1:07 a.m.
G'day all,
I'm stuck again, but with my efforts fragmented over the past couple
of weeks I'm sure I've missed something simple. Here's the situation.
After upgrading a laptop from F7-8 the wired network connected without
hassle. I wanted to wipe the slate clean, however and installed F8 from
scratch. /etc/hosts has the other computers in the lan with 192.168.0
IP's as it had with the upgrade. eth0 is up but wants to use 169.254.
IP's which I thought zeroconf setup but zeroconf is not running.
Network manager is running (networking and wireless enabled) and reports
connected to the wired network, network service is not running.
I cannot ping any of the 192.168.0 IP's (network unreachable) from the
laptop, nor can I ping the 169.254 address it has taken for itself.
Under >Places>Network there is an icon for SFTP File Transfer ( which I
did not put there, nor can I delete it) which would connect to that box,
until today.
How do I use the 192.168.0 range of addresses and get connected to the
lan?
Thanks
--
Regards
Simon
6:04 p.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 20:32 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 17:50 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 17:39 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
> > I must still be in the wrong place. Turned avahi-daemon off in
> > runlevels 345 and rebooted, yet NM's connection information still has
> > a 169.254 address. Should the next step be turn NM off and service
> > network on to see what happens then?
>
> I'm not sure of Network Manager works this way, but some other systems
> will re-use the last IP they had, as a default.
>
> You are certain the daemon isn't running?
>
service avahi-daemon status returns Avahi daemon is not running and
chkconfig --list has it off for all runlevels.
> I haven't seen any good information about how Network Manager works, I
> wonder if it also uses link-local addresses, internally.
>
What I've found as NM docs is fairly superficial. There must be some
somewhere.
Try looking in your desktop menu for "services" or "service
management"
which will kick up a nice little gui. It'll show if "Network Manager"
and "Network Manager Dispatcher" are off. If so, stop them, and save the
configuration rules. Before you do anything, click on "Edit Run Level"
and select the last choice, "ALL" so you can see what is enabled at each
run level. It might be set to run on level 3 and not on level 5, which
might be a problem. I find it on my KDE menu under "Administration".
Great little application. 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.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
5:55 p.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 15:57 +0930, Tim wrote:
max bianco:
>>> What besides zero conf will do it?
Tim:
>> In Fedora's case, it's usually called Avahi.
Ric Moore:
> huh, I had thought ZeroConf died and blew away way back in the Caldera
> days. It was a good idea, but was cussed widely at the time. Ric
I would have thought that Caldera lived and died before the name
"ZeroConf" got applied to link-local addresses, but I can't be sure.
ZeroConf was then a beta Universal Can Opener for providing a gui to
just about all network admin matters. Now, as then, if you dinked around
with setting network configs to rights, by hand edits, it would blow up
in some very interesting ways. Back then, hand-edits were far more the
norm, so we tended to be more "excitable" (read riotous) when it
resisted accommodating us. There was many a dry eye in the house, at
it's demise. It was gone somewhere before the last couple of Caldera
releases.
I thought Wabi was about the slickest thing I've ever seen. Win3.1 ran
faster on Linux much quicker than it did under DOS. Caldera did some
pretty neat stuff and made some pretty good industry deals. I ran
Netscape server for quite awhile, and it was easy as anything to use for
a total idiot who found Apache daunting. Each install of Caldera got a
licensed copy of it. Yes, you had to check the "yes" box to accept their
license terms. But, you paid four times for Caldera what a boxed set of
RH cost, back then. It was pretty much a "Republican" crowd there.
<grins> 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.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
7:40 p.m.
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 18:26 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
Unfortunately your mail didn't get through 'till this
afternoon. I've
already disabled NM & NMDispatcher using chkconfig and turned network
service on.
I can now ping other boxes on the LAN and visa versa, but can't get out
through the router. IP forwarding is on. Found something funny in the
iptables of the router, so I'm going to check that thoroughly next.
Strange thing is that all worked fine before re-installing F8. A few
other things don't work now either that did before, but if I can get out
through the router then can yum update.
Well, crank up "services" and run down the list for things you want on
or to discover what isn't on or off. Nifty little app. You might find
that iptables is off or something else weird. 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.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
7:37 p.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 20:32 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
> I haven't seen any good information about how Network
Manager works, I
> wonder if it also uses link-local addresses, internally.
For me, just running local ethernet, turning if off fixed it for me,
followed by a hand edit of /etc/hosts. Everything toot sweet now.
What I've found as NM docs is fairly superficial. There must be some
somewhere.
You would think so, huh? <grins> 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.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
12:02 a.m.
On Sat, 2008-05-03 at 14:57 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 20:37 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 20:32 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
>
> > > I haven't seen any good information about how Network Manager works,
I
> > > wonder if it also uses link-local addresses, internally.
