On Wednesday 12 November 2008 17:59:17 Michal Jaegermann wrote: > 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. > Progress, of a sort. Following your lead I renamed ~/.gconf then created a new connection. It now tells me that I am connected to myESSID at 0%, and of course I have no internet connection on it. That sounds to me as though it has found the signal and latched on to it, but failed to pass my key. What the !!!! According to the info panel it has an IP address of 10.42.45.1 - when the rest of the lan is 192.168.0.x. Where the heck did that come from? Anne
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
