ifup: failed to bring up eth0

[7011]: process and the information we find helpful for debugging. Sep 01 21:25:01 lulu-inspiron5437 dhclient[7011]: Sep 01 21:25:01 lulu-inspiron5437 dhclient[7011]: exiting. Sep 01 21:25:01 lulu-inspiron5437 ifup[6982]: ifup: failed to bring up eth0 Sep 01 21:25:01 lulu-inspiron5437 systemd[1

Re: Change eth0 to eno1

Paul M. Foster composed on 2021-10-26 18:06 (UTC-0400): > Along about Debian 10, the standard first ethernet card interface for a > desktop machine, referred to as "eth0", was changed to "eno1". Just out > of idle curiosity, does anyone know why this was done?

Re: Change eth0 to eno1

t; > Along about Debian 10, the standard first ethernet card interface for a > desktop machine, referred to as "eth0", was changed to "eno1". Just out > of idle curiosity, does anyone know why this was done? (It broke some > stuff on my machine.) > > Paul > > >

Re: Change eth0 to eno1

Hello, On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 06:06:18PM -0400, Paul M. Foster wrote: > Along about Debian 10, the standard first ethernet card interface for a > desktop machine, referred to as "eth0", was changed to "eno1". Just out of > idle curiosity, does anyone know why this w

Change eth0 to eno1

Folks: Along about Debian 10, the standard first ethernet card interface for a desktop machine, referred to as "eth0", was changed to "eno1". Just out of idle curiosity, does anyone know why this was done? (It broke some stuff on my machine.) Paul

Re: IP-CONFIG: no response | eth0 hardware address DHCP RARP

On 2021-02-07 9:40 p.m., Elias Pereira wrote: > hello, > > I have debian 10 in a xenserver 7.0 vm with static ip and keeps trying > dhcp. Already removed some packages that could be interfering, but must > still have something installed. > > the post messages > https://i.stack.imgur.com/9ylgS.p

IP-CONFIG: no response | eth0 hardware address DHCP RARP

hello, I have debian 10 in a xenserver 7.0 vm with static ip and keeps trying dhcp. Already removed some packages that could be interfering, but must still have something installed. the post messages https://i.stack.imgur.com/9ylgS.png

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Jaikumar Sharma wrote: > For my tests on Cisco switch  at office (without any changes on > switch) and using bonding in  "active-backup" mode, I can ping the > active interface using bond0 IP after plugging out the network cable > of the cable of active interface. > Only catch was all interfaces m

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Hello, On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 09:16:48PM +0200, deloptes wrote: > Dan Ritter wrote: > > This really sounds like you're trying to test out a scenario in > > a situation where it can't possibly work. > > > > But this is exactly what he has to do - connect two wired network interfaces > to a manag

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 9:36 PM Dan Ritter wrote: > This really sounds like you're trying to test out a scenario in > a situation where it can't possibly work. > > Don't do that. Test it in as close a simulation to reality as > possible. Thanks Dan for insights, it worked - I humbly appreciate you

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:47 AM deloptes wrote: > But this is exactly what he has to do - connect two wired network interfaces > to a managed switch. Then configure LAGG (LACP) on the switch for the two > ports and LAGG (LACP) on the PC/server. Right :) For my tests on Cisco switch at office (wi

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Dan Ritter wrote: >> Have to test it with two wired connections connected to Cisco managed >> switch. > > This really sounds like you're trying to test out a scenario in > a situation where it can't possibly work. > But this is exactly what he has to do - connect two wired network interfaces to

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Jaikumar Sharma wrote: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 5:10 PM Dan Ritter wrote: > > You still want bridging, not bonding. > Preferred is bonding, if it works :) > Have to test it with two wired connections connected to Cisco managed switch. This really sounds like you're trying to test out a scenar

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

> hrmm... I just went back to the original post; I missed this bit the > first time around: > > In this setup i'm using a D-Link 8 port switch to connect eth0 using > > ethernet cable and eth1 is connected on wireless adapter of my laptop. > > eth0 and eth1 are proba

