Re: no eth0 connection-redux
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:47:18 -0400 (EDT), Chris Bannister wrote: TBH, I didn't see any evidence of a broken thread. Mutt shows a broken thread with an asterisk in the arrow symbol. A poster shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make the archives look good, IMHO. IOW, how the archive software handles things, shouldn't influence posting style. Thread broken in mutt: no Thread broken in the online archives: yes However, I wish now that I hadn't said anything about a broken thread because whether or not the thread is broken has become a distraction to my main point, which is that the OP has yet to provide any useful information with which to diagnose his problem. I'm still waiting. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/188994160.692701.1396869670880.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: no eth0 connection-redux
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 20:55:12 -0400 (EDT), Tom Furie wrote: Thread wasn't broken here. The References: header in Robert's mail indicates that it was indeed a reply (to his original post on this thread). Perhaps I need to explain what I mean by broken thread. The original post was in March. This is April. The Debian mailing list archives don't allow a thread to span months. Thus, a reply to a message from a previous month has the same effect as starting a new thread, as far as the Debian archives are concerned. There were April messages he could have replied to, such as this one: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00156.html which would have preserved the April thread in one piece. Yes, you can click on the In-Reply-To link and see the message he is replying to. But the Previous by thread link at the bottom of the page points to a different thread, which means that the list considers this message to be the start of a new thread, even though it has an In-Reply-To header. See https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/ for reference purposes. I see that you have an In-Reply-To: header, but no References: header. I also see that you are using Zimbra, perhaps Zimbra needs to be taught about References: headers. That would be nice, actually. The e-mail client I use does not allow me to edit headers. Fortunately, the In-Reply-To field is sufficient for the mailing list archives to properly connect the new post to the thread. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/603207630.680455.1396793164902.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: no eth0 connection-redux
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 10:06:04AM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 20:55:12 -0400 (EDT), Tom Furie wrote: Thread wasn't broken here. The References: header in Robert's mail indicates that it was indeed a reply (to his original post on this thread). Perhaps I need to explain what I mean by broken thread. The original post was in March. This is April. The Debian mailing list archives don't allow a thread to span months. Thus, a reply to a message from a previous month has the same effect as starting a new thread, as far as the Debian archives are concerned. There were April messages he could have replied to, such as this one: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00156.html TBH, I didn't see any evidence of a broken thread. Mutt shows a broken thread with an asterisk in the arrow symbol. A poster shouldn't have to jump through hoops to make the archives look good, IMHO. IOW, how the archive software handles things, shouldn't influence posting style. -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140407044718.GB6561@tal
Re: no eth0 connection-redux
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 10:31:54PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: I seem to remember this happening after an update but I'm not positive. It did work before. My wireless connection continues to work. Looked at the usual suspects, /etc/ network/interfaces, /etc/resolv.conf, etc but everything looked the same as before as close as I remember. Searching on the subject line turns up a lot of hits but nothing I tried produced a connection. Didn't see anything applicable in dmesg but I may have missed it. ifup eth0 gives Ignoring unknown interface eth0=eth0 Running Debian 7.4 on a Lenovo t420 w/ 4G RAM and an Intel i3. Being pretty ignorant about networking, I'm at a loss as to where to begin trouble shooting. Any pointers appreciated. For a while it looked like a bad cable as I was able to connect on a different one from the same router. The connection lasted long enough to d/l an update. Then I closed the connection. Today none of the cables from the router allow a connection. The nm-applet swears I'm connected but trying to ping the router gives operation not permitted. Wireless continues to work. I *think* that removes the router from suspicion. If I'm wrong please correct me. -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: no eth0 connection-redux
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:26:44 -0400 (EDT), Robert Holtzman wrote: For a while it looked like a bad cable as I was able to connect on a different one from the same router. The connection lasted long enough to d/l an update. Then I closed the connection. Today none of the cables from the router allow a connection. The nm-applet swears I'm connected but trying to ping the router gives operation not permitted. Wireless continues to work. I *think* that removes the router from suspicion. If I'm wrong please correct me. First of all, you've broken the thread. The thread was broken once already by the March / April forced break at the end of the month. You can't help that. But this time, you've broken it yourself by starting a new thread. Second, you haven't responded to anybody's requests for information. How can we help you if you won't provide any information? Now, let's take this from the top. (1) Please provide the output of /sbin/ifconfig -a (2) Please provide the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1861763807.676628.1396742709270.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: no eth0 connection-redux
