ifconfig

[Paul Johnson]

Is there any way to adjust at what point the packet and byte counts roll
over as displayed in ifconfig?
-- 
Baloo




pgpXsWdiw4yD9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

ifconfig

[Michael Schmidt]

Hi,

I used a PCMCIA ethernet adaptor when I intalled Debian and my network worked 
after installation. 

Now I have switched to using the ethernet adaptor in my docking station. I 
have added the correct module to aliases and run update-modules, but where 
should I place the following line which configures my network so it is done 
at bootup

ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.10 netmask 255.255.255.0 up

Currently I am running this as root each time I reboot the laptop. I am sure 
I can find somewhere to put this, but I would like to put it in the "correct" 
location.

Thanks for any help,

mike

Ifconfig

[Amanda Shuler]

I have a question about ifconfig.
I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
network.
I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
I type:
    ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76

then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
192.168.1.1 everytime!  

Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the network,
because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card is
not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
happen upon every boot?

How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?

-
Amanda Shuler   | I don't want to start any
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   | blasphemous rumours, but...
-

Ifconfig

[Amanda Shuler]

I have a question about ifconfig.
I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
network.
I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
I type:
    ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76

then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
192.168.1.1 everytime!  

Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the network,
because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card is
not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
happen upon every boot?

How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?

-
Amanda Shuler   | I don't want to start any
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   | blasphemous rumours, but...
-

ifconfig

[Jimmy Lu]

Hi,
Can someone tell me how to setup a machine with one network
interface card(eth0) to respond to more than one IP address?
FreeBSD seems to be able to do something as follows:
ifconfig ep0 192.168.123.2
ifconfig ep0 192.168.123.3 alias netmask 0x
I checked man page of ifconfig but I still don't know how
to do it in under Debian.  Please kindly let me know.
Thanks in advance,
Jimmy Lu


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Ifconfig

[David R. Litwin]

I have set my ifconfig (via pppoeconf) to start up a ppp and eth0 connection.

My ifconfig, when working properly, reads thus:

ifconfig
eth0  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:50:DA:B8:AE:EA
  inet6 addr: fe80::250:daff:feb8:aeea/64 Scope:Link
  UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
  RX packets:14311 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:12377 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:1 txqueuelen:1000
  RX bytes:8317950 (7.9 MiB)  TX bytes:1993074 (1.9 MiB)
  Interrupt:9 Base address:0xb800

lo    Link encap:Local Loopback
  inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
  inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
  UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
  RX packets:7 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:7 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
  RX bytes:390 (390.0 b)  TX bytes:390 (390.0 b)

ppp0  Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
  inet
addr:65.94.84.97  P-t-P:64.230.197.65  Mask:255.255.255.255
  UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:1492  Metric:1
  RX packets:11365 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:11273 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
  collisions:0 txqueuelen:3
  RX bytes:7840851 (7.4 MiB)  TX bytes:1677456 (1.5 MiB)

The problem is two-fold:

One: When I boot up in to Linux, it automatically connects me - twice.
I have to give "ifconfig ppp1 down" so that I've only one ppp
connection. How do I stop ppp1 from existing and have only ppp0?

Two: I need to have lo up when I boot up so that my printer works. It
used to do this: But no more. I must do "ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1 up" for
lo to go up. How do I get it to do this on its own?

I think it has to do with the Networking files, yes?

Thank you in advance.-- —Moose Moose Jam Sausage Meow-Mix.—My Hover-Craft is Full of Eels.—[...]and that's the he and the she of it.

ifconfig

[Adrian Berardi]

Hello, im experiencing trouble when configuring eth1 card.
with the ifconfig command i bring up the card, but it resets when
restarting.
any comment will be kindly acepted./
best regards
adrian (ARG)


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

ifconfig

[Enrique Samson Jr.]

When I use ifconfig to reconfigure my NIC, i lose the changes on reboot. 
 What is the tool that could make permanent changes? TIA.

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

ifconfig

[Peter van Oene]

Having trouble getting my DHCP working after a 2.4.20 kernel upgrade.  My 
interfaces work fine manually configured at time.  However, I have two issues.

1: DHCP doens't work.	I have used etherconf to set them to auto and also 
ran dhclient (i don't seem to have dhcpcd).  Ethereal displays no packets 
at all leaving the interface (bootp requests etc)

2: At times, when manually configuring using "ifconfig eth0 add 
192.168.2.5" a logical eth0:0 is created instead of the address being 
assigned to the physical.  I can't seem to change this when it occurs.  I 
can down the 0:0, but when I issue the command again, I get it back.

I'm likely doing something dumb, but am getting really frustrated ;-)

Thanks for any tips

Pete


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

No ifconfig

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
[...] and the only reason we had to keep it around by default [...] 
was broken by GNU upstream when it took ifconfig out of the bit-rot 
pit hell and started maintaining it again.


net-tools is not a GNU Software package.

* https://sourceforge.net/projects/net-tools/

* https://www.gnu.org/software/software.html

No ifconfig

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Christian Seiler:

From my personal experience, the following two things are features I'm 
actually using regularly and that don't work with it:


1.

IPv6 doesn't really work properly (as explained elsewhere by other
people in this thread)

2.

Can't add multiple IP addresses to the same interface and (worse)
even if multiple IP addresses are assigned to the same interfaces
it only shows the primary address

(2) is really bad, especially the part where it does not show all of 
the IPs that were assigned by other tools, for example NetworkManager, 
or Debian's own |ifupdown| via |/etc/network/interfaces|.




Your second point is a conflation of two things.  One is right, but the 
other is wrong.  Here is what actually happens.  Starting with this basis:



jdebp % ifconfig lo|head -n 4
loLink encap:Local Loopback
   inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
   inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
   inet6 addr: ::2/128 Scope:Compat
jdebp % ip address show lo|fgrep -A 1 inet
 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet 127.53.53.1/8 scope host secondary lo:0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet6 ::2/128 scope global
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
jdebp %


|ifconfig| cannot see additional addresses assigned by the likes of |ip| 
in its simplest fashion, as here:



jdebp % sudo ip address add 127.53.0.1 dev lo
jdebp % ifconfig lo|head -n 4
loLink encap:Local Loopback
   inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
   inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
   inet6 addr: ::2/128 Scope:Compat
jdebp % ip address show lo|fgrep -A 1 inet
 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet 127.53.0.1/32 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet 127.53.53.1/8 scope host secondary lo:0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet6 ::2/128 scope global
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
jdebp %


But it most definitely /can/ assign multiple IP addresses to a single 
interface, and these will be reported as such by |ip| even though 
|ifconfig| shows them differently:



jdebp % sudo ifconfig lo inet add 127.53.0.2
jdebp % ifconfig lo|head -n 4
loLink encap:Local Loopback
   inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
   inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
   inet6 addr: ::2/128 Scope:Compat
jdebp % ifconfig lo:0|head -n 2
lo:0  Link encap:Local Loopback
   inet addr:127.53.0.2  Mask:255.0.0.0
jdebp % ip address show lo|fgrep -A 1 inet
 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet 127.53.0.1/32 scope host lo
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet 127.53.53.1/8 scope host secondary lo:0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet 127.53.0.2/8 scope host secondary lo:1
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet6 ::2/128 scope global
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
 inet6 ::1/128 scope host
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
jdebp %


Moreover, one /can/ add multiple IP addresses to an interface with |ip| 
in such a way that |ifconfig| sees them, by assigning labels:



jdebp % sudo ip address del 127.53.0.1/32 dev lo
jdebp % sudo ip address add 127.53.0.1 dev lo label lo:2
jdebp % ifconfig lo:2|head -n 2
lo:2  Link encap:Local Loopback
   inet addr:127.53.0.1  Mask:255.255.255.255
jdebp %


One interesting tidbit in the aforegiven:  The network mask inference 
calculation differs. |ip| inferred 127.53.0.1/32 whereas |ifconfig| 
inferred 127.53.0.2/8.