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 5:10 PM Dan Ritter wrote: > You still want bridging, not bonding. Preferred is bonding, if it works :) > WiFi doesn't have a cable, so it can't tell you when the > connection goes away, and it can't decide by itself to bring up > a connection. You need a management program

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

your existing > connections will drop and new inbound connections will only work > on the NIC that's up. True. But it's better than manually switching things around. hrmm... I just went back to the original post; I missed this bit the first time around: > In this setup i'

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Lee wrote: > > Or you can just configure the wired ethernet connection to have a > lower (better) routing metric than the wireless connection. That way > the machine always uses the wired connection if it's up and uses the > wireless connection when the wired connection is down. > > There's pro

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

On 8/22/20, Dan Ritter wrote: > Jaikumar Sharma wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:30 PM Dan Ritter wrote: >> > You don't want a bond, you want a bridge. >> > >> > Bonding takes two interfaces that talk to the same switch on the >> > other side, and makes them into one bond nic. You need support

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Jaikumar Sharma wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:30 PM Dan Ritter wrote: > > You don't want a bond, you want a bridge. > > > > Bonding takes two interfaces that talk to the same switch on the > > other side, and makes them into one bond nic. You need support > > on the switch, too, which is unl

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:30 PM Dan Ritter wrote: > You don't want a bond, you want a bridge. > > Bonding takes two interfaces that talk to the same switch on the > other side, and makes them into one bond nic. You need support > on the switch, too, which is unlikely in a D-Link 8-port unless > it

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Jaikumar Sharma wrote: > Thank you for pointers, this is a test switch at home but of course > we have bigger Cisco switches at office which have management interface. > It look like LACP needs to be checked/enabled on ports which needs to > be used in network bonding. Note that LACP is not "acti

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 9:30 PM Dan Ritter wrote: > > You don't want a bond, you want a bridge. > > Bonding takes two interfaces that talk to the same switch on the > other side, and makes them into one bond nic. You need support > on the switch, too, which is unlikely in a D-Link 8-port unless >

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Dan Ritter wrote: > You don't want a bond, you want a bridge. > > Bonding takes two interfaces that talk to the same switch on the > other side, and makes them into one bond nic. You need support > on the switch, too, which is unlikely in a D-Link 8-port unless > it has a management interface --

Re: In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Jaikumar Sharma wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'm using Debian 10 (point release 5) and i've set up the bonding for > eth0 and eth1 in 'active-backup' mode, i'm using virtualbox VM for > testing it, if i disconnect cable (virtually from first ethernet -

In network bonding second nic (eth1) is not pingable while first one (eth0) is always pingable"

Hi folks, I'm using Debian 10 (point release 5) and i've set up the bonding for eth0 and eth1 in 'active-backup' mode, i'm using virtualbox VM for testing it, if i disconnect cable (virtually from first ethernet - eth0) ping to bond0 IP stops and if i disconnect it from e

Re: All of my enoX interfaces are mapped to eth0

unload/reload of the network driver resulted in a > correct mapping (eno1->eth0, eno2->eth1, etc.) and then I was able to set > up the bonded interface in active/passive failover mode just fine. So it's > all set now. That seems an odd solution to me, which might work in your p

Re: All of my enoX interfaces are mapped to eth0

ubnet. The reason I was trying to figure out whether or not they were actually mapped to the same physical interface was that I needed to setup a bonded interface. A quick unload/reload of the network driver resulted in a correct mapping (eno1->eth0, eno2->eth1, etc.) and then I was able to

Re: All of my enoX interfaces are mapped to eth0

On Fri 30 Mar 2018 at 23:16:26 (-0400), David Parker wrote: > They are all on the same subnet, yes. But I haven't ever seen this > behavior before. Normally, when I have an interface which is unplugged, > its IP is unreachable. So we have two machines, one with eth0, eth1, eth2

Re: All of my enoX interfaces are mapped to eth0

even though the first interface is the only one > > which is physically connected to the network. The other three interfaces > > are unplugged. So that leads me to believe that all 4 eno interfaces are > > actually mapping to the first physical interface (a.k.a. eth0). > > Do

