On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:24:21AM +0000, Anne Wilson wrote: > However, since that address is set > both in NM and on the router's dhcp I don't know which is prevailing. You should not reserve an address for an interface on your DHCP server and at the same time attempt to give it a specific address. It will get one anyway but in a DHCP lease. Maybe this is causing an appearance of this "ghost" eth1 interface which you are talking about? In any case if an interface is configured to use DHCP then any specific address assignments in its configuration file are ignored (or at least they should be). OTOH I recall that on some occassion NetworkMangler crashed on me and later it was so entangled in its own junk that it could not find a way out. That will be that bug report: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=413281 See in particular comments #10 and #11 how I eventually forced it to find correct interfaces as otherwise NM was terminally lost. I have no idea if this still applies. In case that it does then reopen the bug. Michal -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