No ifconfig

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Eike Lantzsch:


Yes, I ask myself why this isn't possible on Linux:

ifconfig enp3s0 inet alias 192.168.12.206 netmask 255.255.255.0

while it is perfectly possible on OpenBSD (with the correct device of 
course).



It's possible if you spell it |inet add| instead of |inet alias|.  (-:

IFConfig location

[Masatran, R. Deepak]

Why is IFConfig in "/sbin"? Now I have to run it as "/sbin/ifconfig"
everytime. Moving it to "/bin" will allow non-super users to get information
about networking easily.

-- 
Masatran, R. Deepak <http://research.iiit.ac.in/~masatran/>


pgppEc5LJA0yC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

ifconfig & route

[Petteri Heinonen]

Hi.
Why ifconfig adds route in localnet when I use it to bring up my eth0
interface? Shouldn't that be done with route command after using ifconfig?
That is what is said in networking howto and in a Debian book I have. I read
manual pages for ifconfig, and there weren't a word about this feature.
Neither did I found option for switching this feature off. I have to say
that this doesn't cause any problems for me, I'm just curious.

regards,

Petteri Heinonen
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel.:  +358 (0)50 3363 286
addr.: Pehkusuonkatu 21 B 38
33820 Tampere, FIN

ifconfig curiosity

[martin f krafft]

seamus:~> /sbin/ifconfig | grep MiB
  RX bytes:614070395 (585.6 MiB)  TX bytes:125545699 (119.7 MiB)
  RX bytes:34937878 (33.3 MiB)  TX bytes:34937878 (33.3 MiB)

uhm, what are "MiB"'s?

-- 
martin;  (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
linux is like a wigwam.
no gates, no windoze, and an apache inside.


pgpAgPHaqwH9r.pgp
Description: PGP signature

ifconfig question

[Paul 'Baloo' Johnson]

I'm wondering if there's any way to increase the value at which the
recieved and transmitted bytes and packets roll over to 0?

-- 
Baloo

Re: Ifconfig !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Francisco M Neto]

» Assim falou Elcio Mello em Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 10:40:31PM -0300:

> Não tem a necessidade de instalar o dhcpd, a não ser que a máquina seja 
> servidor de dhcp para sua rede interna.

A saber: dhcpcd != dhcpd.
dhcpcd é o cliente, dhcpd é o servidor.

-- 
[]'s,

francisco m. neto

"Calling EMACS an editor is like calling the Earth a hunk of dirt."

  -- Chris DiBona on Dirt (Open Sources, 1999 O'Reilly and Associates)


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

ifconfig data

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Hi,

Ifconfig says:

...
ppp0  Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
  inet addr:200.57.201.43  P-t-P:200.57.219.18 
Mask:255.255.255.255

...

I want that inet addr (200.57.201.43) in a program and I prefer not to 
run the ifconfig command from it and grep it.


Does anyone know where else in the system that information resides?

I installed the net-tools source and looking at ifconfig.c it's not 
immediately obvious.


Hugo


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

ifconfig/carrier

[Petr \[Dingo\] Dvorak]

Hey there,

I got up today morning just to find out that my network quit, the problem was
most likely network card going bad over night, it went away after i changed the
nic in my linux machine, but i would still like to get to the root of the
problem.

The card was 3c900/EtherLink XL PCI, i haven't had 3com quit on me yet before,
so that's why all this looks so weird to me.

First thing that i did i looked in ifconfig eth0, and this is what i got:

  RX packets:4937728 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
  TX packets:5143912 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:8672
  collisions:1 txqueuelen:100

i noticed that the carrier is unusually high, normally it stays at 0 so i
started looking for some kind of info on what it is, but i can't find anything
in the docs or on the net, would someone please enlighten me about this ?:)

Dingo.


  ).|.(
'.'___'.'
   ' '(>~<)' '
   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-ooO-=(_)=-Ooo-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Petr [Dingo] Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Coder - Purple Dragon MUD   pdragon.org port 
   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-[ 369D93 ]=-=-
  Debian version 2.2.18pre21, up 1 min, 2 users, load average: 0.09
   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: ifconfig

[Andrew Perrin]

Look at /etc/network/interfaces - that's where I made the changes on my
system.

--
Andrew J Perrin - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin
Asst Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  269 Hamilton Hall, CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA


On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Michael Schmidt wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I used a PCMCIA ethernet adaptor when I intalled Debian and my network worked 
> after installation. 
> 
> Now I have switched to using the ethernet adaptor in my docking station. I 
> have added the correct module to aliases and run update-modules, but where 
> should I place the following line which configures my network so it is done 
> at bootup
> 
> ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.10 netmask 255.255.255.0 up
> 
> Currently I am running this as root each time I reboot the laptop. I am sure 
> I can find somewhere to put this, but I would like to put it in the "correct" 
> location.
> 
> Thanks for any help,
> 
> mike
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

Re: ifconfig

[Jim McCloskey]

Michael Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

|> ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.10 netmask 255.255.255.0 up
|>
|> Currently I am running this as root each time I reboot the
|> laptop. I am sure I can find somewhere to put this, but I would
|> like to put it in the "correct" location.

In Debian, there is a file /etc/network/interfaces where this kind of
information is kept. It is a configuration file for the scripts ifup
and ifdown which are run at boot time and shutdown time respectively
(both have nice clear man pages). Ifup and ifdown are in turn called
from the script `networking' which is in /etc/init.d/

I believe you would want to include a stanza of the following form in
the `interfaces' file:

iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.1.10
netmask 255.255.255.0


Jim

ifconfig problem

[J.A.Serralheiro]

here's a problem. I configured my network configuring
files /etc/network/interfaces
and it works lovelly. The thing is more of curiosity.

I tried doing the configuration with ifconfig
but I cant connect to hosts rather than the ones that lie in the same 
portion of network, I mean the ones that are attached to the same hub.
Everything looks fine, as I said, when configured with the initilizing
scritp /etc/inid.d/networking

when configuring by hand with ifconfig I used:

ifconfig eth0 address netmask mask_address up

replacing address and mask_address by the actual ip addresses.

Also if instead of ifconfig I use ipup, thigs work fine in the same way.
I read in the ifup man pages that ifup uses ifconfig.

does anyone has a clue about what is this problem related with?


thank you  in advance

ifconfig fails.

[C. R. Oldham]

Greetings,

I'm trying to install Debian 2.0 on an old 486dx4/100 with 32 MB of RAM,
2 GB of scsi disk, and a tulip-based PCI ethernet card.  This is an Asus
SP3g-based machine.

Installing from the base disk set went fine.  When the system rebooted
after the base install the network was not visible.  I noticed that the
light on the back of the ethernet card was out.  Upon investigating some
more I noticed that the light is on when the tulip driver is loaded, and
goes out when the first 'ifconfig' is done.  Ifconfig returns
"SIOCSIFFLAGS: Resource temporarily unavailable".

I'm pretty sure the card is not dead because I've tried more than one
and I see the same symptoms.

Any suggestions appreciated.

--
| Charles R. (C. R.) Oldham | NCA Commission on Schools|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | Arizona St. Univ., PO Box 873011,|
| V:602/965-8700 F:602/965-9423 | Tempe, AZ 85287-3011   _ |
| "I like it!"--Citizen G'Kar   | #includeX_>|

ifconfig failure.

[C. R. Oldham]

Greetings,

I sent this yesterday but never saw it appear on the list or in the
archive, so I'm assuming something went wrong.

I'm trying to install Debian 2.0 on an old 486dx4/100 with 32 MB of RAM,
2 GB of scsi disk, and a tulip-based PCI ethernet card.  This is an Asus
SP3g-based machine.