Re: All of my enoX interfaces are mapped to eth0

them > from a different machine, even though the first interface is the only one > which is physically connected to the network. The other three interfaces > are unplugged. So that leads me to believe that all 4 eno interfaces are > actually mapping to the first physical interface (

Re: All of my enoX interfaces are mapped to eth0

y one which is physically connected to the network. The other three interfaces are unplugged. So that leads me to believe that all 4 eno interfaces are actually mapping to the first physical interface (a.k.a. eth0). That's why I'm really confused. Thanks! On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:50 P

Re: All of my enoX interfaces are mapped to eth0

t still uses > the ethX interface names). However, the one that was installed from > scratch is having an issue which I can't seem to figure out. There are 4 > network interfaces -- eno[1-4] -- but they are all getting mapped to eth0. > It looks like they were mapped correctly unti

All of my enoX interfaces are mapped to eth0

having an issue which I can't seem to figure out. There are 4 network interfaces -- eno[1-4] -- but they are all getting mapped to eth0. It looks like they were mapped correctly until I reloaded the network driver a few days ago. Any idea how I can get them back into a 1:1 mapping with the a

Re: How to rename my wired connection from 'eno1' to 'eth0'?

Dejan Jocic writes: > On 13-06-17, Sharon Kimble wrote: >> >> Due to a hard-drive failure I've had to install Debian 9 and I've got a >> peculiar problem. >> >> My wired connection is showing as 'eno1' instead of the unexpected >> &

Re: How to rename my wired connection from 'eno1' to 'eth0'?

Sharon Kimble wrote: ... > Due to a hard-drive failure I've had to install Debian 9 and I've got a > peculiar problem. > > My wired connection is showing as 'eno1' instead of the unexpected > 'eth0', which means that my 'vnstat' is failing

Re: How to rename my wired connection from 'eno1' to 'eth0'?

On 13-06-17, Sharon Kimble wrote: > > Due to a hard-drive failure I've had to install Debian 9 and I've got a > peculiar problem. > > My wired connection is showing as 'eno1' instead of the unexpected > 'eth0', which means that my 'vnstat&#x

Re: How to rename my wired connection from 'eno1' to 'eth0'?

Sharon Kimble composed on 2017-06-13 11:00 (UTC+0100): . > Due to a hard-drive failure I've had to install Debian 9 and I've got a > peculiar problem. > My wired connection is showing as 'eno1' instead of the unexpected > 'eth0', which means that m

How to rename my wired connection from 'eno1' to 'eth0'?

Due to a hard-drive failure I've had to install Debian 9 and I've got a peculiar problem. My wired connection is showing as 'eno1' instead of the unexpected 'eth0', which means that my 'vnstat' is failing to record my network traffic. So how do I change i

Re: Why 2 dhclient processes running for eth0 (IPv4)?

h1 > 447 dhclient -v -pf /run/dhclient.eth0.pid -lf > /var/lib/dhcp/dhclient.eth0.leases eth0 > 601 dhclient -v -pf /run/dhclient.eth0.pid -lf > /var/lib/dhcp/dhclient.eth0.leases eth0 > 664 dhclient -6 -pf /run/dhclient6.eth0.pid -lf > /var/lib/dhcp/dhclient6.eth0.l

Re: Why 2 dhclient processes running for eth0 (IPv4)?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 08:31:10AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:34:34PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Also, more "w" in the ps: > > > > ps auxf | less > > >From ps(1): > >w Wide output. Use this o

Re: Why 2 dhclient processes running for eth0 (IPv4)?

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:34:34PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Also, more "w" in the ps: > > ps auxf | less >From ps(1): w Wide output. Use this option twice for unlimited width. You never need more than two.

Re: Why 2 dhclient processes running for eth0 (IPv4)?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 01:23:36PM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 06:58:30PM +0800, Clark Wang wrote: > > > There are 2 `dhclient` processes running for `eth0` (IPv4). Rebooting does > >

Re: Why 2 dhclient processes running for eth0 (IPv4)?