>
> For me, just running local ethernet, turning if off fixed it for me,
> followed by a hand edit of /etc/hosts. Everything toot sweet now.
> >
> > What I've found as NM docs is fairly superficial. There must be some
> > somewhere.
>
> You would think so, huh? <grins> Ric
>
I'm part way there. Can now mount shares with NFS. But still can't get
out through the gateway. route gives the correct Gateway name but the
Genmask is 0.0.0.0. Is this correct else how do I change the Genmask?
Ok, forget that last bit ... found that answer in the route man page.
Still can't get out though.
--
'ooroo
Simon
Registered Linux User #463789. Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
11:57 p.m.
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 20:37 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 20:32 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
> > I haven't seen any good information about how Network Manager works, I
> > wonder if it also uses link-local addresses, internally.
For me, just running local ethernet, turning if off fixed it for me,
followed by a hand edit of /etc/hosts. Everything toot sweet now.
>
> What I've found as NM docs is fairly superficial. There must be some
> somewhere.
You would think so, huh? <grins> Ric
I'm part way there. Can now mount shares with NFS. But still can't get
out through the gateway. route gives the correct Gateway name but the
Genmask is 0.0.0.0. Is this correct else how do I change the Genmask?
--
'ooroo
Simon
Registered Linux User #463789. Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
3:26 a.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 19:04 -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 20:32 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 17:50 +0930, Tim wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 17:39 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
> > > I must still be in the wrong place. Turned avahi-daemon off in
> > > runlevels 345 and rebooted, yet NM's connection information still has
> > > a 169.254 address. Should the next step be turn NM off and service
> > > network on to see what happens then?
> >
> > I'm not sure of Network Manager works this way, but some other systems
> > will re-use the last IP they had, as a default.
> >
> > You are certain the daemon isn't running?
> >
> service avahi-daemon status returns Avahi daemon is not running and
> chkconfig --list has it off for all runlevels.
>
> > I haven't seen any good information about how Network Manager works, I
> > wonder if it also uses link-local addresses, internally.
> >
> What I've found as NM docs is fairly superficial. There must be some
> somewhere.
Try looking in your desktop menu for "services" or "service
management"
which will kick up a nice little gui. It'll show if "Network Manager"
and "Network Manager Dispatcher" are off. If so, stop them, and save the
configuration rules. Before you do anything, click on "Edit Run Level"
and select the last choice, "ALL" so you can see what is enabled at each
run level. It might be set to run on level 3 and not on level 5, which
might be a problem. I find it on my KDE menu under "Administration".
Great little application. Ric
Unfortunately your mail didn't get through 'till this afternoon.
I've
already disabled NM & NMDispatcher using chkconfig and turned network
service on.
I can now ping other boxes on the LAN and visa versa, but can't get out
through the router. IP forwarding is on. Found something funny in the
iptables of the router, so I'm going to check that thoroughly next.
Strange thing is that all worked fine before re-installing F8. A few
other things don't work now either that did before, but if I can get out
through the router then can yum update.
--
'ooroo
Simon
Registered Linux User #463789. Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
5:32 a.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 17:50 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 17:39 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
> I must still be in the wrong place. Turned avahi-daemon off in
> runlevels 345 and rebooted, yet NM's connection information still has
> a 169.254 address. Should the next step be turn NM off and service
> network on to see what happens then?
I'm not sure of Network Manager works this way, but some other systems
will re-use the last IP they had, as a default.
You are certain the daemon isn't running?
service avahi-daemon status returns Avahi daemon is not running and
chkconfig --list has it off for all runlevels.
I haven't seen any good information about how Network Manager
works, I
wonder if it also uses link-local addresses, internally.
What I've found as NM docs is fairly superficial. There must be some
somewhere.
--
Regards
Simon
3:20 a.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 17:39 +1000, Simon Slater wrote:
I must still be in the wrong place. Turned avahi-daemon off in
runlevels 345 and rebooted, yet NM's connection information still has
a 169.254 address. Should the next step be turn NM off and service
network on to see what happens then?
I'm not sure of Network Manager works this way, but some other systems
will re-use the last IP they had, as a default.
You are certain the daemon isn't running?
I haven't seen any good information about how Network Manager works, I
wonder if it also uses link-local addresses, internally.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
2:39 a.m.
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 15:57 +0930, Tim wrote:
max bianco:
>>> What besides zero conf will do it?
Tim:
>> In Fedora's case, it's usually called Avahi.
Ric Moore:
> huh, I had thought ZeroConf died and blew away way back in the Caldera
> days. It was a good idea, but was cussed widely at the time. Ric
I would have thought that Caldera lived and died before the name
"ZeroConf" got applied to link-local addresses, but I can't be sure.
