however....I have never seen a non windows box come up with a 169.254.x.x IP address on dhcp failure. On all the implementations I have seen, once dhcp times out the interface does not come up, nor does it make an entry in the routing table.
on greping my redhat box I find some entries in this file: sysconfig/network-scripts/network-functions-ipv6 On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:21:21 +1200 Andy George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure did boss, 169.254.x.x is the default range for a machine wanting a > DHCP server... Windows *by default* wants a dhcp server, so if it's > thrown on a network, and perhaps (as we all have done) you leave the IP > stage till later... it will INITIALLY try to seek out a dhcp server... > The router will spot that request, and the assignment of the 169.254 > address, (DHCP Fail) and there you have it... > > You, of course, then set the IP as you do, and subsequently... there's > a weird 169.254 address reference, in the route tables... > > On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 22:31, Michael 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. > > > > > > > > -- Nick Rout Barrister & Solicitor Christchurch, NZ Ph +64 3 3798966 Fax + 64 3 3798853 http://www.rout.co.nz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