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:05:09PM -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: First of all, you've broken the thread. The thread was broken once already by the March / April forced break at the end of the month. You can't help that. But this time, you've broken it yourself by starting a new thread. Thread wasn't broken here. The References: header in Robert's mail indicates that it was indeed a reply (to his original post on this thread). I see that you have an In-Reply-To: header, but no References: header. I also see that you are using Zimbra, perhaps Zimbra needs to be taught about References: headers. Cheers, Tom -- The Second Law of Thermodynamics: If you think things are in a mess now, just wait! -- Jim Warner signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: no eth0 connection
On 20140402_2236-0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 10:31:54PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: I seem to remember this happening after an update but I'm not positive. It did work before. My wireless connection continues to work. Looked at the usual suspects, /etc/ network/interfaces, /etc/resolv.conf, etc but everything looked the same as before as close as I remember. Searching on the subject line turns up a lot of hits but nothing I tried produced a connection. Didn't see anything applicable in dmesg but I may have missed it. ifup eth0 gives Ignoring unknown interface eth0=eth0 Running Debian 7.4 on a Lenovo t420 w/ 4G RAM and an Intel i3. Being pretty ignorant about networking, I'm at a loss as to where to begin trouble shooting. Any pointers appreciated. Embarrassing admission: It looks like a bad ethernet cable. I thought I had checked for that, but I guess not. A common failure mode in cables is metal fatigue due to flexing in one or more of the interior metal conductors. If the act of checking flexes the cable in such a way that the broken ends are pushed back into contact, the test fails to detect the broken condition. Embarassing? No. Just bad luck. Maybe try to put the cable under tension while testing, but than can be hard to do in a cramped installation space. -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140404221439.ga4...@pec.lan.gnu
Re: no eth0 connection
On Wed 02 Apr 2014 at 20:52:55 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: Well, you are right about wheezy. At least on the i386 architecture, the file does get regenerated at the next boot if you erase it. I just tried it on a wheezy system I have. But as for jessie, I don't think that the bug you refer to is going to be fixed. This is a design change made by upstream. See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24115 and http://marc.info/?l=linux-hotplugm=130469470817499w=2 as references. I have added a link to your mail in #735563. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/03042014092045.60a9077a8...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: no eth0 connection
On Tue 01 Apr 2014 at 21:24:24 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 05:08:12 -0400 (EDT), Brian wrote: Deleting the file is quicker and less hassle. It is rewritten at the next boot. That used to be true, but it isn't anymore. The file no longer gets re-created during boot for newer Debian systems. I just verified this for my jessie system, and I'm pretty sure that wheezy works the same way. That is one reason why I recommend editing the file instead of deleting it. 70-persistent-net.rules is recreated on boot on Wheezy after it is deleted. The OP is using Wheezy; which is why I recommened deleting it. The behaviour on Jessie could be #735563: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735563 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/02042014182802.a28b91c10...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: no eth0 connection
On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:33:58 -0400 (EDT), Brian wrote: On Tue 01 Apr 2014 at 21:24:24 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 05:08:12 -0400 (EDT), Brian wrote: Deleting the file is quicker and less hassle. It is rewritten at the next boot. That used to be true, but it isn't anymore. The file no longer gets re-created during boot for newer Debian systems. I just verified this for my jessie system, and I'm pretty sure that wheezy works the same way. That is one reason why I recommend editing the file instead of deleting it. 70-persistent-net.rules is recreated on boot on Wheezy after it is deleted. The OP is using Wheezy; which is why I recommened deleting it. The behaviour on Jessie could be #735563: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=735563 Well, you are right about wheezy. At least on the i386 architecture, the file does get regenerated at the next boot if you erase it. I just tried it on a wheezy system I have. But as for jessie, I don't think that the bug you refer to is going to be fixed. This is a design change made by upstream. See https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24115 and http://marc.info/?l=linux-hotplugm=130469470817499w=2 as references. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/731729452.631058.1396486375325.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: no eth0 connection
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 10:31:54PM -0700, Robert Holtzman wrote: I seem to remember this happening after an update but I'm not positive. It did work before. My wireless connection continues to work. Looked at the usual suspects, /etc/ network/interfaces, /etc/resolv.conf, etc but everything looked the same as before as close as I remember. Searching on the subject line turns up a lot of hits but nothing I tried produced a connection. Didn't see anything applicable in dmesg but I may have missed it. ifup eth0 gives Ignoring unknown interface eth0=eth0 Running Debian 7.4 on a Lenovo t420 w/ 4G RAM and an Intel i3. Being pretty ignorant about networking, I'm at a loss as to where to begin trouble shooting. Any pointers appreciated. Embarrassing admission: It looks like a bad ethernet cable. I thought I had checked for that, but I guess not. -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: no eth0 connection
Am 01.04.2014 um 04:00 schrieb Charles Kroeger ckro...@frankensteinface.com: On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:30:03 +0200 François Patte francois.pa...@mi.parisdescartes.fr wrote: # lshw -class network root@mundo:/home/charles# lshw -class network bash: lshw: command not found root@dev:/home/helmutw# apt-cache search lshw lshw-gtk - graphical information about hardware configuration lshw - information about hardware configuration HTH Helmut Wollmersdorfer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cb784625-863a-492b-8178-6e280d00d...@fixpunkt.de