Installing from the base disk set went fine.  When the system rebooted
after the base install the network was not visible.  I noticed that the
light on the back of the ethernet card was out.  Upon investigating some
more I noticed that the light is on when the tulip driver is loaded, and
goes out when the first 'ifconfig' is done.  Ifconfig returns
"SIOCSIFFLAGS: Resource temporarily unavailable".  If I remove and
re-'insmod' the tulip driver the link integrity light reappears. but the
first 'ifconfig eth0' does the same thing.  I even tried downloading and
installing the latest tulip driver.

I'm pretty sure the card is not dead because I swapped it with a known
good card and I see the same symptoms.

Any suggestions appreciated.

--
| Charles R. (C. R.) Oldham | NCA Commission on Schools|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | Arizona St. Univ., PO Box 873011,|
| V:602/965-8700 F:602/965-9423 | Tempe, AZ 85287-3011   _ |
| "I like it!"--Citizen G'Kar   | #includeX_>|

Slow ifconfig

[Rene Hojbjerg Larsen]

Somehow my ifconfig has become extremely slow.  I'm not sure exactly when
this happened, but it probably happened while upgrading to slink the other
day.

To give an example:

$ time /sbin/ifconfig >/dev/null

real0m6.788s
user0m4.450s
sys 0m1.590s

This used to take far less than a second...

If I strace the ifconfig process, it pauses around these lines:

socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 3
socket(PF_IPX, SOCK_DGRAM, [PF_UNSPEC]) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not
implemented)
socket(PF_IPX, SOCK_DGRAM, [PF_UNSPEC]) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not
implemented)
socket(PF_IPX, SOCK_DGRAM, [PF_UNSPEC]) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
socket(PF_AX25, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)  = -1 ENOSYS (Function not
implemented)
socket(PF_AX25, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)  = -1 ENOSYS (Function not
implemented)
socket(PF_AX25, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)  = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
socket(PF_APPLETALK, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not
implemented)
socket(PF_APPLETALK, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not
implemented)
socket(PF_APPLETALK, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
brk(0)  = 0x804fe0c

Specifically, it pauses for about two seconds before (in?) the third
socket call for each protocol (IPX, AX25, APPLETALK).  My kernel is
compiled without support for any of these, and I have aliasesed them to
"off" in /etc/conf.modules.  This happens with both kernels 2.0.36pre14
and 2.1.125.  The version of netbase installed is 3.11-1.

Unless one of you has a solution, I will post a bug report.

TIA
-- 
   /'"`\  zzzZ  | My PGP Public Key is available at:
  ( - - )   | <http://home1.inet.tele.dk/renehl/>
--oooO--(_)--Oooo-- 
 Don't ya just hate it when there's not enough room to fin 

ifconfig stats

[tony mollica]

Hi.  

My eth0 interface has started showing a count
in the frame: and collisions: fields with no
errors, dropped or overruns.  I have found info
on the collisions problem but nothing on the 
frames data.  What is the number in the frames
field trying to tell me?


thanks,

-- 

tony mollica
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Ifconfig

[Mark Ciciretti]

Set the IP address in /etc/init.d/network script

On 23-Nov-98 Amanda Shuler wrote:
> I have a question about ifconfig.
> I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
> network.
> I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
> I type:
>   ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76
> 
> then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
> machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address
> to
> 192.168.1.1 everytime!  
> 
> Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the
> network,
> because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
> another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card
> is
> not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
> happen upon every boot?
> 
> How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?
> 
> -
> Amanda Shuler | I don't want to start any
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | blasphemous rumours, but...
> -
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] <
> /dev/null
> 
> 

---
--
E-Mail: Mark Ciciretti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23-Nov-98
--

Re: Ifconfig

[Piotr Wachowiak]

try to edit your /etc/init.d/networks - as far as i remember debian puts
there base network interface configuration
 is your netmask and broadcast correct ?
greetz
Piotr Wachowiak
Horyzont, TI
OSSU

Re: Ifconfig

[Oliver Elphick]

Amanda Shuler wrote:
  >I have a question about ifconfig.
  >I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
  >network.
  >I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
  >I type:
  > ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76
  >
  >then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
  >machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
  >192.168.1.1 everytime!  
  >
  >Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the network,
  >because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
  >another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card is
  >not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
  >happen upon every boot?
  >
  >How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?
 
ifconfig only affects the current state of the machine; it does not
write anything to disk.

You need to edit the definitions in /etc/init.d/network.

-- 
Oliver Elphick[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isle of Wight  http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
   PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
 
 "The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to
  all that call upon him in truth."
   Psalms 145:18

Re: Ifconfig

[Nathan E Norman]

On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, Amanda Shuler wrote:

 : I have a question about ifconfig.
 : I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
 : network.
 : I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
 : I type:
 :  ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76
 : 
 : then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
 : machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
 : 192.168.1.1 everytime!  
 : 
 : Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the network,
 : because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
 : another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card is
 : not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
 : happen upon every boot?
 : 
 : How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?

Cool; the same question twice.

Edit /etc/init.d/network

--
Nathan Norman
MidcoNet  410 South Phillips Avenue  Sioux Falls, SD
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.midco.net
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9)

Re: Ifconfig

[Daniel Martin]

Amanda Shuler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I have a question about ifconfig.
> I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
> network.
> I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
> I type:
>   ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76
> 
> then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
> machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
> 192.168.1.1 everytime!  
> 
> Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the network,
> because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
> another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card is
> not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
> happen upon every boot?
> 
> How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?

ifconfig affects something only so long as the machine isn't rebooted
- the ethernet card itself never knows what IP address it has; only
the kernel knows this.  Therefore, at system startup, the kernel is
told by the intitialization scripts what IP address the ethernet card
has.

This is done in the script /etc/init.d/network - go edit that file to
suit your new IP address.  (That is, change any ifconfig line that's
setting the 192.168.1.1 ip address, or, if there is no such
line, add the ifconfig line you use above to that file).

Re: Ifconfig

[Joop Stakenborg]

> I have a question about ifconfig.
> I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
> network.
> I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
> I type:
>   ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76
> 
> then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
> machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
> 192.168.1.1 everytime!  
> 
> Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the network,
> because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
> another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card is
> not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
> happen upon every boot?

Check the scripts in the /etc/init.d directory.
These are run at boot-time.
Chances are that one of these scripts will configure
your network...

> 
> How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?
> 
> -
> Amanda Shuler | I don't want to start any
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | blasphemous rumours, but...
> -
> 


-- 

 Joop [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   

Re: Ifconfig

[stick]

Amanda Shuler said
> I have a question about ifconfig.
> I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
> network.
> I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
> I type:
>   ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76
> 
> then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
> machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
> 192.168.1.1 everytime!  
> 
> Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the network,
> because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
> another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card is
> not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
> happen upon every boot?
> 
No, it's not that the machine is or is not on the net.  It's a config file
issue.

> How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?
> 
Check /etc/init.d/network
This is where the system gets it information durring boot for the various
network interfaces.


Find the reference to 192.168.1.1 and edit it to be 192.168.76.76.
Reboot and test.