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 06:58:30PM +0800, Clark Wang wrote: > > There are 2 `dhclient` processes running for `eth0` (IPv4). Rebooting does > > not help for me. > > > > Anyone else has the same problem? I think I have sometimes seen this, but I do not know what prov

Re: Why 2 dhclient processes running for eth0 (IPv4)?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 06:58:30PM +0800, Clark Wang wrote: [...] > Anyone else has the same problem? No. At least not if I don't provoke it :-) You could gather some hints by looking into /var/log/daemon.log (dhclient's mumblings are there) and/or

Re: Why 2 dhclient processes running for eth0 (IPv4)?

h1 > 447 dhclient -v -pf /run/dhclient.eth0.pid -lf > /var/lib/dhcp/dhclient.eth0.leases eth0 > 601 dhclient -v -pf /run/dhclient.eth0.pid -lf > /var/lib/dhcp/dhclient.eth0.leases eth0 > 664 dhclient -6 -pf /run/dhclient6.eth0.pid -lf > /var/lib/dhcp/dhclient6.eth0.l

Why 2 dhclient processes running for eth0 (IPv4)?

/dhclient.eth0.leases eth0 601 dhclient -v -pf /run/dhclient.eth0.pid -lf /var/lib/dhcp/dhclient.eth0.leases eth0 664 dhclient -6 -pf /run/dhclient6.eth0.pid -lf /var/lib/dhcp/dhclient6.eth0.leases eth0 root@debian:~# grep -n -C3 eth0 /etc/network/interfaces 7-auto lo 8-iface lo inet

Re: need to make an eth0:1 net interface

initial email. > > > > So what was the ":1" about? And did it play any part in your > > > solution? It was, after all, a feature of your of your original > > > message. > > > > > > Glad you got it working in some unknown way. > > >

Re: need to make an eth0:1 net interface

ion? > > It was, after all, a feature of your of your original message. > > > > Glad you got it working in some unknown way. > > That was an attempt to make use of the eth0 interface by adding the :1 > that responded to the usual 192.168.1.X block of addresses. Okay, so

Re: need to make an eth0:1 net interface

s, after all, a feature of your of your original message. > > Glad you got it working in some unknown way. That was an attempt to make use of the eth0 interface by adding the :1 that responded to the usual 192.168.1.X block of addresses. That of course did NOT work. So, I wound up with this in

Re: need to make an eth0:1 net interface

On Mon 16 May 2016 at 14:45:12 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 16 May 2016 00:48:11 Andy Smith wrote: > > > More details first, I think. > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > Thanks for the interest Andy, but I got it working and its been > re-installed in place of the router that wasn't properly

Re: need to make an eth0:1 net interface

On Monday 16 May 2016 00:48:11 Andy Smith wrote: > Hi Gene, > > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 07:38:46PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > > Do we have a utility that makes it easy to add a :1 to an existing > > eth0 interface? > > It depends what exactly you are trying to achie

Re: need to make an eth0:1 net interface

Hi Gene, On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 07:38:46PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: > Do we have a utility that makes it easy to add a :1 to an existing eth0 > interface? It depends what exactly you are trying to achieve. If you just want to add an additional IP address to an interface then you can d

need to make an eth0:1 net interface

Greetings all; Do we have a utility that makes it easy to add a :1 to an existing eth0 interface? I need to reconfigure a router from scratch. I've manually added it, but I'm pinging myself when I ping it, as in no effect on the ping when the newer router is unplugged. Either cat5

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

and for > new hardware. Here the hardware was already there; there was just > no firmware. The ethernet interface is the only one mentioned in the .rules file because there was no wlan0 interface due to a lack of firmware on Jessie. eth0 is not renamed on upgrade to unstable because there is

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

On 2016-01-07 18:47:48 +, Brian wrote: > Many WiFi devices require firmware. Some of those devices will not have > an interface registered (they are not initialised) if the firmware is > not present to be loaded into the device. Other devices get an interface > whether the firmware is present o

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

On Thu 07 Jan 2016 at 13:12:59 +, Brian wrote: > Pass. 70-persistent-net.rules was generated on Jessie and carried over > to testing. You would need a Jessie install on the same machine to > investigate. Perhaps not; one theory could be tested on Stretch. Many WiFi devices require firmware.

