On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:21:24AM -0700, David Whitney wrote: > > 3) Thanks to some wonderful help I received a couple days ago, I installed > net-tools-1.60: > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/stable/basicnet/net-tools.html > > I have installed DHCP-3.05 so that I could have access to 'dhclient'. On a > separate incarnation of my CLFS system, I tried using DHCPCD-2.0.8. In both > cases, I was unable to obtain a DHCP IP lease from my router. > Anything interesting in the log ? (mine is in daemon.log, and perhaps also in system.log) > My router is working fine, I have tested it with other systems, and I have > tested the CAT-5 cable I am using to connect my CLFS system. > > I have verified that NIC chip-set on CLFS system is functioning properly (I > tested previously with Fedora Core 5). >
But, did you confirm which module was loaded by fedora ? ISTR that eepro100 is one of those drivers where there is an alternative, and that for a few variants only one of the two drivers works. I don't have details because I don't have this hardware. > Here are the outputs I received when issuing various commands under the > CLFS: > > When I run "lspci | grep -i ethernet": > 00:12.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation 8255xER/82551IT Fast Ethernet > Controller (rev 10) > > When I run "dmesg | grep eth0": > eth0: OEM i82557/i82558 10/100 Ethernet, 00:30:59:02:42:EA, IRQ 5. > > When I run "lsmod": > Module Size Used by > eepro100 23824 0 > mii 4224 1 eepro100 > evdev 6912 0 > apm 15468 0 > rtc 8628 0 > > I have tried to configure the eth0 interface manually, issuing the following > command: > ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.104 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 up > > However, when I attempt to ping my router (at 192.168.1.1), I receive > messages that the "Destination Host (is) Unreachable". > That certainly _looks_ like a non-working eth0, or perhaps the cable has fallen out. I think I'd try googling for as much information as you can. My Russian is below par, but an apparently undated page from asplinux suggests the 82557/8/9 are supported by the e100 driver which I suppose might be the same thing. Did you check the kernel help (points to http://support.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/21397.htm - needs the number from the label on the card, apparently) ? From where I'm looking, CONFIG_E100 is labelled as Intel PRO/100+ support and claims the module will be called e100. I don't know what the config name is that gives eepro100, so either the help text is wrong, or you are using a different driver. The (old) message archived at http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0609.1/0128.html suggests there are/were two drivers. In general, it's easiest to use a live CD (specifically, knoppix) to check out the hardware on an unknown machine, and then see what it picks. Failing that, manually assigning a known-good static address (and for that I totally go along with using ifconfig, since you have the real version) will allow you to look at the counts [ ifconfig -a : don't try this with the iproute version of ifconfig ;-) ] > Ultimately, my system requires DHCP support. I cannot use/depend on a > static IP setup. Similar systems to which I am building will be shipped > across the World to various clients who are running their own networks (or > maybe none at all), and for which I have no control over. If they do not > support DHCP, well then I will have to cross that bridge when the time > comes. I'm not sure that assuming dhcp is the best option - a boot delay waiting for the non-existent server doesn't sound very nice. But *that's* not my problem. > > I can testify that I am not a networking guru, but I do know enough to > configure my router and setup my own little LAN in my home. There is > nothing wrong with a h/w. For the s/w, I followed the instructions in the > CLFS guide and the instructions within the BLFS guide. I have enabled or > "moduled" the ying-yang of pretty much every network option in the Kernel > configuration (which is overkill, but...). My network device is detected, > the appropriate kernel module is loaded, ifconfig (from net-tools) seems to > be able to configure the eth0 interface, however I cannot even ping my > router at 192.168.1.1. > > I do have a question about /etc/resolv.conf with DHCP. The CLFS guide > mentions about setting it up as appropriate for one's local area network. > In my case, I have the file empty because I knew I was going to use DHCP. > Was this a bad choice? Or should I insert "search localdomain"? > If you want to be able to connect to hosts by name, you need to point it to at least one functioning nameserver after you have the nic talking. I guess 'request domain-name-servers' (man dhclient.conf) should do that. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce _______________________________________________ Clfs-support mailing list Clfs-support@lists.cross-lfs.org http://lists.cross-lfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfs-support
