That's just it, this is a Red Hat 9 box so why are we talking about Windoze machines? I've never seen a Linux box come up with this route before and that's why I emailed the list.
I'm well aware of how Windoze machines work, if this was a Windoze question I'd email MS. Hmm, I'm coming across as quite a grumpy bastard here. Sorry about that. I'm really not that emotionally connected ;-) I'll have to search out the info elsewhere because I don't think anyone on-list has seen this before either. There must be an obvious reason. Michael. >===== Original Message From [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===== >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] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message generated in webmail.
