Check if you have your broadcast address correct and if the irqs are
conflicting?
Cheers!
Moonshi Mohsenruddin
Editor, Singapore Linux Portal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Singapore/Asia icq: 2595480 http://www.linux.com.sg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dennis
> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 11:51 PM
> To: Rod Hauser
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Two eepro100 cards...won't both work (long story)
>
>
> We use loadable modules with dual eepros all the time....no problem.
>
> Screw linuxconf, do the modprobes yourself in the startup scripts.
>
> Dennis
>
> At 09:35 AM 8/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >Each card will work fine in either PCI slot, but when _both_ cards are in
> >the machine, neither will work. I'm pretty sure it has
> something to do with
> >the kernel loadable modules, but I ran out of patience
> yesterday. Just as a
> >spoiler, the machine is up and running with 2 NICs right now--
> one eepro100
> >and one epic100. But I want to _know_why_...
> > Here's my hardware and what I tried:
> >
> >Hardware: HP Vectra486/66 w/ 20MB RAM etc. 2 PCI slots and one
> on-board 10BT
> >LAN port (currently enabled in the BIOS-- anyone know offhand
> which driver
> >would address this port? Not important)
> >Software: RedHat 6.0, pretty much a standard install. As a note, the RH
> >install detected the eepro100 fine, but I only had one in the
> machine at the
> >time of the install. I installed the second NIC, and decided to
> experiment
> >with linuxconf to add it. Seemed to work, ifconfig showed both interfaces
> >up, but no response from either NIC as far as getting anything from the
> >network. So here's what I did to troubleshoot.
> >
> >1. Found an error (probably from using linuxconf...) in /etc/conf.modules
> >and removed duplicate lines -- essentially the file repeated
> itself. Here's
> >fixed conf.modules
> > alias eth0 eepro100
> > alias eth1 eepro100
> > alias parport_lowlevel parport_pc
> > pre-install pcmcia_core /etc/rc.d/init.d/pcmcia start
> >
> >2. Went and read Ethernet how-to again, as well as Don's shorter version
> >linked there-from.
> >3. Specified io base and irq options in lilo, with ether=
> >4. Reversed lilo specification because a) it didn't work and ii) it's the
> >wrong place - they're modules, not in the kernel
> >5. Specified iobase as options in /etc/conf.modules. as such:
> > alias eth0 eepro100
> > alias eth1 eepro100
> > options eepro100 io=0xfce0,0xfcc0
> >6. That didn't work so I double-checked the iobase that ifconfig gave me,
> >using modprobe. Correct.
> >7. Tried making the options distinct for each card as such:
> > alias eth0 eepro100
> > alias eth1 eepro100
> > options eth0 -o eepro100-0 io=0xfce0
> > options eth1 -o eepro100-1 io=0xfcc0
> >8. Tried adding irq's to above, still no success. Double-checked irq
> >availability with a cat /proc/interrupts. Correct
> >9. Looking back at the howto (p.2 for me of Ethernet howto) for
> doing this,
> >I saw that this was for ne2000 ISA cards, so I took out options line in
> >conf.modules on the following assumption: the loadable module must not
> >accept these options, perhaps it's written to always probe, because PCI
> >devices are always successful? (unlike ISA)
> >10. Backed up then removed /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1 and
> >rebooted to let the machine bring up only eth0, but with both
> cards present
> >in the machine. No joy.
> >11. Pulled the second eepro100 card out and put in an epic100, edited
> >conf.modules. Booted successfully immediately. Sigh.
> >
> >Obviously, there were some reboots along the line there, and
> several times I
> >downed all the interfaces (even lo) and brought them up one at a time, or
> >one or the other, with ifconfig. One item of note is that,
> booting with one
> >or both eepro100 cards installed, ifconfig showed (one or both)
> active, but
>
> >route would hang, while route -n would complete. Here's a pair
> of samples:
> >Kernel IP routing table
> >Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> >Iface
> >10.0.1.254 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0
> 0 eth1
> >192.168.1.80 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0
> 0 eth0
> >192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> 0 eth0
> >10.0.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0
> 0 eth1
> >127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
> 0 lo
> >(hangs)
> >
> >at boot without eth1:
> >[root@bozo/root]# route
> >Kernel IP routing table
> >Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> >Iface
> >192.168.1.80 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0
> 0 eth0
> >192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> 0 eth0
> >127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
> 0 lo
> >(hangs)
> >
> >_but_ after bringing down one or the other NIC, route would complete,
> >showing an accurate routing table without hanging. Here's a one
> NIC sample:
> >[root@bozo/root]# ifconfig eth0 down
> >[root@bozo /root]# ifconfig eth0 10.0.1.254 netmask 255.255.0.0 up
> >[root@bozo/root]# route
> >Kernel IP routing table
> >Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> >Iface
> >10.0.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0
> 0 eth0
> >127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
> 0 lo
> >
> >This (getting route to not hang) would work after bringing down
> one or both
> >interfaces and bringing them back up, even if I had both cards installed,
> >but in any case where I had both eepro100's installed, I could
> get ifconfig
> >and route to show working fine, but no network connectivity. The only
> >exception to that was when I did a tcpdump with both NICs in, I
> did get some
> >traffic, but there was no way I could find to get ping to
> respond (even to
> >hosts on that segment, no gateway needed) if I had both eepro100's in.
> >
> >All's well now, but I want to know... what did I miss? I
> initially _chose_
> >an identical second NIC because the first one was working fine... I know
> >that the routing tables look a little different after using ifconfig to
> >manually reconfigure, but that's not particularly pertinent,
> just because I
> >didn't use the -host specification, and the current routing table works
> >fine: the two routing tables are identical, except for the fact
> that the one
> >that didn't work with two eepro100's hung right before the
> default gw line.
> >I think this is just that it was trying to do a DNS lookup and getting no
> >communication from the NIC. Which leads me to believe that the
> whole "route
> >hangs" was just a dead end, another way of saying "Your NIC
> isn't working"
> >Here's the working routing table:
> >Kernel IP routing table
> >Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> >Iface
> >10.0.1.254 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0
> 0 eth1
> >192.168.1.80 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0
> 0 eth0
> >192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> 0 eth0
>
> >10.0.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0
> 0 eth1
> >127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
> 0 lo
> >default 192.168.1.65 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0
> 0 eth0
> >
> >
> >The only thing I can think of after sleeping on it, is that I could've
> >copied /lib/modules/##/net/eepro100.o to eepro100-2.o and
> specified it as if
> >it were a "different" loadable module from conf.modules...
> >
> >Shouldn't I be able to run two identical PCI NIC's with the same loadable
> >module? Doesn't it load twice in the initial scenario? I
> considered messing
> >with the BIOS, but didn't as these are PCI cards, not ISA, and the two
> >_different_ cards work fine without tweaking the BIOS.
> >
> >Other ideas? Thanks.
> >
> >Rod Hauser Curriculum Manager - Linux
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wave Technologies
> > St Louis MO, 63141
> >
> >-
> >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
> >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