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

; > > > > > followed by > > > > > > modprobe -v > > > > > > Repeat with 70-persistent-net.rules returned to /etc/udev/rules.d. Any > > > changes in 'ls /sys/class/net/'? > > > > Well, I want to keep eth0 on my laptop

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

> Repeat with 70-persistent-net.rules returned to /etc/udev/rules.d. Any > > changes in 'ls /sys/class/net/'? > > Well, I want to keep eth0 on my laptop because I have things > that depend on it. But what I was wondering is why I have > wlp61s0 instead of wlan0, i.e.

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

7; and 'ip link' give without this addition? > > > > > > > > I get: > > > > > > > > ls /sys/class/net/ > > > > > > > > enp1s0 Io wlan0 > > > > > > Interesting. One interface is renamed; one is not (wlan0)

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

On Thu 31 Dec 2015 at 22:14:49 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > udev is already run in the initramfs. > So for any changes that are made to 70-persistent-net.rules, you need to > rebuild your initramfs. > > Maybe your initramfs contains an outdated udev rules file. > If you update the initramfs via

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

t; > > > I get: > > > > > > ls /sys/class/net/ > > > > > > enp1s0 Io wlan0 > > > > Interesting. One interface is renamed; one is not (wlan0). > > On my laptop (installed from Jessie, then upgraded to unstable), > this is the opposite: &

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

Io wlan0 > > Interesting. One interface is renamed; one is not (wlan0). On my laptop (installed from Jessie, then upgraded to unstable), this is the opposite: eth0 lo wlp61s0 Quite strange... -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTM

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

On Thu 31 Dec 2015 at 19:08:18 +0100, Hans wrote: > What do 'ls /sys/class/net' and 'ip link' give without this addition? > > I get: > > ls /sys/class/net/ > > enp1s0 Io wlan0 Interesting. One interface is renamed; one is not (wlan0). [Snip] > I believe, the different outrputs are just be

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

Am Donnerstag, 31. Dezember 2015, 22:14:49 schrieb Michael Biebl: > Am 29.12.2015 um 19:34 schrieb Hans: Hi Michael, > Maybe your initramfs contains an outdated udev rules file. > If you update the initramfs via update-initramfs -u, does that change > anything? No, I already tried this, but it mad

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

> 1005HGO) , the other one the old eth0 scheme (my Aspire 7520G). > > Both got 70-persistent-net-rules configured. udev is already run in the initramfs. So for any changes that are made to 70-persistent-net.rules, you need to rebuild your initramfs. Maybe your initramfs contains an o

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

Hi Brian, > Is there no sign of any discovered interfaces for the Aspire in the > output of dmesg? > I get this: dmesg | grep eth0 [2.201866] forcedeth :00:0a.0: ifname eth0, PHY OUI 0x732 @ 1, addr 1c:75:08:2c:84:f8 [ 36.198523] forcedeth :00:0a.0 eth0: MS

MAC address and security (was: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try))

On 2015-12-30 16:11:39 +0100, Hans wrote: > I changed the MAC cause of security purposes in this mail. FYI: http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/67893/is-it-dangerous-to-post-my-mac-address-publicly -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML -

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

990] eeepc_laptop: Get control methods supported: 0xe301713 > [ 64.534486] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready dmesg or journalctl have no indication that eth0 on the EEEPC is renamed? [...] > Hope this helps a little bit. My solution at the moment is the well known

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

My fault. I sent in HTML, but should be ascii. > Weird, nothing came through this end. You sure you pasted them? I sent the mail again, now in ASCII. Please tell me, if it is not ok the second time. Thank you Hans

