wrote:
> | According to dman on Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 08:14:49PM -0500:
> | > On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 07:10:19PM +0100, Eric Smith wrote:
> | > | Its been quite a saga - I have
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 08:13:53AM +0100, Eric Smith wrote:
| According to dman on Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 08:14:49PM -0500:
| > On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 07:10:19PM +0100, Eric Smith wrote:
| > | Its been quite a saga - I have lost my (limited) hacking instinct.
| > | Having failed to get ipmasq to wor
According to Kelley, Tim (CBS-New Orleans) on Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 09:26:16AM
-0500:
> dhcpcd can pass whatever Mac address you want to a dhcp server ...
just what I wanted to hear (but was afraid to ask).
I was wondering about that and tried it once and failed - now will
try again. Though the
dhcpcd can pass whatever Mac address you want to a dhcp server ...
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Smith [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:14 AM
> To: Debian User
> Subject: eth0 <-> eth1
>
> According to dman on Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 08:14:49PM -0500:
40 matches
Mail list logo