Re: no eth0 connection
On Mon 31 Mar 2014 at 20:47:56 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: Did you do anything that might have changed a MAC address? Like changing PC card Ethernet adapters, for example? Or replacing a motherboard that has a built-in Ethernet adapter? The correspondence between MAC addresses and interface names is controlled by /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules. You may need to edit this file and change MAC addresses. Deleting the file is quicker and less hassle. It is rewritten at the next boot. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/01042014100648.b4d15d2ca...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
RE: no eth0 connection
On Mon 31 Mar 2014 at 20:47:56 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: Did you do anything that might have changed a MAC address? Like changing PC card Ethernet adapters, for example? Or replacing a motherboard that has a built-in Ethernet adapter? The correspondence between MAC addresses and interface names is controlled by /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules. You may need to edit this file and change MAC addresses. Deleting the file is quicker and less hassle. It is rewritten at the next boot. Good advice, except that I usualy MOVE the file to some temp directory just in case I need the original to compare it to the new version. Bonno Bloksma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/89d1798a7351d040b4e74e0a043c69d77e62e...@hglexch-01.tio.nl
Re: no eth0 connection
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 7:31 AM, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: I seem to remember this happening after an update but I'm not positive. It did work before. My wireless connection continues to work. Looked at the usual suspects, /etc/ network/interfaces, /etc/resolv.conf, etc but everything looked the same as before as close as I remember. Searching on the subject line turns up a lot of hits but nothing I tried produced a connection. Didn't see anything applicable in dmesg but I may have missed it. ifup eth0 gives Ignoring unknown interface eth0=eth0 Running Debian 7.4 on a Lenovo t420 w/ 4G RAM and an Intel i3. Being pretty ignorant about networking, I'm at a loss as to where to begin trouble shooting. Any pointers appreciated. what's the output of ls -l /sys/class/net L -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKOE0Xp__ZTFtSPo_Rr1WOP_nAGZ4cK2GoD3KUtX2G=wkzv...@mail.gmail.com
Re: no eth0 connection
On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 09:52:12AM +0200, Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote: Am 01.04.2014 um 04:00 schrieb Charles Kroeger ckro...@frankensteinface.com: On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:30:03 +0200 François Patte francois.pa...@mi.parisdescartes.fr wrote: # lshw -class network root@mundo:/home/charles# lshw -class network bash: lshw: command not found root@dev:/home/helmutw# apt-cache search lshw lshw-gtk - graphical information about hardware configuration lshw - information about hardware configuration True, but I think the point is that the same information can be garnered using existing commands, e.g ip, lspci, dmesg, lsmod, ifconfig etc. You shouldn't really need to install extra packages for most troubleshooting tasks. -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140401095830.GB1583@tal
Re: no eth0 connection
Am 01.04.2014 um 11:58 schrieb Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz: On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 09:52:12AM +0200, Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote: root@dev:/home/helmutw# apt-cache search lshw lshw-gtk - graphical information about hardware configuration lshw - information about hardware configuration True, but I think the point is that the same information can be garnered using existing commands, e.g ip, lspci, dmesg, lsmod, ifconfig etc. You shouldn't really need to install extra packages for most troubleshooting tasks. That’s why I usually do not install lshw, which BTW will not provide any information on Xen-guests, same with lspci. It was more meant as a help for finding the module which includes a certain command/utility. Helmut Wollmersdorfer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/dc6467cb-590d-4c73-b8c1-914fe5680...@fixpunkt.de
Re: no eth0 connection
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 05:08:12 -0400 (EDT), Brian wrote: On Mon 31 Mar 2014 at 20:47:56 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote: Did you do anything that might have changed a MAC address? Like changing PC card Ethernet adapters, for example? Or replacing a motherboard that has a built-in Ethernet adapter? The correspondence between MAC addresses and interface names is controlled by /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules. You may need to edit this file and change MAC addresses. Deleting the file is quicker and less hassle. It is rewritten at the next boot. That used to be true, but it isn't anymore. The file no longer gets re-created during boot for newer Debian systems. I just verified this for my jessie system, and I'm pretty sure that wheezy works the same way. That is one reason why I recommend editing the file instead of deleting it. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/672668159.613513.1396401864355.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: no eth0 connection
On 03/31/2014 01:31 AM, Robert Holtzman wrote: I seem to remember this happening after an update but I'm not positive. It did work before. My wireless connection continues to work. Robert, it might be that the upgrade knocked you into using eth1. Try opening a new ethernet connection using eth1 and see. Sometimes a device is reconfigured during an upgrade, the process sees the old device and then configures the new device incrementing by 1. I've had it happen several times where /dev/cdrom became /dev/cdrom1, etc. It's a thought and if I recall correctly it was in udev rules where you'll find the error ... if that happens to be the case. Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. /https://linuxcounter.net/cert/44256.png / -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53391365.6020...@gmail.com