There are benefits in being able to create ad-hoc networks, that sort
themselves out completely (e.g. home LANs, without any servers). And
there are benefits to not having that system, at all.
It's certainly better, the Linux way, that it's a separate service that
you can manage how you like. As opposed to how I saw it operating on
Windows, where if you weren't configured with a static address, or a
DHCP server didn't give you an address, the machine gave itself an
address without any option to avoid it. People plugged in, got some
address, and thought networking should work, and couldn't work out why
it didn't (they'd be on a different subnet than the rest). Whereas if
they got an error message about not having an address, they'd have
immediately started fault-finding in the right place.
I must still be in the wrong place. Turned avahi-daemon off in
runlevels 345 and rebooted, yet NM's connection information still has a
169.254 address. Should the next step be turn NM off and service
network on to see what happens then?
--
Regards
Simon
1:27 a.m.
max bianco:
>> What besides zero conf will do it?
Tim:
> In Fedora's case, it's usually called Avahi.
Ric Moore:
huh, I had thought ZeroConf died and blew away way back in the
Caldera
days. It was a good idea, but was cussed widely at the time. Ric
I would have thought that Caldera lived and died before the name
"ZeroConf" got applied to link-local addresses, but I can't be sure.
There are benefits in being able to create ad-hoc networks, that sort
themselves out completely (e.g. home LANs, without any servers). And
there are benefits to not having that system, at all.
It's certainly better, the Linux way, that it's a separate service that
you can manage how you like. As opposed to how I saw it operating on
Windows, where if you weren't configured with a static address, or a
DHCP server didn't give you an address, the machine gave itself an
address without any option to avoid it. People plugged in, got some
address, and thought networking should work, and couldn't work out why
it didn't (they'd be on a different subnet than the rest). Whereas if
they got an error message about not having an address, they'd have
immediately started fault-finding in the right place.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
6:38 a.m.
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 23:42 +0930, Tim wrote:
Tim:
>> Yes, but something has to assign that - a service running on the same
>> computer, it doesn't magically happen by itself. Otherwise, when there
>> isn't such a service to do that, the interface doesn't come up with
any
>> IP. ZeroConf is one of the things that can do that.
max bianco:
> What besides zero conf will do it?
In Fedora's case, it's usually called Avahi.
huh, I had thought ZeroConf died and blew away way back in the Caldera
days. It was a good idea, but was cussed widely at the time. 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.
Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/oar
http://www.wayward4now.net <---down4now too
================================================
9:12 a.m.
Tim:
> Yes, but something has to assign that - a service running on the
same
> computer, it doesn't magically happen by itself. Otherwise, when there
> isn't such a service to do that, the interface doesn't come up with any
> IP. ZeroConf is one of the things that can do that.
max bianco:
What besides zero conf will do it?
In Fedora's case, it's usually called Avahi.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
8:36 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 19:30 -0400, max bianco wrote:
> 169.254.*.* is assigned when a DHCP server cannot be reached.
Yes, but something has to assign that - a service running on the same
computer, it doesn't magically happen by itself. Otherwise, when there
isn't such a service to do that, the interface doesn't come up with any
IP. ZeroConf is one of the things that can do that.
What besides zero conf will do it?
Max
6:13 a.m.
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 19:30 -0400, max bianco wrote:
169.254.*.* is assigned when a DHCP server cannot be reached.
Yes, but something has to assign that - a service running on the same
computer, it doesn't magically happen by itself. Otherwise, when there
isn't such a service to do that, the interface doesn't come up with any
IP. ZeroConf is one of the things that can do that.
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
6:30 p.m.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:07 AM, Simon Slater <pyevet(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
G'day all,
I'm stuck again, but with my efforts fragmented over the past couple
of weeks I'm sure I've missed something simple. Here's the situation.
After upgrading a laptop from F7-8 the wired network connected without
hassle. I wanted to wipe the slate clean, however and installed F8 from
scratch. /etc/hosts has the other computers in the lan with 192.168.0
IP's as it had with the upgrade. eth0 is up but wants to use 169.254.
IP's which I thought zeroconf setup but zeroconf is not running.
Network manager is running (networking and wireless enabled) and reports
connected to the wired network, network service is not running.
I cannot ping any of the 192.168.0 IP's (network unreachable) from the
laptop, nor can I ping the 169.254 address it has taken for itself.
Under >Places>Network there is an icon for SFTP File Transfer ( which I
did not put there, nor can I delete it) which would connect to that box,
until today.
How do I use the 192.168.0 range of addresses and get connected to the
lan?
Thanks
--
Regards
Simon
169.254.*.* is assigned when a DHCP server cannot be reached.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3330.html
Max
5860
days inactive
5871
days old
16 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
max -
Ric Moore -
Simon Slater -
Tim