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0 (second try)

ed no output at all. root@protheus7:/home/ullhan63# grep -E '(enp|eth)' /var/log/dmesg [8.480990] eeepc_laptop: Get control methods supported: 0xe301713 [ 64.534486] IPv6: ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready > > Could you show the content of both 70-persistent-ne

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

howed no useful information. The only output is from my EEEPC > below, the Aspire showed no output at all. > > root@protheus7:/home/ullhan63# grep -E '(enp|eth)' /var/log/dmesg > > > > > > Could you show the content of both 70-persistent-net-rules files? >

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

ed no output at all. root@protheus7:/home/ullhan63# grep -E '(enp|eth)' /var/log/dmesg > > Could you show the content of both 70-persistent-net-rules files? Yes, this is Aspire with eth0: # This file was automatically generated by the /lib/udev/write_net_rules I changed th

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

Did you take a look at dmesg on both systems? Something like grep -E '(enp|eth)' /var/log/dmesg Could you show the content of both 70-persistent-net-rules files? Regards, jvp.

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

gt; doku > meant. I suggest you read it again, and if it doesn't become clear, ask specific question(s) about what remains unclear. > And if enps10 is the "new" kind of naming network devices, is it then > recommended to edit all configurations and change the entries from et

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

On Tue 29 Dec 2015 at 20:55:45 +0100, Hans wrote: > Hi Brian, Felix and Charlie, > > Persistant name generation is enabled by default since udev 220-7 and > > will be used on new installations or with new hardware. Existing > > installations and hardware which get upgraded to udev 220-7 are covere

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

entioned in the doku, but I did not quite understand, what the doku meant. And if enps10 is the "new" kind of naming network devices, is it then recommended to edit all configurations and change the entries from eth0 to enp1s0? This would also mean, I guess, either 70-persistent-net-r

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

my EEEPC >1005HGO) , the other one the old eth0 scheme (my Aspire 7520G). > >Both got 70-persistent-net-rules configured. > >Now I can not understand, why one of them is using enp1s0. Who is deciding the >name? I read the documentations and the blogs, but I did not understan

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

1005HGO) , the other one the old eth0 scheme (my Aspire 7520G). > > Both got 70-persistent-net-rules configured. > > Now I can not understand, why one of them is using enp1s0. Who is deciding > the > name? I read the documentations and the blogs, but I did not understand, w

Re: Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

, the other one the old eth0 scheme (my Aspire 7520G). Was exactly the same installation method/techique employed on both, or was one say done via DVD and the other say via netboot? > Both got 70-persistent-net-rules configured. > Now I can not understand, why one of them is using enp1s

Question: eth0 vs enp1s0

Hi folks, just a question about network names, which I do not understand. I have two different computers, both are installed with the same versions of debian packages. But one of it has enp1s0 as network interface name( my EEEPC 1005HGO) , the other one the old eth0 scheme (my Aspire 7520G

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Quoting Reco (recovery...@gmail.com): > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:35:09 +0100 > Brian wrote: > > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 14:45:32 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:08 +0100 > > > Brian wrote: > > > > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 10:01:59 +, Curt wrote: > > > > > On 2015-08-28, David Wrig

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk): > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 14:45:32 +0300, Reco wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:08 +0100 > > Brian wrote: > > > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 10:01:59 +, Curt wrote: > > > > On 2015-08-28, David Wright wrote: > > > > > $ host localhost > > > > > Host localhost

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 16:13:34 +, Curt wrote: > On 2015-08-28, Brian wrote: > > > > I think I'll leave this topic at this point before I get in over my > > head, but the implication here is that a resolver not giving 127.0.0.1 > > for localhost is broken in some way. > > > > So I'm not broke

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

On 2015-08-28, Brian wrote: > > I think I'll leave this topic at this point before I get in over my > head, but the implication here is that a resolver not giving 127.0.0.1 > for localhost is broken in some way. > So I'm not broken somehow.