Re: no eth0 connection
Le 31/03/2014 07:31, Robert Holtzman a écrit : I seem to remember this happening after an update but I'm not positive. It did work before. My wireless connection continues to work. Looked at the usual suspects, /etc/ network/interfaces, /etc/resolv.conf, etc but everything looked the same as before as close as I remember. Searching on the subject line turns up a lot of hits but nothing I tried produced a connection. Didn't see anything applicable in dmesg but I may have missed it. ifup eth0 gives Ignoring unknown interface eth0=eth0 Running Debian 7.4 on a Lenovo t420 w/ 4G RAM and an Intel i3. Being pretty ignorant about networking, I'm at a loss as to where to begin trouble shooting. Any pointers appreciated. What is the result of: # lshw -class network ? -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: no eth0 connection
On Du, 30 mar 14, 22:31:54, Robert Holtzman wrote: I seem to remember this happening after an update but I'm not positive. It did work before. My wireless connection continues to work. Looked at the usual suspects, /etc/ network/interfaces, /etc/resolv.conf, etc but everything looked the same as before as close as I remember. Would help if you actually attached those. Also do you have network-manager or wicd installed? What do you use to configure the wireless? Searching on the subject line turns up a lot of hits but nothing I tried produced a connection. Didn't see anything applicable in dmesg but I may have missed it. ifup eth0 gives Ignoring unknown interface eth0=eth0 Please post the output of 'ip a'. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: no eth0 connection
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 01:31:54 -0400 (EDT), Robert Holtzman wrote: I seem to remember this happening after an update but I'm not positive. It did work before. My wireless connection continues to work. Looked at the usual suspects, /etc/network/interfaces, /etc/resolv.conf, etc., but everything looked the same as before as close as I remember. Searching on the subject line turns up a lot of hits but nothing I tried produced a connection. Didn't see anything applicable in dmesg but I may have missed it. ifup eth0 gives Ignoring unknown interface eth0=eth0 Running Debian 7.4 on a Lenovo t420 w/ 4G RAM and an Intel i3. Being pretty ignorant about networking, I'm at a loss as to where to begin trouble shooting. Any pointers appreciated. Did you do anything that might have changed a MAC address? Like changing PC card Ethernet adapters, for example? Or replacing a motherboard that has a built-in Ethernet adapter? The correspondence between MAC addresses and interface names is controlled by /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules. You may need to edit this file and change MAC addresses. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/573203396.594776.1396313276742.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: no eth0 connection
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 10:30:03 +0200 François Patte francois.pa...@mi.parisdescartes.fr wrote: # lshw -class network root@mundo:/home/charles# lshw -class network bash: lshw: command not found -- CK -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/bpuktkfig8...@mid.individual.net
no eth0 connection
I seem to remember this happening after an update but I'm not positive. It did work before. My wireless connection continues to work. Looked at the usual suspects, /etc/ network/interfaces, /etc/resolv.conf, etc but everything looked the same as before as close as I remember. Searching on the subject line turns up a lot of hits but nothing I tried produced a connection. Didn't see anything applicable in dmesg but I may have missed it. ifup eth0 gives Ignoring unknown interface eth0=eth0 Running Debian 7.4 on a Lenovo t420 w/ 4G RAM and an Intel i3. Being pretty ignorant about networking, I'm at a loss as to where to begin trouble shooting. Any pointers appreciated. -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140331053154.ga5...@cox.net
Re: Re: nm eth0 connection
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 01:18:27PM +0530, Kailash wrote: On Friday 13 September 2013 10:12 AM, Robert Holtzm wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:23:50AM +0100, Sharon Kimble wrote: On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:13:30 -0700 Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:22:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote: snip... What's no-auto-default=00:21:CC:B6:06:8F,?! I've never seen no-auto-default=... before but I'd blame it for your NIC not coming up automatically since 00...8F is its MAC address! That line is commented out. Not sure why it didn't show up that way in my post. Tried uncommenting it with no effect. I don't understand what it's doing there. Pinging my router as root still gives Operation not permitted. It says I'm sending packets but none are received. At this point I'm completely snowed to the point where I'm tempted to try the M$ solution (reload the OS). So far I'm fighting the temptation. Daft as it sounds, have you tried rebooting? That might well clear the bottleneck, hopefully :) Any number of times, after any change. Don't know if it's required but it can't hurt. Ok, so if network manager's working and you have a valid IP address, and you can't ping, then there may be some issue you with routing. $routel might be a good starting point. Not sure (that's a euphemism for haven't a clue) what routel is telling me. With the ethernet cable plugged in and an unsuccessful ping in progress what routel shows is on http://pastebin.ca/2451397. How about a quick tutorial? Also see my reply to Tom H for the partial workaround I found. -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nm eth0 connection(2)
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 06:48:59PM -0400, Tom H wrote: ...snip.. I'd check elsewhere. NM seems to have done its job. What's the output of ip a ip r iptables -nL I put the results of these on http://pastebin.ca/2451440 I only included the parts of iptables -nL that looked relevant. If I was wrong I can give you the whole thing. Can you ping 127.0.0.1? yes Can you ping 192.168.1.102? yes, which confuses me as to why when I can't ping 192.168.1.1. I found a partial but unsatisfactory work around. If I boot and defeat the xceiver before the login screen appears I can connect with eth0. Can you account for this? -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: -- SPAM --Re: nm eth0 connection