> -
> Amanda Shuler | I don't want to start any
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | blasphemous rumours, but...
> -
> 

Chuck

-- 
Chuck Stickelman, Owner E-Mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Practical Network DesignVoice:  +1-419-529-3841
9 Chambers Road FAX:+1-419-529-3625
Mansfield, OH 44906-1301 USA

Re: Ifconfig

[Peter Granroth]

On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 01:31:09PM -0500, Amanda Shuler wrote:
> I have a question about ifconfig.
> I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
> network.
> I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
> I type:
>   ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76
[snip]
> 
> 
> How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?
> 

Check the file /etc/init.d/network. It is run at boot and configures
the networking parameters. On my box (with a NE200 NIC) it looks
like:

#! /bin/sh
ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
route add -net 127.0.0.0
IPADDR=193.10.242.45
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
NETWORK=193.10.242.0
BROADCAST=193.10.242.255
GATEWAY=193.10.242.1
ifconfig eth0 ${IPADDR} netmask ${NETMASK} broadcast ${BROADCAST}
route add -net ${NETWORK}
[ "${GATEWAY}" ] && route add default gw ${GATEWAY} metric 1

So, open the file and change the IP adress there and reboot (or run
the script) and the IP adress should now be set up correctly.

HTH
-- 
--
+ Peter Granroth +  Microsoft is NOT the answer  +
+ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +   Microsoft is the question   +
+ http://granroth.ml.org +   The answer is NO+
--

Re: Ifconfig

[Erik Maxwell]

At 01:42 PM 11/23/98 -0500, Amanda Shuler wrote:
>I have a question about ifconfig.
>I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
>network.
>I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
>I type:
>   ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76
>
>then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
>machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
>192.168.1.1 everytime!  
>
>Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the network,
>because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
>another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card is
>not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
>happen upon every boot?
>
>How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?

You have to set the IP address in the network.local file
(/etc/rc.d/network.local on Slackware, haven't gotten around to installing
Debian yet).

this file is called every time the machine boots to set up networking...

Erik

>
>-
>Amanda Shuler  | I don't want to start any
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]  | blasphemous rumours, but...
>-
>
>
>
>-- 
>Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] <
/dev/null
>
>
>

Re: Ifconfig

[Martin Bialasinski]

>> "AS" == Amanda Shuler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

AS> then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
AS> machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
AS> 192.168.1.1 everytime!  

Check /etc/init.d/network

Ciao,
Martin

Re: Ifconfig

[Alexander N. Benner]

hi

Ship's Log, Lt. Amanda Shuler, Stardate 231198.1331:
> I have a question about ifconfig.
> I have a machine that I am trying to configure to put onto a local
> network.
> I'm an assigning it IP address 192.168.76.76
> I type:
>   ifconfig eth0 192.168.76.76
> 
> then I check it with ifconfig and everything is correct.  I reboot the
> machine, and recheck ifconfig -- it's wrong.  It resets the IP address to
> 192.168.1.1 everytime!  
> 
> Currently, I do not have this machine physically hooked up to the network,
> because I was just doing the configuration and I didn't want to knock
> another (very important) machine off the network.  If the ethernet card is
> not actually hooked up to the network, will that cause this "reset" to
> happen upon every boot?
> 
> How do I get it to stay at 192.168.76.76?

have you just typed this command?
To have it permanent you should edit /etc/inet.d/network


Greetings
-- 
Alexander N. Benner  -  The Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper:  -3-

A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical,
and sexual purity.

IFCONFIG - help!

[Bruno O. M. Simoes]

Hi;
How can I configure several IP addresses in just one network interface? Is
there some parameter on ifconfig?
Thanx
Bruno


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

ifconfig delay

[Dale Thomas Harrison]

Quick question:

Does anybody know why theres a noticable pause when running ifconfig? 
Running Debian 1.2, theres a pause of [at a guess] a second or so before 
the devices are listed. I've never noticed this delay on any other Linux 
or Unix system..

Any takers? :)

D.




--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: ifconfig

[Jens B. Jorgensen]

Jimmy Lu wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> Can someone tell me how to setup a machine with one network
> interface card(eth0) to respond to more than one IP address?
> FreeBSD seems to be able to do something as follows:
> ifconfig ep0 192.168.123.2
> ifconfig ep0 192.168.123.3 alias netmask 0x
> I checked man page of ifconfig but I still don't know how
> to do it in under Debian.  Please kindly let me know.

I believe the syntax is:

   ifconfig eth0 192.168.123.2
   ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.123.3

This is from memory and I'm not positive.

-- 
Jens B. Jorgensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: ifconfig

[Louis Larry]

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:

> > Can someone tell me how to setup a machine with one network
> > interface card(eth0) to respond to more than one IP address?
> > FreeBSD seems to be able to do something as follows:
> > ifconfig ep0 192.168.123.2
> > ifconfig ep0 192.168.123.3 alias netmask 0xFFFF
> > I checked man page of ifconfig but I still don't know how
> > to do it in under Debian.  Please kindly let me know.
> 
> I believe the syntax is:
> 
>ifconfig eth0 192.168.123.2
>ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.123.3

You also need to add it to the routing table.
route add -host 192.168.123.3 dev eth0:1

Read IP-Aliasing mini howto.

Louis.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: ifconfig

[Bruno O. M. Simoes]

At 12:51 PM 9/30/97 -0500, Jens B. Jorgensen wrote:
>Jimmy Lu wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> Can someone tell me how to setup a machine with one network
>> interface card(eth0) to respond to more than one IP address?
>> FreeBSD seems to be able to do something as follows:
>> ifconfig ep0 192.168.123.2
>> ifconfig ep0 192.168.123.3 alias netmask 0x
>> I checked man page of ifconfig but I still don't know how
>> to do it in under Debian.  Please kindly let me know.
>
>I believe the syntax is:
>
>   ifconfig eth0 192.168.123.2
>   ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.123.3
>
You're right. But you have to enable IP Aliasing in your kernel. Is your
kernel enabled? Run "make config" and be sure to enable this option.
Cheers
Bruno


>This is from memory and I'm not positive.
>
>-- 
>Jens B. Jorgensen
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>--
>TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
>Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>
>
>


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Ifconfig

[john doe]

I have no insight into this particular problem but the config file
/etc/network/interfaces might give you some clue?
-jd

On 6/13/05, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have set my ifconfig (via pppoeconf) to start up a ppp and eth0
> connection.
>  
>  My ifconfig, when working properly, reads thus:
>  
>  ifconfig
>  eth0  Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:50:DA:B8:AE:EA
>inet6 addr: fe80::250:daff:feb8:aeea/64 Scope:Link
>UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>RX packets:14311 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>TX packets:12377 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>collisions:1 txqueuelen:1000
>RX bytes:8317950 (7.9 MiB)  TX bytes:1993074 (1.9 MiB)
>Interrupt:9 Base address:0xb800
>  
>  loLink encap:Local Loopback
>inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
>inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
>UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
>RX packets:7 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>TX packets:7 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>RX bytes:390 (390.0 b)  TX bytes:390 (390.0 b)
>  
>  ppp0  Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
>inet addr:65.94.84.97  P-t-P:64.230.197.65  Mask:255.255.255.255
>UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:1492  Metric:1
>RX packets:11365 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>TX packets:11273 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>collisions:0 txqueuelen:3
>RX bytes:7840851 (7.4 MiB)  TX bytes:1677456 (1.5 MiB)
>  
>  The problem is two-fold:
>  
>  One: When I boot up in to Linux, it automatically connects me - twice. I
> have to give "ifconfig ppp1 down" so that I've only one ppp connection. How
> do I stop ppp1 from existing and have only ppp0?
>  
>  Two: I need to have lo up when I boot up so that my printer works. It used
> to do this: But no more. I must do "ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1 up" for lo to go
> up. How do I get it to do this on its own?
>  
>  I think it has to do with the Networking files, yes?
>  
>  Thank you in advance.
> 
> -- 
> —Moose Moose Jam Sausage Meow-Mix.
> —My Hover-Craft is Full of Eels.
> —[...]and that's the he and the she of it.

Re: Ifconfig

[David R. Litwin]

I tried that sort of thing. It didn't work. I've tried quite a few
things and none of the worked. I really do need some one to tell me.
Sorry.

RE: Ifconfig

[Paul Fraser]

Tried what sort of thing? What didn't work? 

