Re: New Etch install - IP address question

2007-01-27 Thread Tom Pfeifer
Andrei Popescu wrote:
 On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:46:50 -0500
 Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi Andrei,
it seems enough people do an install and have this problem that the
answer has become know to the debian-user list. Now I know very little
about zeroconf but it seems to me that it would be better to _not_
have it installed and allow those folks who need it to install it
then to have newbies not have proper networking when they finish an
install. Opinions?
cheers,
Kev
 
 
 avahi-daemon recommends libnss-mdns
 libnss-mdns recommends zeroconf
 
 The link is pretty weak, but it still gets installed on a lot of
 systems, because aptitude installs recommends by default. Maybe it
 (zeroconf) should be installed disabled?
 
 Regards,
 Andrei

In my case it was dselect that pulled it in, since that also installs
recommends by default. Installing it disabled would be OK, or changing
it to suggestsI'm not sure how important zeroconf is for the overall
user base.

Tom


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: New Etch install - IP address question

2007-01-27 Thread Joey Hess
Andrei Popescu wrote:
 avahi-daemon recommends libnss-mdns
 libnss-mdns recommends zeroconf
 
 The link is pretty weak, but it still gets installed on a lot of
 systems, because aptitude installs recommends by default.

Although thankfully recommends are ignored on initial installs.

The recommends has been removed in the avahi-daemon in unstable, it's
only blocked from reaching testing by a missing build on alpha so should
go in soon.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


New Etch install - IP address question

2007-01-26 Thread Tom Pfeifer
Just installed Etch from the RC1 net install CD. Did standard install,
updated everything to the latest etch packages from the Debian
repository, and then installed xorg + kde. Everything *works fine*, but
something is different about the network configuration that I don't
understand, and hoping someone can explain what I'm seeing. I didn't
change anything in the network configuration - just left it as set up by
default.

I have a simple LAN behind a router that assigns IP addresses with DHCP.
I'm using 192.168.2.X as the local subnet, so normally a system on the
LAN will get an IP address such as 192.168.2.155 or 192.168.2.156 etc.

But on this new install of etch, when I run ifconfig I'm getting this:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /sbin/ifconfig
eth0  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:13:20:F3:7A:03
  inet addr:169.254.128.152  Bcast:169.254.255.255
  Mask:255.255.0.0
  inet6 addr: fe80::213:20ff:fef3:7a03/64 Scope:Link
  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
  RX packets:583 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:433 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
  RX bytes:276931 (270.4 KiB)  TX bytes:46680 (45.5 KiB)


Note the strange IP address. The leases file in /var/lib/dhcp3 does show
that the IP address assigned is in the expected range (192.168.2.199),
and I can ping that IP from other systems etc.

Again, everything looks and works normally excecpt for the strange IP
address. Just hoping someone can explain or provide a link to some
information - thanks...(maybe this is related to IPv6 ?)

Tom







-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: New Etch install - IP address question

2007-01-26 Thread Dave Ewart
On Friday, 26.01.2007 at 11:08 -0500, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /sbin/ifconfig
 eth0  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:13:20:F3:7A:03
 inet addr:169.254.128.152  Bcast:169.254.255.255
 Mask:255.255.0.0
   inet6 addr: fe80::213:20ff:fef3:7a03/64 Scope:Link
   UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
   RX packets:583 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
   TX packets:433 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
   collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
   RX bytes:276931 (270.4 KiB)  TX bytes:46680 (45.5 KiB)

That's very strange: the 169.254.x.x addresses I've seen in Windows: a
Windows PC will give itself an address in that range if it has no
hardcoded IP address and can't find the DHCP server.

Never seen it appear on *nix before, though...

Dave.
-- 
Please don't CC me on list messages!
...
Dave Ewart - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All email from me is now digitally signed, key from http://www.sungate.co.uk/
Fingerprint: AEC5 9360 0A35 7F66 66E9 82E4 9E10 6769 CD28 DA92



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: New Etch install - IP address question

2007-01-26 Thread Andrei Popescu
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:08:45 -0500
Tom Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Again, everything looks and works normally excecpt for the strange IP
 address. Just hoping someone can explain or provide a link to some
 information - thanks...(maybe this is related to IPv6 ?)

These addresses are usually assigned by the zeroconf package. You can
(should) purge that.

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: New Etch install - IP address question

2007-01-26 Thread Tom Pfeifer
Andrei Popescu wrote:
 On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:08:45 -0500
 Tom Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
Again, everything looks and works normally excecpt for the strange IP
address. Just hoping someone can explain or provide a link to some
information - thanks...(maybe this is related to IPv6 ?)
 
 
 These addresses are usually assigned by the zeroconf package. You can
 (should) purge that.
 
 Regards,
 Andrei

Yes, that was it - thanks.

zeroconf can also be disabled (as a test) in /etc/default/zeroconf

The other symptom of this is the output of route. It will have a
link-local entry - which will show as 169.254.0.0 with route -n

Tom


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: New Etch install - IP address question

2007-01-26 Thread Kevin Mark
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:50:46PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
 On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:08:45 -0500
 Tom Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Again, everything looks and works normally excecpt for the strange IP
  address. Just hoping someone can explain or provide a link to some
  information - thanks...(maybe this is related to IPv6 ?)
 
 These addresses are usually assigned by the zeroconf package. You can
 (should) purge that.
 
 Regards,
Hi Andrei,
it seems enough people do an install and have this problem that the
answer has become know to the debian-user list. Now I know very little
about zeroconf but it seems to me that it would be better to _not_ have
it installed and allow those folks who need it to install it then to
have newbies not have proper networking when they finish an install.
Opinions?
cheers,
Kev
-- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/|
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
|   my keysever: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: New Etch install - IP address question

2007-01-26 Thread Andrei Popescu
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:46:50 -0500
Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:50:46PM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
  On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:08:45 -0500
  Tom Pfeifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Again, everything looks and works normally excecpt for the
   strange IP address. Just hoping someone can explain or provide a
   link to some information - thanks...(maybe this is related to
   IPv6 ?)
  
  These addresses are usually assigned by the zeroconf package. You
  can (should) purge that.
  
  Regards,

 Hi Andrei,
 it seems enough people do an install and have this problem that the
 answer has become know to the debian-user list. Now I know very little
 about zeroconf but it seems to me that it would be better to _not_
 have it installed and allow those folks who need it to install it
 then to have newbies not have proper networking when they finish an
 install. Opinions?
 cheers,
 Kev

avahi-daemon recommends libnss-mdns
libnss-mdns recommends zeroconf

The link is pretty weak, but it still gets installed on a lot of
systems, because aptitude installs recommends by default. Maybe it
(zeroconf) should be installed disabled?

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]