On Friday 13 September 2013 10:12 AM, Robert Holtzm wrote: On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:23:50AM +0100, Sharon Kimble wrote: On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:13:30 -0700 Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:22:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote: snip... What's no-auto-default=00:21:CC:B6:06:8F,?! I've never seen no-auto-default=... before but I'd blame it for your NIC not coming up automatically since 00...8F is its MAC address! That line is commented out. Not sure why it didn't show up that way in my post. Tried uncommenting it with no effect. I don't understand what it's doing there. Pinging my router as root still gives Operation not permitted. It says I'm sending packets but none are received. At this point I'm completely snowed to the point where I'm tempted to try the M$ solution (reload the OS). So far I'm fighting the temptation. Daft as it sounds, have you tried rebooting? That might well clear the bottleneck, hopefully :) Any number of times, after any change. Don't know if it's required but it can't hurt. Ok, so if network manager's working and you have a valid IP address, and you can't ping, then there may be some issue you with routing. $routel might be a good starting point. Kailash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5232c34b.6070...@gmail.com
Re: nm eth0 connection(2)
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:14:07AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:47:10AM -0400, Tom H wrote: What's the output of nm-tool cat /etc/network/interfaces cat /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep NetworkManager yields nothing the same with tail --lines=50 /var/log/messages | grep NetworkManager Why are you limiting your search to the last 50 lines? Good point for which I have no good answer except that I thought that 50 would be far enough back. No, huh? Nothing shown no matter how far back I go. (dmesg won't have any NM logs.) nm-tool yields, in part, - Device: eth0 [Auto (eth0)] -- Type: Wired Driver:e1000e State: connected Default: yes HW Address:00:21:CC:B6:06:8F Capabilities: Carrier Detect: yes Speed: 100 Mb/s Wired Properties Carrier: on IPv4 Settings: Address: 192.168.1.102 Prefix: 24 (255.255.255.0) Gateway: 192.168.1.1 DNS: 68.105.28.12 DNS: 68.105.29.12 DNS: 68.105.28.11 Strange! No strange, working! :) Plenty strange. If I'm connected, why can't I ping my router or a web site? I'd check elsewhere. NM seems to have done its job. What's the output of ip a ip r iptables -nL Can you ping 127.0.0.1? Can you ping 192.168.1.102? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SxU7pYmoRGxO671z-1BU=oqZNpmbpEjOFfS_h-Ls=l...@mail.gmail.com
Re: nm eth0 connection(2)
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:47:10AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Sep 8 15:13:26 localhost kernel: [10657.229970] Unknown OutputIN= OUT=eth0 SRC=192.168.1.102 DST=68.105.28.12 LEN=51 TOS =0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=43051 PROTO=UDP SPT=59586 DPT=53 LEN=31 Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. 26 is a netfilter dns query log. To troubleshoot NM, it would've been more useful to grep for NetworkManager as well as tail the messages log file. What's the output of nm-tool cat /etc/network/interfaces cat /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep NetworkManager yields nothing the same with tail --lines=50 /var/log/messages | grep NetworkManager Why are you limiting your search to the last 50 lines? (dmesg won't have any NM logs.) nm-tool yields, in part, - Device: eth0 [Auto (eth0)] -- Type: Wired Driver:e1000e State: connected Default: yes HW Address:00:21:CC:B6:06:8F Capabilities: Carrier Detect: yes Speed: 100 Mb/s Wired Properties Carrier: on IPv4 Settings: Address: 192.168.1.102 Prefix: 24 (255.255.255.0) Gateway: 192.168.1.1 DNS: 68.105.28.12 DNS: 68.105.29.12 DNS: 68.105.28.11 Strange! No strange, working! :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=syh8-b5qubqnavn0ddukh6080d_b7ta4qmd5ur-fs3...@mail.gmail.com
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 08:15:35AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:48:03PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. Don't know how to approach trouble shooting this. Any pointers appreciated. This is just a stab in the dark, but is there any reference in /etc/network/interfaces to eth0? If so, it is not managed by nm (with which I, too, have never had any trouble, except very recently on a new 'testing' install where the problem was as I speculate yours could possibly be). # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 #iface eth0 inet dhcp When I first loaded wheezy the last line was uncommented and eth0 wouldn't connect. After I commented it out eth0 fired right up and was perfectly stable until the other day. As a test I tried commenting the other line referring to eth0 with no luck. NM will not manage a NIC with iface ... in /etc/network/interfaces if you don't have the following two settings in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf: plugins=ifupdown in the [main] section and managed=true in the [ifupdown] section holtzm@localhost:~$ cat /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf [main] plugins=ifupdown,keyfile no-auto-default=00:21:CC:B6:06:8F, [ifupdown] managed=false To my knowledge nm has always worked with /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf as shown above unless something changed managed=true to managed=false. Tried changing to managed=true and, for the hell of it, rebooted. Still no joy. Any other ideas? Thanks for the reply. You're welcome. The difference between managed=false and managed=true is that with managed=false, a NIC defined in /etc/network/interfaces is managed by ifupdown and with managed=true NIC defined in /etc/network/interfaces is managed by NM (or more accurately NM's ifupdown plugin). According to your other email, eth0 is up and managed by NM... What's no-auto-default=00:21:CC:B6:06:8F,?! I've never seen no-auto-default=... before but I'd blame it for your NIC not coming up automatically since 00...8F is its MAC address! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=swtf_7_rsbrujgzot6rm9eqci4ji1w2hknwi7l4lcj...@mail.gmail.com