Because for once I'm going to take some sympathy, instead of doing the right
thing and trying to get you to learn how to do something, I'm going to
spoon-feed you.

You want lo to come up at boot?

Edit /etc/network/interfaces, add the following lines:

auto lo

iface lo inet loopback

You want PPP to only connect once? Disable any on-boot scripts that are
loading it (say, ppp) by doing a 'update-rc.d -f pppd remove'. Use the
corresponding entry in /etc/network/interfaces to ONLY do it. This keeps
everything consistent, easy to manage, etc etc.

Also, maybe in future you can explain a little more how you got pppoeconf to
'set up my ifconfig'...

Cheers,

Paul.




From: David R. Litwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, 13 June 2005 3:49 PM
To: debian users
Subject: Re: Ifconfig


I tried that sort of thing. It didn't work. I've tried quite a few things
and none of the worked. I really do need some one to tell me. Sorry. 



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

Re: Ifconfig

[David R. Litwin]

I have tried to modify the interfaces file before. I added precisely
what you told me to. It did not work. But, since I did a dist-upgrade
from Sarge to Stable Sarge, the file change. I have re-added it:
Perhaps it shall now work. Me hopes so.

As to the second thing, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Use the
corresponding entry in /etc/network/interfaces to ONLY do it.",
specifically the "corresponding entry" and the "to ONLY do it.".

(As an aside, I recently did another apt-get update and apt-get
upgrade, just to see if there was any thing new. It told me I had
twenty-nine not upgraded. But, I just put in KDE 3.4.1. So, I did
apt-get -V upgrade and each package says: (3.3.2-1 => 3.4.1-1). Does
this mean it will upgrade from 3.3.2 to 3.4.1 or down-grade from 3.4.1
to 3.3.2? Thanks.)On 13/06/05, Paul Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tried what sort of thing? What didn't work?Because for once I'm going to take some sympathy, instead of doing the rightthing and trying to get you to learn how to do something, I'm going tospoon-feed you.
You want lo to come up at boot?Edit /etc/network/interfaces, add the following lines:auto loiface lo inet loopbackYou want PPP to only connect once? Disable any on-boot scripts that are
loading it (say, ppp) by doing a 'update-rc.d -f pppd remove'. Use thecorresponding entry in /etc/network/interfaces to ONLY do it. This keepseverything consistent, easy to manage, etc etc.Also, maybe in future you can explain a little more how you got pppoeconf to
'set up my ifconfig'...Cheers,Paul.From: David R. Litwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, 13 June 2005 3:49 PM
To: debian usersSubject: Re: IfconfigI tried that sort of thing. It didn't work. I've tried quite a few thingsand none of the worked. I really do need some one to tell me. Sorry.
-- —Moose Moose Jam Sausage Meow-Mix.—My Hover-Craft is Full of Eels.—[...]and that's the he and the she of it.

Re: Ifconfig

[Kent West]

Ag! You haven't been paying attention to the "Top Posting" thread, have you?

David R. Litwin wrote:

> I have tried to modify the interfaces file before. I added precisely
> what you told me to. It did not work. But, since I did a dist-upgrade
> from Sarge to Stable Sarge, the file change. I have re-added it:
> Perhaps it shall now work. Me hopes so.

If not, I think the next thing to do is to post the contents of your
"/etc/network/interfaces" file.

> As to the second thing, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Use the
> corresponding entry in /etc/network/interfaces to ONLY do it.",
> specifically the "corresponding entry" and the "to ONLY do it.".

He means you've done something else, as indicated by his question "Also,
maybe in future you can explain a little more how you got pppoeconf to
'set up my ifconfig'..."

I, myself, have no experience with pppoeconf, so I don't know one way or
the other.

> (As an aside, I recently did another apt-get update and apt-get
> upgrade, just to see if there was any thing new. It told me I had
> twenty-nine not upgraded. But, I just put in KDE 3.4.1. So, I did
> apt-get -V upgrade and each package says: (3.3.2-1 => 3.4.1-1). Does
> this mean it will upgrade from 3.3.2 to 3.4.1 or down-grade from 3.4.1
> to 3.3.2? Thanks.)

As this is a different topic, I would recommend a different thread.
Otherwise, people who aren't paying attention to the "ifconfig" thread
will never see your question.

It means you'll upgrade the 3.3.2-1 KDE to 3.4.1-1. What makes you
believe you've "just put in KDE 3.4.1"? Perhaps you've installed it from
a third-party source? In that case, you probably both the pure Debian
version of 3.3.2-1 and the third-party version of 3.4.1 installed; the
upgrade will make them both 3.4.1, and you'll then have two versions
sucking up space on your drive. Of course, I'm making assumptions here.
your answer to my question above will help enlighten me (and others,
particularly if you move this question to a new thread that deals with
upgrading instead of with "ifconfig").

-- 
Kent


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

Re: Ifconfig

[David R. Litwin]

Firslty, I'm not quite sure what you mean by the Top Post Thread
Comment. I've not been paying attention to it. Should I? It seems it
discusses the pros and cons of putting a post in a new E-Mail, or
inserting it in to the last one. If this is so, which should I be doing?




Nexlty, I have High-Speed Internet which uses an Ethernet card and an
out-side modem. Using pppoeconf both configures the ethernet card and
starts a connection, which also starts on boot-up. Here is my
interfaces file (with the added lo bits in astericks):



# This file describes the network interfaces available on your system

# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).



# The loopback network interface

*auto lo*

*iface lo inet loopback*

auto dsl-provider

iface dsl-provider inet ppp

 provider dsl-provider

# please do not modify the following line

 pre-up /sbin/ifconfig eth0 up # line maintained by pppoeconf



As to the rest, I shall put it in a new thread and give my reply there.



As always, thanks in advance.

Kent West wrote:

Ag! You haven't been paying attention to the "Top Posting" thread, have you?
David R. Litwin wrote:> I have tried to modify the interfaces file before. I added precisely> what you told me to. It did not work. But, since I did a dist-upgrade> from Sarge to Stable Sarge, the file change. I have re-added it:
> Perhaps it shall now work. Me hopes so.If not, I think the next thing to do is to post the contents of your
"/etc/network/interfaces" file.
> As to the second thing, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Use the> corresponding entry in /etc/network/interfaces to ONLY do it.",> specifically the "corresponding entry" and the "to ONLY do it.".
He means you've done something else, as indicated by his question "Also,
maybe in future you can explain a little more how you got pppoeconf to'set up my ifconfig'..."I, myself, have no experience with pppoeconf, so I don't know one way or
the other.
> (As an aside, I recently did another apt-get update and apt-get> upgrade, just to see if there was any thing new. It told me I had> twenty-nine not upgraded. But, I just put in KDE 
3.4.1. So, I did> apt-get -V upgrade and each package says: (3.3.2-1 => 3.4.1-1). Does> this mean it will upgrade from 3.3.2 to 3.4.1 or down-grade from 3.4.1> to 3.3.2? Thanks.)As this is a different topic, I would recommend a different thread.

Otherwise, people who aren't paying attention to the "ifconfig" thread
will never see your question.

It means you'll upgrade the 3.3.2-1 KDE to 3.4.1-1. What makes you
believe you've "just put in KDE 3.4.1"? Perhaps you've installed it from
a third-party source? In that case, you probably both the pure Debian
version of 3.3.2-1 and the third-party version of 3.4.1 installed; the
upgrade will make them both 3.4.1, and you'll then have two versions
sucking up space on your drive. Of course, I'm making assumptions here.
your answer to my question above will help enlighten me (and others,
particularly if you move this question to a new thread that deals with
upgrading instead of with "ifconfig").





-- 
—Moose Moose Jam Sausage Meow-Mix.
—My Hover-Craft is Full of Eels.
—[...]and that's the he and the she of it.