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 17:00:59 +0300, Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:35:09 +0100 > Brian wrote: > > > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 14:45:32 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:08 +0100 > > > Brian wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 10:01:5

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Hi. On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:35:09 +0100 Brian wrote: > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 14:45:32 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:08 +0100 > > Brian wrote: > > > > > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 10:01:59 +, Curt wrote: > > > > > > > On 2015-08-28, David Wright wrote: > > >

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 14:45:32 +0300, Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:08 +0100 > Brian wrote: > > > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 10:01:59 +, Curt wrote: > > > > > On 2015-08-28, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > > > $ host localhost > > > > Host localhost not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) >

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Hi. On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:09:08 +0100 Brian wrote: > On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 10:01:59 +, Curt wrote: > > > On 2015-08-28, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > $ host localhost > > > Host localhost not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > > $ ping localhost > > > PING localhost (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of dat

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

On Fri 28 Aug 2015 at 10:01:59 +, Curt wrote: > On 2015-08-28, David Wright wrote: > > > > $ host localhost > > Host localhost not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > > $ ping localhost > > PING localhost (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > > 64 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.032

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

On 2015-08-28, David Wright wrote: > > $ host localhost > Host localhost not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) > $ ping localhost > PING localhost (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.032 ms curty@einstein:~$ host localhost localhost has address 127.0

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Quoting Elimar Riesebieter (riese...@lxtec.de): > * David Wright [2015-08-27 13:29 -0500]: > > > Quoting Elimar Riesebieter (riese...@lxtec.de): > > > * rlhar...@oplink.net [2015-08-27 02:09 -0500]: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > How can I determine the address without reinstalling? > > >

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

* David Wright [2015-08-27 13:29 -0500]: > Quoting Elimar Riesebieter (riese...@lxtec.de): > > * rlhar...@oplink.net [2015-08-27 02:09 -0500]: > > > > [...] > > > > > > How can I determine the address without reinstalling? > > > > $ host $(hostname) > > $ host junk > Host junk not found: 3(N

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Quoting Hans (hans.ullr...@loop.de): > Am Donnerstag, 27. August 2015, 12:19:23 schrieb Thomas Schmitt: > Hi, > I understood the question of the op in that way, that he wants to give a new > ip-address without installing new. > > The answer: > > You can edit /etc/network/interfaces , after this

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Quoting Elimar Riesebieter (riese...@lxtec.de): > * rlhar...@oplink.net [2015-08-27 02:09 -0500]: > > [...] > > > > How can I determine the address without reinstalling? > > $ host $(hostname) $ host junk Host junk not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) $ ... whether junk is localhost, another PC on the LAN,

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

On Thursday 27 August 2015 06:02:13 Renaud OLGIATI wrote: > On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 04:22:11 -0400 > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > > Months ago I installed Jessie + xfce on a laptop and assigned a > > > static ip address to eth0. Now I have forgotten the ip address > &g

Re: [solved] Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Have a look at https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch05.en.html#_iproute2_commands as well as the whole chapter 5 of the Debian manual. The "modern" way to control the IP-address is $ ip addr -- Regards, jvp.

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Am Donnerstag, 27. August 2015, 12:19:23 schrieb Thomas Schmitt: Hi, I understood the question of the op in that way, that he wants to give a new ip-address without installing new. The answer: You can edit /etc/network/interfaces , after this do /etc/init.d/networking restart. If you are using

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

Hi, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > > The solution: ifconfig Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: > Or, as root, run Or as normal user: /sbin/ifconfig It's only a matter of shell PATH, not of permissions. Now why does my eth

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 04:22:11 -0400 Gene Heskett wrote: > > Months ago I installed Jessie + xfce on a laptop and assigned a static > > ip address to eth0. Now I have forgotten the ip address and need to > > know it before I plug it into my local network. > > The addr

Re: what is the static ip address I assigned to eth0?

* rlhar...@oplink.net [2015-08-27 02:09 -0500]: [...] > > How can I determine the address without reinstalling? $ host $(hostname) Elimar -- .~. /V\ L I N U X /( )\ >Phear the Penguin< ^^-^^

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >