In an exciting chain of events the power into our building was cut and hence the box went to sleep. When it woke up the routes were still there, despite the additions I made to the ifcfg files.
*sigh*
At 02:58 p.m. 25/08/2003, you wrote:
Possibility? The router table is designed to handle the 169.254.0.0 in the "unlikely event" that such a stable, and well written OS like microsoft windows ever crashes, and needs a 169.254.x.x address to still be correctly routed...
::twitches:: Andy
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 09:22, Nick Rout wrote:
> however....I have never seen a non windows box come up with a
> 169.254.x.x IP address on dhcp failure. On all the implementations I
> have seen, once dhcp times out the interface does not come up, nor does
> it make an entry in the routing table.
>
> on greping my redhat box I find some entries in this file:
>
> sysconfig/network-scripts/network-functions-ipv6
>
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:21:21 +1200
> Andy George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Nick Rout
> Barrister & Solicitor
> Christchurch, NZ
> Ph +64 3 3798966
> Fax + 64 3 3798853
> http://www.rout.co.nz
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