Automating ifconfig

[Jeff Goodwin]

Greetings:
I am new to and have newly installed Debian (woody).
Currently, to activate my ethernet card I must, on each machine bootup, issue 
the following:
ifconfig eth0 up
What steps need I follow to automate this so that on bootup, "eth0" is 
activated without my intervention?
TIA,
Jeff

Re: ifconfig

[David Z Maze]

"Adrian Berardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hello, im experiencing trouble when configuring eth1 card.
> with the ifconfig command i bring up the card, but it resets when
> restarting.

Yes, that's the way ifconfig works.  You probably want to put the
relevant information in /etc/network/interfaces and bring the card up
using 'ifup eth1'.  Type 'man interfaces' for more details.

-- 
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting.  Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell


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

RE: ifconfig

[Lukovszki Csaba]

Basically, the main configurations can be done at:
/etc/network/ directory (in interfaces file). Try to put your
modifications there.



-Original Message-
From: Enrique Samson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:24 PM
To: debian-users
Subject: ifconfig


When I use ifconfig to reconfigure my NIC, i lose the changes on reboot.

  What is the tool that could make permanent changes? TIA.


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



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

Re: ifconfig

[Brian Brazil]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 07:24:20PM +0800, Enrique Samson Jr. wrote:
> When I use ifconfig to reconfigure my NIC, i lose the changes on reboot. 
>  What is the tool that could make permanent changes? TIA.

/etc/network/interfaces. 'man interfaces'(IIRC) for more information.

You might want to try 'ip' (package iproute): its more powerful.

Brian


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

Re: ifconfig

[ernst]

Edit your /etc/networking/interfaces file:)

/e-m

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Enrique Samson Jr. wrote:

> When I use ifconfig to reconfigure my NIC, i lose the changes on reboot.
>   What is the tool that could make permanent changes? TIA.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>



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

Re: ifconfig

[Enrique Samson Jr.]

yes, i edited /etc/network/interfaces. i just remember specifying ip 
add, broadcast, gateway...etc. during set-up. i am thinking there should 
be a script invoked and that i could call it up again. like 
'netcardconfig' from knoppix. tnx. i think 'ip' is worth getting used to.

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

Re: ifconfig

[Paul Johnson]

"Enrique Samson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> When I use ifconfig to reconfigure my NIC, i lose the changes on
> reboot. What is the tool that could make permanent changes? TIA.

RTFM!  /etc/network/interfaces

-- 
 .''`. Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
  `-   Debian.  Because it *must* work.  debian.org   aboutdebian.com


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: ifconfig

[Paul Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

"Enrique Samson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> yes, i edited /etc/network/interfaces. i just remember specifying ip
> add, broadcast, gateway...etc. during set-up. i am thinking there
> should be a script invoked and that i could call it up again. like
> 'netcardconfig' from knoppix. tnx. i think 'ip' is worth getting used
> to.

Why, when between a text editor and the man page, you're getting
essentially the same thing?  Editing /etc/network/interfaces is so
easy even a public kindergarten teacher from California with Down
Syndrome and a degree in art could do it...

- -- 
 .''`. Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
  `-   Debian.  Because it *must* work.  debian.org   aboutdebian.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAXyiWUzgNqloQMwcRAgSJAJ9HJMBj35WEh4/YFBrqlPnAGa81UQCfSPpg
J8jZ3s0uceOo6TcNlXKsRCY=
=8nDx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: ifconfig

[Wim De Smet]

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:51:49 -0500
Peter van Oene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Having trouble getting my DHCP working after a 2.4.20 kernel upgrade. 
> My interfaces work fine manually configured at time.  However, I have
> two issues.
> 
> 1: DHCP doens't work. I have used etherconf to set them to auto and
> also ran dhclient (i don't seem to have dhcpcd).  Ethereal displays no
> packets at all leaving the interface (bootp requests etc)
> 
> 2: At times, when manually configuring using "ifconfig eth0 add 
> 192.168.2.5" a logical eth0:0 is created instead of the address being 
> assigned to the physical.  I can't seem to change this when it occurs.
>  I can down the 0:0, but when I issue the command again, I get it
>  back.
> 
> I'm likely doing something dumb, but am getting really frustrated ;-)
> 
> Thanks for any tips
> 
> Pete
> 
Hi,

can't help you out much but maybe you could try reading the manpages on
dhclient and dhclient.conf. Perhaps something useful in there.

cheers,

Wim


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

Re: ifconfig

[Doug MacFarlane]

Can you please post your /etc/network/interfaces file?

Thanks

madmac

On 05 Dec 2002, 13:51:49, Peter van Oene wrote:
> 
> 
> Having trouble getting my DHCP working after a 2.4.20 kernel upgrade.  My 
> interfaces work fine manually configured at time.  However, I have two issues.
> 
> 1: DHCP doens't work. I have used etherconf to set them to auto and also 
> ran dhclient (i don't seem to have dhcpcd).  Ethereal displays no packets 
> at all leaving the interface (bootp requests etc)
> 
> 2: At times, when manually configuring using "ifconfig eth0 add 
> 192.168.2.5" a logical eth0:0 is created instead of the address being 
> assigned to the physical.  I can't seem to change this when it occurs.  I 
> can down the 0:0, but when I issue the command again, I get it back.
> 
> I'm likely doing something dumb, but am getting really frustrated ;-)
> 
> Thanks for any tips
> 
> Pete
> 
> 


-- 
Doug MacFarlane
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Re: ifconfig

[Peter van Oene]

At 07:37 PM 12/5/2002 +, Doug MacFarlane wrote:


Can you please post your /etc/network/interfaces file?

Thanks

madmac


I can't post the file at the moment (without undue strain), however, all 
that resides in it is below
--
auto lo eth0 eth1

iface lo inet loopback

iface eth0 inet dhcp
hostname almo

iface eth1 inet dhcp
hostname almo

-

Thanks

Pete




On 05 Dec 2002, 13:51:49, Peter van Oene wrote:
>
>
> Having trouble getting my DHCP working after a 2.4.20 kernel upgrade.  My
> interfaces work fine manually configured at time.  However, I have two 
issues.
>
> 1: DHCP doens't work. I have used etherconf to set them to auto and also
> ran dhclient (i don't seem to have dhcpcd).  Ethereal displays no packets
> at all leaving the interface (bootp requests etc)
>
> 2: At times, when manually configuring using "ifconfig eth0 add
> 192.168.2.5" a logical eth0:0 is created instead of the address being
> assigned to the physical.  I can't seem to change this when it occurs.  I
> can down the 0:0, but when I issue the command again, I get it back.
>
> I'm likely doing something dumb, but am getting really frustrated ;-)
>
> Thanks for any tips
>
> Pete
>
>


--
Doug MacFarlane
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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



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

Re: ifconfig

[Shyamal Prasad]

"Peter" == Peter van Oene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Peter> 1: DHCP doens't work. I have used etherconf to set them to
Peter> auto and also ran dhclient (i don't seem to have dhcpcd).
Peter> Ethereal displays no packets at all leaving the interface
Peter> (bootp requests etc)

The ISC dhcp client requires that the packet CONFIG_NETFILTER and
CONFIG_PACKET be available in the kernel. Perhaps you missed one of
these as a module or built in in your 2.4.20 kernel?

Shyamal


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

Re: ifconfig

[john gennard]

On Sunday 15 September 2002 23:43, David Z Maze wrote:
> john gennard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Etherconf puts the configurations into /etc/network/interfaces,
> > but I don't see where ifconfig puts them.
>
> ifconfig stores the configuration in the kernel's memory.  :-) 
> It's the low-level tool that is ultimately run by ifup and ifdown.
>
> > Can anyone enlighten me on this? Also, could I create
> > /etc/network/interfaces by hand in an editor as a third
> > alternative.
>
> Sure; the format is very straightforward (see interfaces(5)). 
> This is what I generally do to configure the network on my Debian
> machines.

Thanks, I'm now getting some understanding of this area ( takes time 
at my age, but what the h--- )


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

Re: ifconfig

[john gennard]

On Sunday 15 September 2002 21:19, Bob Proulx wrote:
> john gennard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-15 20:30:54 +0100]:
> > Have been trying to use 'ifconfig' to configure a number of NICs
> > as an alternative to 'etherconf'.
> >
> > Etherconf puts the configurations into /etc/network/interfaces,
> > but I don't see where ifconfig puts them. Running 'ifconfig -a'
> > shows the eth0 and eth1 details if run shortly afterwards, but
> > if run after rebooting it shows the details minus the inet
> > address and the card is not usable.
>
> The ifconfig program is a very low level command like 'mv' or
> 'rm'. It does not have configuration files.
>
> The etherconf script is a higher level interface that attempts to
> set up and configure those configuration files you mentioned for
> the ifup command.
>
> For years the ifconfig script was used directly at system startup
> time in the /etc/*rc* scripts.  The system admin would just hard
> code in the script the commands needed to boot that particular
> system. Obviously every machine was hand crafted with tender
> loving care.
>
> As machines became more mass produced those scripts were
> generalized. Hand crafting startup scripts is now out of favor. 
> But how to do that?  Every system does it differently.  On most
> systems you are in a maze of twisty little passages all different.
>  Whereas on debian you are in a twisty little maze of passages all
> different.  Debian is no different in that it is different from
> everyone else.
>
> I am not an expert here because since I started using Debian this
> part has always just worked for me and I have not needed to dig
> into the details.  But I believe debian uses 'ifup' called from
> the /etc/init.d/networking script to configure the networking.  I
> believe ifup is a program designed to replace ifconfig and reads
> those configuration files you mentioned.
>
> So to better answer your question, the alternative to etherconf is
> not ifconfig but rather your favorite editor on those files.
>

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation - I've made great 
strides as a result of this and other responses.

Regards,john.


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

ifconfig promisc

[david hong]

if do a ifconfig and found "promisc" mesg,
what should i do?


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

Re: No ifconfig

[Pierre Frenkiel]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:


ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}'


  and even shorter:
  ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2

  BTW, I suggest to abandon, in the subject, the reference to the
  OP's subject ("was ..."), as this thread has really
  nothing to do with inittab stuff

Re: No ifconfig

[Pierre Frenkiel]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:


wooledg:~$ netstat -in
Kernel Interface table
Iface  MTURX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVRTX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP TX-OVR Flg
eth0  1500  8254258  0  0 0   7682795  0  0  0 BMRU
lo   65536   579959  0  0 0579959  0  0  0 LRU


 you have hte same information with:
 ==>  ip -s link
 1: lo:  mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode 
DEFAULT group default qlen 1
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
21288167293 0   0   0   0
TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
21288167293 0   0   0   0
 2: enp0s31f6:  mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
link/ether 2c:4d:54:d0:58:06 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
323815150  423300   0   4   0   55708
TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
41867187   302742   0   0   0   0

Re: No ifconfig

[Greg Wooledge]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 06:24:42PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 
> > ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}'
> 
>   and even shorter:
>   ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2

They are not equivalent.  Yours leaves extra whitespace.

wooledg:~$ ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2 | hd
  20 6c 6f 0a 20 65 74 68  30 0a| lo. eth0.|
000a
wooledg:~$ ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}' | hd
  6c 6f 0a 65 74 68 30 0a   |lo.eth0.|
0008

So, to use the output of yours, an additional step would be needed
(whitespace trimming).

Re: No ifconfig

[Pierre Frenkiel]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:


On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 06:24:42PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:

On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:


ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}'


  and even shorter:
  ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2


They are not equivalent.  Yours leaves extra whitespace.

wooledg:~$ ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2 | hd
  20 6c 6f 0a 20 65 74 68  30 0a| lo. eth0.|
000a
wooledg:~$ ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}' | hd
  6c 6f 0a 65 74 68 30 0a   |lo.eth0.|
0008

So, to use the output of yours, an additional step would be needed
(whitespace trimming).


If it's to list the interface names, I don't see why the leading space is
annoying.

Re: No ifconfig

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 15 August 2017 12:38:49 Pierre Frenkiel wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > wooledg:~$ netstat -in
> > Kernel Interface table
> > Iface  MTURX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVRTX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP
> > TX-OVR Flg eth0  1500  8254258  0  0 0   7682795
> >  0  0  0 BMRU lo   65536   579959  0  0 0   
> > 579959  0  0  0 LRU
>
>   you have hte same information with:
>   ==>  ip -s link
>   1: lo:  mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN
> mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1 link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd
> 00:00:00:00:00:00
>  RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
>  21288167293 0   0   0   0
>  TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
>  21288167293 0   0   0   0
>   2: enp0s31f6:  mtu 1500 qdisc
> pfifo_fast state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether
> 2c:4d:54:d0:58:06 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>  RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast
>  323815150  423300   0   4   0   55708
>  TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns
>  41867187   302742   0   0   0   0

Thats a step towards understandable output, but how to deal with the 
stuff it shows that isn't "up". That doubles the size of the output on 
my pi running jessie:

pi@picncsheldon:~ $ ip -s link
1: lo:  mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN mode 
DEFAULT group default qlen 1
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast   
59379736   989318   0   0   0   0  
TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns 
59379736   989318   0   0   0   0  
2: sit0@NONE:  mtu 1480 qdisc noop state DOWN mode DEFAULT group 
default qlen 1
link/sit 0.0.0.0 brd 0.0.0.0
RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast   
0  00   0   0   0  
TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns 
0  00   0   0   0  
3: eth0:  mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
link/ether b8:27:eb:d3:47:2d brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast   
224779355  3598076  0   0   0   0  
TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns 
1223076242 12292111 0   0   0   0  
4: wlan0:  mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN mode 
DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
link/ether b8:27:eb:86:12:78 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
RX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped overrun mcast   
0  00   0   0   0  
TX: bytes  packets  errors  dropped carrier collsns 
0  00   0   0   0  

While STILL not giving me the local ipv4 addresses and netmasks of those 
interfaces. I have disabled the radio as I've a neighbor that will use 
about 100Gb of my 300Gb monthly if the radios are enabled. But what the 
heck is sit0?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: No ifconfig

[Greg Wooledge]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:41:16PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> While STILL not giving me the local ipv4 addresses and netmasks of those 
> interfaces.

If you want the IPv4 address, netmask, and transfer stats, try:

ip -s addr

Note that the netmask is shown in CIDR notation (e.g. /23) rather
than dotted quad notation (e.g. 255.255.254.0).

If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.

Re: No ifconfig

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 15 August 2017 13:46:37 Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:41:16PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > While STILL not giving me the local ipv4 addresses and netmasks of
> > those interfaces.
>
> If you want the IPv4 address, netmask, and transfer stats, try:
>
> ip -s addr
>
> Note that the netmask is shown in CIDR notation (e.g. /23) rather
> than dotted quad notation (e.g. 255.255.254.0).
>
> If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.

An ifconfig style output by default.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Re: No ifconfig

[David Wright]

On Tue 15 Aug 2017 at 13:49:23 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 August 2017 13:46:37 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:41:16PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > While STILL not giving me the local ipv4 addresses and netmasks of
> > > those interfaces.
> >
> > If you want the IPv4 address, netmask, and transfer stats, try:
> >
> > ip -s addr
> >
> > Note that the netmask is shown in CIDR notation (e.g. /23) rather
> > than dotted quad notation (e.g. 255.255.254.0).
> >
> > If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.
> 
> An ifconfig style output by default.