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 08:15:35AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:48:03PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. Don't know how to approach trouble shooting this. Any pointers appreciated. This is just a stab in the dark, but is there any reference in /etc/network/interfaces to eth0? If so, it is not managed by nm (with which I, too, have never had any trouble, except very recently on a new 'testing' install where the problem was as I speculate yours could possibly be). # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 #iface eth0 inet dhcp When I first loaded wheezy the last line was uncommented and eth0 wouldn't connect. After I commented it out eth0 fired right up and was perfectly stable until the other day. As a test I tried commenting the other line referring to eth0 with no luck. NM will not manage a NIC with iface ... in /etc/network/interfaces if you don't have the following two settings in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf: plugins=ifupdown in the [main] section and managed=true in the [ifupdown] section holtzm@localhost:~$ cat /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf [main] plugins=ifupdown,keyfile no-auto-default=00:21:CC:B6:06:8F, [ifupdown] managed=false To my knowledge nm has always worked with /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf as shown above unless something changed managed=true to managed=false. Tried changing to managed=true and, for the hell of it, rebooted. Still no joy. Any other ideas? Thanks for the reply. You're welcome. The difference between managed=false and managed=true is that with managed=false, a NIC defined in /etc/network/interfaces is managed by ifupdown and with managed=true NIC defined in /etc/network/interfaces is managed by NM (or more accurately NM's ifupdown plugin). According to your other email, eth0 is up and managed by NM... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sw9xbopgok4rpigdvxdwbbm398tpggfhjtqj71_-cs...@mail.gmail.com
Re: nm eth0 connection(2)
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:14:07AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:47:10AM -0400, Tom H wrote: ...snip... What's the output of nm-tool cat /etc/network/interfaces cat /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep NetworkManager yields nothing the same with tail --lines=50 /var/log/messages | grep NetworkManager Why are you limiting your search to the last 50 lines? Good point for which I have no good answer except that I thought that 50 would be far enough back. No, huh? Nothing shown no matter how far back I go. (dmesg won't have any NM logs.) nm-tool yields, in part, - Device: eth0 [Auto (eth0)] -- Type: Wired Driver:e1000e State: connected Default: yes HW Address:00:21:CC:B6:06:8F Capabilities: Carrier Detect: yes Speed: 100 Mb/s Wired Properties Carrier: on IPv4 Settings: Address: 192.168.1.102 Prefix: 24 (255.255.255.0) Gateway: 192.168.1.1 DNS: 68.105.28.12 DNS: 68.105.29.12 DNS: 68.105.28.11 Strange! No strange, working! :) Plenty strange. If I'm connected, why can't I ping my router or a web site? -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:18:55AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: To my knowledge nm has always worked with /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf as shown above unless something changed managed=true to managed=false. Tried changing to managed=true and, for the hell of it, rebooted. Still no joy. Any other ideas? Thanks for the reply. You're welcome. The difference between managed=false and managed=true is that with managed=false, a NIC defined in /etc/network/interfaces is managed by ifupdown and with managed=true NIC defined in /etc/network/interfaces is managed by NM (or more accurately NM's ifupdown plugin). Understood but trying it both ways still didn't work. According to your other email, eth0 is up and managed by NM... Don't know what nm's smoking but as I said in my previous reply, I still can't ping my router or any web site or (obviously) connect to any web site). -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:22:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote: snip... What's no-auto-default=00:21:CC:B6:06:8F,?! I've never seen no-auto-default=... before but I'd blame it for your NIC not coming up automatically since 00...8F is its MAC address! That line is commented out. Not sure why it didn't show up that way in my post. Tried uncommenting it with no effect. I don't understand what it's doing there. Pinging my router as root still gives Operation not permitted. It says I'm sending packets but none are received. At this point I'm completely snowed to the point where I'm tempted to try the M$ solution (reload the OS). So far I'm fighting the temptation. If it wasn't or the fact that I can connect w/ eth0 using other distros I would suspect the router. Thanks for your patient effort. -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:13:30 -0700 Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:22:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote: snip... What's no-auto-default=00:21:CC:B6:06:8F,?! I've never seen no-auto-default=... before but I'd blame it for your NIC not coming up automatically since 00...8F is its MAC address! That line is commented out. Not sure why it didn't show up that way in my post. Tried uncommenting it with no effect. I don't understand what it's doing there. Pinging my router as root still gives Operation not permitted. It says I'm sending packets but none are received. At this point I'm completely snowed to the point where I'm tempted to try the M$ solution (reload the OS). So far I'm fighting the temptation. Daft as it sounds, have you tried rebooting? That might well clear the bottleneck, hopefully :) Sharon. -- A taste of linux = http://www.sharons.org.uk efever = http://www.efever.blogspot.com/ efever = http://sharon04.livejournal.com/ Debian testing, Fluxbox 1.3.5, LibreOffice 4.1.0.4 Registered Linux user 334501 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: -- SPAM --Re: nm eth0 connection
