Sure did boss, 169.254.x.x is the default range for a machine wanting a DHCP server... Windows *by default* wants a dhcp server, so if it's thrown on a network, and perhaps (as we all have done) you leave the IP stage till later... it will INITIALLY try to seek out a dhcp server... The router will spot that request, and the assignment of the 169.254 address, (DHCP Fail) and there you have it...
You, of course, then set the IP as you do, and subsequently... there's a weird 169.254 address reference, in the route tables... On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 22:31, Michael wrote: > Nobody read my post properly... > > There is no dynamic configurations going on here. I said that 169.254.0.0 > keeps appearing in my ROUTE table even though NONE of the interfaces are > configured to receive an IP address via DHCP. > > In other words, only one interface is initialised at boot and that has a > static IP. There is no interface with a 169.254 address and no interface > that DHCPs. The address is always there even after a reboot. I thought > that the route table was in essence flushed on reboot. So somewhere, that > address is being put back in - as the only user of the box I know that I > didn't do it! > > Eth1 is not configured to come up on boot. Is it possible that if eth1 is > told that it has a static IP, but is not configured with one, that it > messes with the route table? What sense would that be? Especially when > the network isn't configured to use that device as the next hop! > > Michael. > > At 03:03 p.m. 24/08/2003, you wrote: > >169.254.x.x is the private range for windows machines that have > >automatically assigned themselves an address in the event that the dhcp > >server they were SPOSED to get an address from....is no longer there... > > > >I'll leave that said, and perhaps that may explain enough... > > > >Andy > > > >On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 12:09, mjm159 wrote: > > > Okay, so I got it going mostly. I logically changed eth0 (which is never > > > plugged in to anything) with eth1. I just changed the modules.conf and > > > swapped the ifcfg scripts as well. > > > > > > Now eth0 (formerly eth1) comes up with its IP and network > > info. However, I > > > can't understand why that made a difference. > > > > > > On an aside, I also can't understand why 169.254.0.0 keeps appearing in my > > > route table. None of the interfaces are configured to receive an > > address via > > > DHCP so why should that private network appear out of nowhere? > > > > > > There's some other networking issues here that I think I'll have to keep > > > looking at. > > > > > > Michael. > > > > > > >===== Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===== > > > >Yes, but it doesn't bring it up with any config (from ifcfg-eth1). No ip > > > >address, no routes. > > > > > > > >Michael. > > > > > > > >>===== Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===== > > > >>On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 01:33, mjm159 wrote: > > > >>> I have to modprobe, ifconfig eth1 x.x.x.x, route add 0.0.0.0 ... to > > get it > > > >up > > > >>> and going. > > > >>> > > > >>> Why won't it run at bootup!? > > > >> > > > >>Does > > > >> > > > >> ifup eth1 > > > >> > > > >>work? > > > >> > > > >>Vik :v) > > > > > > > >--- > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Message generated in webmail. > > > > > > --- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Message generated in webmail. > > > >
