I did read your post, I was hoping that an explanation of what the 169.254 network was used for might help you figure out what was going on.
its coming up that way because its configured that way for some reason. try grepping the /etc/ tree for 169.254, or even just 169 On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:31:36+1200 Michael<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nobody read my post properly... > > There is no dynamic configurations going on here. I said that > 169.254.0.0 keeps appearing in my ROUTE table even though NONE of the > interfaces are configured to receive an IP address via DHCP. > > In other words, only one interface is initialised at boot and that has > a static IP. There is no interface with a 169.254 address and no > interface that DHCPs. The address is always there even after a > reboot. I thought that the route table was in essence flushed on > reboot. So somewhere, that address is being put back in - as the only > user of the box I know that I didn't do it! > > Eth1 is not configured to come up on boot. Is it possible that if > eth1 is told that it has a static IP, but is not configured with one, > that it messes with the route table? What sense would that be? > Especially when the network isn't configured to use that device as the > next hop! > > Michael. > > At 03:03 p.m. 24/08/2003, you wrote: > >169.254.x.x is the private range for windows machines that have > >automatically assigned themselves an address in the event that the > >dhcp server they were SPOSED to get an address from....is no longer > >there... > > > >I'll leave that said, and perhaps that may explain enough... > > > >Andy > > > >On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 12:09, mjm159 wrote: > > > Okay, so I got it going mostly. I logically changed eth0 (which > > > is never plugged in to anything) with eth1. I just changed the > > > modules.conf and swapped the ifcfg scripts as well. > > > > > > Now eth0 (formerly eth1) comes up with its IP and network > > info. However, I > > > can't understand why that made a difference. > > > > > > On an aside, I also can't understand why 169.254.0.0 keeps > > > appearing in my route table. None of the interfaces are > > > configured to receive an > > address via > > > DHCP so why should that private network appear out of nowhere? > > > > > > There's some other networking issues here that I think I'll have > > > to keep looking at. > > > > > > Michael. > > > > > > >===== Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===== > > > >Yes, but it doesn't bring it up with any config (from > > > >ifcfg-eth1). No ip address, no routes. > > > > > > > >Michael. > > > > > > > >>===== Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >=====>On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 01:33, mjm159 wrote: > > > >>> I have to modprobe, ifconfig eth1 x.x.x.x, route add 0.0.0.0 > > > >... to > > get it > > > >up > > > >>> and going. > > > >>> > > > >>> Why won't it run at bootup!? > > > >> > > > >>Does > > > >> > > > >> ifup eth1 > > > >> > > > >>work? > > > >> > > > >>Vik :v) > > > > > > > >--- > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Message generated in webmail. > > > > > > --- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Message generated in webmail. > > > > >
