Somehow my reply got split into two messages, so here is the other half 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? > I doubt it, because it was so before I reserved an address on the router. Today I found in dmesg that udev: renamed network interface eth0 to eth1. I didn't see anything that amounted to a reason for that. > 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). > The wired interface is set to static, and appears to be working fine now. It's the wireless that is using dhcp (or would be, if I could connect) and it's for that interface that I've reserved an address. > 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 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
