Tom H wrote: > Mark Copper wrote: > > Tom H wrote: > >> Mark Copper wrote: > >>> Previously, my file followed this format for multiple IP addresses on > >>> a single nic like this (cf > >>> https://wiki.debian.org/NetworkConfiguration): > >>> > >>> auto eth0 eth0:1 > >>> > >>> iface eth0 inet static > >>> address 192.168.1.42 > >>> netmask 255.255.255.0 > >>> gateway 192.168.1.1 > >>> dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8 > >>> > >>> auto eth0:1 > >>> allow-hotplug eth0:0 > >>> iface eth0:1 inet static > >>> address 192.168.1.43 > >>> netmask 255.255.255.0 > >> > >> You have "allow-hotplug eth0:0" without an "iface eth0:0 ..." line. > > > I think I do, but why is it necessary? I thought it was only for > > dynamic changes. and this server never needs them. > > "iface ..." defines the interface and "allow-hotplug ..." allows > udev to hotplug it. Without "iface ...", "allow-hotplug ..." is of > no use. You must have meant to have "allow-hotplug eth0:1", not > "allow-hotplug eth0:0".
Right. allow-hotplug is for udev. auto is for static boot. The presence of "auto" should work at boot time since eth0:1 was listed in the first auto line. > >>> but both /etc/init.d/networking reload and restart had separate > >>> problems besides not solving my resolv.conf problem. So I tried the > >>> newer format at the bottom of the same wiki.debian.org page like this: > >>> > >>> auto eth0 > >>> allow-hotplug eth0 > >>> iface eth0 inet static > >>> address 192.168.1.42 > >>> netmask 255.255.255.0 > >>> gateway 192.168.1.1 > >>> dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8 > >>> > >>> iface eth0 inet static > >>> address 192.168.1.43 > >>> netmask 255.255.255.0 > >> > >> You have two "iface eth0 ..." lines. > > > > strange, but it's in the wiki. > > I'm sorry. I've just looked at the wiki and I didn't know that there > was a new (?) iproute configuration style. I think that is a new ifupdown configuration style. It was ifupdown that changed. AFAIK iproute is the same. s/iproute/ifupdown/ For reference see: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717878 And: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717887 > It's too bad that the developer didn't get rid of the "netmask" line > and use "address 192.168.1.42/24" instead. I assume that it's for > backward compatibility but it'd be nice if both were possible. Agreed. It would be very nice if we could use the 192.168.1.42/24 style of designating the netmask. Then it would be more compatible with the other commands that use that syntax. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