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:23:50AM +0100, Sharon Kimble wrote: On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:13:30 -0700 Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net wrote: On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:22:38AM -0400, Tom H wrote: snip... What's no-auto-default=00:21:CC:B6:06:8F,?! I've never seen no-auto-default=... before but I'd blame it for your NIC not coming up automatically since 00...8F is its MAC address! That line is commented out. Not sure why it didn't show up that way in my post. Tried uncommenting it with no effect. I don't understand what it's doing there. Pinging my router as root still gives Operation not permitted. It says I'm sending packets but none are received. At this point I'm completely snowed to the point where I'm tempted to try the M$ solution (reload the OS). So far I'm fighting the temptation. Daft as it sounds, have you tried rebooting? That might well clear the bottleneck, hopefully :) Any number of times, after any change. Don't know if it's required but it can't hurt. -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Sep 8 15:13:26 localhost kernel: [10657.229970] Unknown OutputIN= OUT=eth0 SRC=192.168.1.102 DST=68.105.28.12 LEN=51 TOS =0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=43051 PROTO=UDP SPT=59586 DPT=53 LEN=31 Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. 26 is a netfilter dns query log. To troubleshoot NM, it would've been more useful to grep for NetworkManager as well as tail the messages log file. What's the output of nm-tool cat /etc/network/interfaces cat /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=szk3ffouaf35wchq8jou74mcyqsgs+8f8sesgv16+z...@mail.gmail.com
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:48:03PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. Don't know how to approach trouble shooting this. Any pointers appreciated. This is just a stab in the dark, but is there any reference in /etc/network/interfaces to eth0? If so, it is not managed by nm (with which I, too, have never had any trouble, except very recently on a new 'testing' install where the problem was as I speculate yours could possibly be). # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 #iface eth0 inet dhcp When I first loaded wheezy the last line was uncommented and eth0 wouldn't connect. After I commented it out eth0 fired right up and was perfectly stable until the other day. As a test I tried commenting the other line referring to eth0 with no luck. NM will not manage a NIC with iface ... in /etc/network/interfaces if you don't have the following two settings in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf: plugins=ifupdown in the [main] section and managed=true in the [ifupdown] section -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sz0Ej7AvdoRQk1yTfwDnCgGO5gryUXy=aGXBMo=k+n...@mail.gmail.com
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 08:15:35AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:48:03PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. Don't know how to approach trouble shooting this. Any pointers appreciated. This is just a stab in the dark, but is there any reference in /etc/network/interfaces to eth0? If so, it is not managed by nm (with which I, too, have never had any trouble, except very recently on a new 'testing' install where the problem was as I speculate yours could possibly be). # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 #iface eth0 inet dhcp When I first loaded wheezy the last line was uncommented and eth0 wouldn't connect. After I commented it out eth0 fired right up and was perfectly stable until the other day. As a test I tried commenting the other line referring to eth0 with no luck. NM will not manage a NIC with iface ... in /etc/network/interfaces if you don't have the following two settings in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf: plugins=ifupdown in the [main] section and managed=true in the [ifupdown] section holtzm@localhost:~$ cat /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf [main] plugins=ifupdown,keyfile no-auto-default=00:21:CC:B6:06:8F, [ifupdown] managed=false To my knowledge nm has always worked with /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf as shown above unless something changed managed=true to managed=false. Tried changing to managed=true and, for the hell of it, rebooted. Still no joy. Any other ideas? Thanks for the reply. -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nm eth0 connection(2)
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 07:47:10AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Sep 8 15:13:26 localhost kernel: [10657.229970] Unknown OutputIN= OUT=eth0 SRC=192.168.1.102 DST=68.105.28.12 LEN=51 TOS =0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=43051 PROTO=UDP SPT=59586 DPT=53 LEN=31 Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. 26 is a netfilter dns query log. To troubleshoot NM, it would've been more useful to grep for NetworkManager as well as tail the messages log file. What's the output of nm-tool cat /etc/network/interfaces cat /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep NetworkManager yields nothing the same with tail --lines=50 /var/log/messages | grep NetworkManager cat /etc/network/interfaces and cat /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf are as shown in my other reply. nm-tool yields, in part, - Device: eth0 [Auto (eth0)] -- Type: Wired Driver:e1000e State: connected Default: yes HW Address:00:21:CC:B6:06:8F Capabilities: Carrier Detect: yes Speed: 100 Mb/s Wired Properties Carrier: on IPv4 Settings: Address: 192.168.1.102 Prefix: 24 (255.255.255.0) Gateway: 192.168.1.1 DNS: 68.105.28.12 DNS: 68.105.29.12 DNS: 68.105.28.11 Strange! -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
nm eth0 connection
Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Sep 8 15:13:26 localhost kernel: [10657.229970] Unknown OutputIN= OUT=eth0 SRC=192.168.1.102 DST=68.105.28.12 LEN=51 TOS =0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=43051 PROTO=UDP SPT=59586 DPT=53 LEN=31 Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. Don't know how to approach trouble shooting this. Any pointers appreciated. -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Sep 8 15:13:26 localhost kernel: [10657.229970] Unknown OutputIN= OUT=eth0 SRC=192.168.1.102 DST=68.105.28.12 LEN=51 TOS =0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=43051 PROTO=UDP SPT=59586 DPT=53 LEN=31 Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. Don't know how to approach trouble shooting this. Any pointers appreciated. This is just a stab in the dark, but is there any reference in /etc/network/interfaces to eth0? If so, it is not managed by nm (with which I, too, have never had any trouble, except very recently on a new 'testing' install where the problem was as I speculate yours could possibly be). Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cajvvksnrrjt10dwzjaky2goxpdcfxyxhqnvfbhvzw7frdsx...@mail.gmail.com
