Hey guys,
I have a spanking new CentOS desktop install in front of me that is
playing silly with networking. The install process from DVD seems to
have gone according to plan. Yet its network configuration is not
working. I've reviewed the following:
/etc/resolv.confas
Are you using an onboard NIC? Is it a Marvell chipset? I've noticed a
couple weird things like this with very particular Marvell chips. (instance
where things would looks correct and it wouldn't necessarily report
problems, but it would not get a gateway or wouldn't pick up an IP from
DHCP.)
My
Chris McQuistion wrote:
Are you using an onboard NIC? Is it a Marvell chipset? I've noticed a
couple weird things like this with very particular Marvell chips.
(instance where things would looks correct and it wouldn't necessarily
report problems, but it would not get a gateway or wouldn't
Hello Howard,
Check /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/.
I have been using CentOS on some stuff for a while, but not the desktop
version. If I was guessing I would not be surprised if they are using
something in the way of NetworkManager, which I have found to be a very
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM, David R. Wilson da...@wwns.com wrote:
Hello Howard,
Check /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/.
I have been using CentOS on some stuff for a while, but not the desktop
version. If I was guessing I would not be surprised if they are
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:02:52PM -0600, David R. Wilson wrote:
Hello Howard,
Check /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/.
Seconded. NetworkMangler does bad things to the
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-ethX interface
definition files at
John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:02:52PM -0600, David R. Wilson wrote:
Hello Howard,
Check /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/.
Seconded. NetworkMangler does bad things to the
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-ethX interface
definition files
just 2 cents here (oops)
isnt the 169.254.x.x zeroconf addressing?
I know M$ puts in the same when dhcp fails
--
-- NOT sent from an iphone,blackberry,Nokia, or any handheld. --
I'm a PC(x86 AND ppc)
AND I RUN LINUX!!!
Linux is like ice cream. It comes in many flavors and everyone has
their
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 05:20:18PM -0600, Howard wrote:
Many thanks for the responses. Allow me to reiterate that the
/etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0
files are correct. I did as John Dennison suggests and yum erase
NetworkManager to no net change in
./aal wrote:
just 2 cents here (oops)
isnt the 169.254.x.x zeroconf addressing?
I know M$ puts in the same when dhcp fails
That is part of the weirdness that caused me to bring this issue to the
list. I am seeing similar behavior on another CentOS 5.4 install that
I'm working with. M$
John R. Dennison wrote:
/etc/sysconfig/network is not correct if you have to manually
add a default route :) Are you sure you have a GATEWAY=a.b.c.d
statement in there?
John
Well let's restate my premise a
On Jan 19, 2010, at 5:29 PM, ./aal wrote:
isnt the 169.254.x.x zeroconf addressing?
It's a default that is used if no other address is given to the card.
I know M$ puts in the same when dhcp fails
No, they don't. It's the card's firmware that puts it in. This happens
regardless of the OS.
On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Howard wrote:
GATEWAY=198.168.1.1
WRONG NETWORK! The card is on 192.whatever, not 198 (see below)
ifcfg-eth0:
# Intel Corporation 82545EM Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper)
DEVICE=eth0
BOOTPROTO=static
BROADCAST=192.168.1.255
HWADDR=00:08:74:4F:3E:8A
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 06:10:50PM -0600, Howard wrote:
Well let's restate my premise a bit. My /etc/sysconfig/network reads
correctly to me but not to some process in the system.
NETWORKING=yes
NETWORKING_IPV6=yes
HOSTNAME=host.domain.tld
GATEWAY=198.168.1.1
Yep, looks sane.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 06:14:59PM -0600, Ken Barber wrote:
If you're seeing this, it means that your card isn't being configured
on startup. Not by DHCP, not by /etc/sysconfig/whatever, not by anything.
Umm, not necessarily. RHEL and respins add a route for
169.254.0.0/16
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 06:18:52PM -0600, Ken Barber wrote:
On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Howard wrote:
GATEWAY=198.168.1.1
WRONG NETWORK! The card is on 192.whatever, not 198 (see below)
Opps. You are, sir, indeed correct. I think it's time
I went to have my eyes
On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
I
specifically exclude NetworkMangler as I'm pretty sure
it's installed by default in a gui install
(network-manager-gnome gets installed in a Gnome environment
I don't install or use the abomination known as Gnome, which
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:31 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
RHEL and respins add a route for
169.254.0.0/16 to the primary interface. If you wish to
prevent this behavior add NOZEROCONF=yes to the definition
file
I have not poked around with IPV6 much, but if your not using it and
your on an IPV4 network with bits of IPV6 enabled that might cause some
interesting ugliness.
How about: NETWORKING IPV6=NO
?
Dave
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 18:10 -0600, Howard wrote:
John R. Dennison wrote:
Ken Barber wrote:
On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Howard wrote:
GATEWAY=198.168.1.1
WRONG NETWORK! The card is on 192.whatever, not 198 (see below)
ifcfg-eth0:
# Intel Corporation 82545EM Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper)
DEVICE=eth0
BOOTPROTO=static
BROADCAST=192.168.1.255
20 matches
Mail list logo