Re: nm eth0 connection
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 04:48:03PM -0400, Patrick Wiseman wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Robert Holtzm hol...@cox.net wrote: Running updated wheezy on a thinkpad T420i w/ xfce DE. With great embarrassment, after stoutly defending nm, eth0 no longer connects. This only happens when I run wheezy. The connection is fine when I run the other distros on the hdd, squeeze and ubuntu 12.04. Under wheezy it also happens when the laptop is hard wired directly to the cable modem. looking at dmesg root@localhost:/home/holtzm# tail --lines=50 /var/log/dmesg | grep eth0 [ 18.864912] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth0: link is not ready Looking at messages root@localhost:/var/log# less messages | grep eth0 | less Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049605] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx Sep 8 15:13:25 localhost kernel: [10656.049617] e1000e :00:19.0: eth0: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO Notice the difference between 15:13:25 and 15:13:26. Don't know how to approach trouble shooting this. Any pointers appreciated. This is just a stab in the dark, but is there any reference in /etc/network/interfaces to eth0? If so, it is not managed by nm (with which I, too, have never had any trouble, except very recently on a new 'testing' install where the problem was as I speculate yours could possibly be). # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 #iface eth0 inet dhcp When I first loaded wheezy the last line was uncommented and eth0 wouldn't connect. After I commented it out eth0 fired right up and was perfectly stable until the other day. As a test I tried commenting the other line referring to eth0 with no luck. Thanks for the reply. Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cajvvksnrrjt10dwzjaky2goxpdcfxyxhqnvfbhvzw7frdsx...@mail.gmail.com -- Bob Holtzman Your mail is being read by tight lipped NSA agents who fail to see humor in Doctor Strangelove Key ID 8D549279 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: bug in eth0-connection - but which program - to file a bug ???
On Ma, 26 mar 13, 21:36:06, Erik - versatel wrote: Hoi, I have installed debian 6.0.7 kernel 2.6.32-5-amd64. I have installed virtualbox, and tryed to connect from outside with rdesktop(linux) an mstsc(Windows) to my debianbox. I found out that the connection stoped. Could you please start by explaining what OS is host and what OS is guest (i.e. which one is installed on the bare metal and which one in a virtual machine). After that please attach your /etc/network/interfaces file from the Debian installation. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: bug in eth0-connection - but which program - to file a bug ???
I have installed on my laptop debian 6.0.7 amd64 (host) On this i have installed virtualbox 4.2.10 I have made a lot of vm's, most of them with debian or CentOS (guests) I have used vrdp from virtualbox to connect to the vm's (debian with gui, debian only txt in 32 and 64 bits). With all vms my connection went out. I have installed xrdp on my host I have tryed to make an connection with xrdp and also the connection stops (Ping -- No buffer space available) I have tryed the same with VNC -- the same result All on my host - virtualbox is then still installed and some parts are automatically loaded Now i have de-installed virtualbox rebooted the system tryed to make connection with xrdp -- same result : connection stops tryed to make connection with vnc --same result: connection stops Just a part off the screen on the remote host is shown a part of dmesg [ 10.052506] atl1c :07:00.0: irq 27 for MSI/MSI-X [ 10.052636] atl1c :07:00.0: atl1c: eth0 NIC Link is Up100 Mbps Full Duplex My ethernetcard is a (acording to Windows) Atheros8152/8158 PCI-Fast Ethernet acording to linux lspci Network controller: Atheros Communications Inc, Device 0032 (rev 01) Ethernet Controller: Atheros Communications AR8152 v2.0 Fast Ethernet (rev c1) hope this helps Thanks. interfaces Description: Binary data
Re: bug in eth0-connection - but which program - to file a bug ???
I have also installed debian 6.0.7 on a Dell Poweredge 1800. I did try this because this is different hardware. After the clean install i did an apt-get xrdp made a connection with rdesktop from an XP-host and made a connection with vnc from the XP-host both worked fine So i think its something between hard and software on the acer aspire 7250 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4D1AD976543B4FB4B77ABD9D5B2C2C9C@enterprise
bug in eth0-connection - but which program - to file a bug ???
Hoi, I have installed debian 6.0.7 kernel 2.6.32-5-amd64. I have installed virtualbox, and tryed to connect from outside with rdesktop(linux) an mstsc(Windows) to my debianbox. I found out that the connection stoped. After a few reboots i pinged my router, and get every second or so a message When i made connection i with rdesktop to the debianbox, after a few seconds i get: Ping sendmsg: No bufferspace available This stays, until i stop it and start ping again, i then get; Ping Destination Host unreachable. At first i thought this an error in virtualbox and did the following: (Not starting virtualbox) - install xrdp in a virtual machine -- i get the same error - use vnc instead -- i get the same error. install xrdp in the host -- the same error install vnc in the host -- the same error I tryed if i get this error also with debian i386. so i made a connection to vncserver from my windows XP box and everything worked. So i think the problem is in debian 6.0.7. somewhere. If i start vnc from debian 6.0.7-amd64, all connections to the outside worls (eth0) is lost. Has anybody an idee how to find out which program this might be, so i can report a BUG. Thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/EE74D61F5DF846558FD43A8284FD5BE5@enterprise