Then why not use ifconfig?

Cheers,
David.

Re: No ifconfig

[David Wright]

On Tue 15 Aug 2017 at 19:13:54 (+0200), Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 06:24:42PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> >>On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >>
> >>>ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}'
> >>
> >>  and even shorter:
> >>  ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2
> >
> >They are not equivalent.  Yours leaves extra whitespace.
> >
> >wooledg:~$ ip -o link | cut -d : -f 2 | hd
> >  20 6c 6f 0a 20 65 74 68  30 0a| lo. eth0.|
> >000a
> >wooledg:~$ ip -o link | awk -F": " '{print $2}' | hd
> >  6c 6f 0a 65 74 68 30 0a   |lo.eth0.|
> >0008
> >
> >So, to use the output of yours, an additional step would be needed
> >(whitespace trimming).
> >
> If it's to list the interface names, I don't see why the leading space is
> annoying.

I assume then that you wrote your recipe just for our
entertainment. An error like that can waste a lot of time
when a non-trivial script produces unexpected results.

Cheers,
David.

Re: No ifconfig

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 15 August 2017 14:16:15 David Wright wrote:

> On Tue 15 Aug 2017 at 13:49:23 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 August 2017 13:46:37 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:41:16PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > While STILL not giving me the local ipv4 addresses and netmasks
> > > > of those interfaces.
> > >
> > > If you want the IPv4 address, netmask, and transfer stats, try:
> > >
> > > ip -s addr
> > >
> > > Note that the netmask is shown in CIDR notation (e.g. /23) rather
> > > than dotted quad notation (e.g. 255.255.254.0).
> > >
> > > If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.
> >
> > An ifconfig style output by default.
>
> Then why not use ifconfig?

Of course I do, since ipv4 is the local method.
>
> Cheers,
> David.


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Re: No ifconfig

[Brian]

On Tue 15 Aug 2017 at 14:51:48 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Tuesday 15 August 2017 14:16:15 David Wright wrote:
> 
> > On Tue 15 Aug 2017 at 13:49:23 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 15 August 2017 13:46:37 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:41:16PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > > While STILL not giving me the local ipv4 addresses and netmasks
> > > > > of those interfaces.
> > > >
> > > > If you want the IPv4 address, netmask, and transfer stats, try:
> > > >
> > > > ip -s addr
> > > >
> > > > Note that the netmask is shown in CIDR notation (e.g. /23) rather
> > > > than dotted quad notation (e.g. 255.255.254.0).
> > > >
> > > > If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.
> > >
> > > An ifconfig style output by default.
> >
> > Then why not use ifconfig?
> 
> Of course I do, since ipv4 is the local method.

Style over content is the way to go.

-- 
Brian.

Re: No ifconfig

[Curt]

On 2017-08-15, Gene Heskett  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.
>> >
>> > An ifconfig style output by default.
>>
>> Then why not use ifconfig?
>
> Of course I do, since ipv4 is the local method.
>>

But it's deprecated and is no longer provided in the b...

Boys, I think we've come full circle and have dutifully arrived exactly where
we started. 

As I bought a round-trip ticket I ain't complaining.

Say good night, Gracie.

-- 
"Until the Lion learns to write, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the 
Hunter."
— African proverb

Re: No ifconfig

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 15 August 2017 16:01:25 Curt wrote:

> On 2017-08-15, Gene Heskett  wrote:
> >> > > If this still isn't what you want, tell us what you *do* want.
> >> >
> >> > An ifconfig style output by default.
> >>
> >> Then why not use ifconfig?
> >
> > Of course I do, since ipv4 is the local method.
>
> But it's deprecated and is no longer provided in the b...
>
> Boys, I think we've come full circle and have dutifully arrived
> exactly where we started.
>
> As I bought a round-trip ticket I ain't complaining.
>
> Say good night, Gracie.

Good night, George.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Re: No ifconfig

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

Glenn English:

I've written many scripts over the years, using ifconfig and others, 
and having everything broken now is a major PITA.


I very much agree that sysV init and those old commands were a mess, 
especially with the introduction of ipv6. But I'd have more inclined 
to fix what was there than to replace it with commands that return 
gibberish and kill so many scripts so many people have written.




That is, in fact, what the BSD people did.  On FreeBSD and OpenBSD, for 
examples, modern ifconfig has fully functional IPv6 capability, with 
parameters like (to pick just some at random) eui64, prefixlen, 
auto_linklocal, autoconfprivacy, defaultif, and ifdisabled.

Re: No ifconfig

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 09:15:42AM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Glenn English:
> 
> > I've written many scripts over the years, using ifconfig and others, and 
> > having everything broken now is a major
> > PITA.
> > 
> > I very much agree that sysV init and those old commands were a mess, 
> > especially with the introduction of ipv6. But
> > I'd have more inclined to fix what was there than to replace it with 
> > commands that return gibberish and kill so
> > many scripts so many people have written.
> > 
> 
> That is, in fact, what the BSD people did.  On FreeBSD and OpenBSD, for 
> examples, modern ifconfig has fully functional
> IPv6 capability, with parameters like (to pick just some at random) eui64, 
> prefixlen, auto_linklocal, autoconfprivacy,
> defaultif, and ifdisabled.

Perhaps Devuan would better suit you? - they keep sysvinit as
primary, saving you the hassle of updating/ rewriting your scripts
and/ or learning systemd.

Or as you mention, FreeBSD or OpenBSD?

There is no shortage of options.

Re: No ifconfig

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> > [...] and the only reason we had to keep it around by default [...] was
> > broken by GNU upstream when it took ifconfig out of the bit-rot pit hell
> > and started maintaining it again.
> 
> net-tools is not a GNU Software package.

Hmm, indeed it isn't.  I apologise for the mistake.

-- 
  Henrique Holschuh

Re: No ifconfig

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 19 August 2017 04:15:42 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:

> Glenn English:
> > I've written many scripts over the years, using ifconfig and others,
> > and having everything broken now is a major PITA.
> >
> > I very much agree that sysV init and those old commands were a mess,
> > especially with the introduction of ipv6. But I'd have more inclined
> > to fix what was there than to replace it with commands that return
> > gibberish and kill so many scripts so many people have written.
>
+10

> That is, in fact, what the BSD people did.  On FreeBSD and OpenBSD,
> for examples, modern ifconfig has fully functional IPv6 capability,
> with parameters like (to pick just some at random) eui64, prefixlen,
> auto_linklocal, autoconfprivacy, defaultif, and ifdisabled.

So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this gibberish 
generator call ip, so we can just get back to doing the things we want 
to do with a computer?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Re: No ifconfig

[Nicolas George]

Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this gibberish 
> generator call ip, so we can just get back to doing the things we want 
> to do with a computer?

Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.

-- 
  Nicolas George

Re: No ifconfig

[Fungi4All]

> From: geo...@nsup.org
> To: Gene Heskett 
> debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
>> So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this gibberish
>> generator call ip, so we can just get back to doing the things we want
>> to do with a computer?
>
> Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.

Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they can
become "your" lackeys.

> Nicolas George

Re: No ifconfig

[Fungi4All]

> From: fungil...@protonmail.com
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org 
> Gene Heskett 
>
>> From: geo...@nsup.org
>> To: Gene Heskett 
>> debian-user@lists.debian.org
>>
>> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
>>> So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this gibberish
>>> generator call ip, so we can just get back to doing the things we want
>>> to do with a computer?
>>
>> Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.
>
> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they can
> become "your" lackeys.
>
>> Nicolas George

Or at least that is what this video says: 
[https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/113](https://sysdfree.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/113/)

Re: No ifconfig

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 19 August 2017 09:30:10 Nicolas George wrote:

> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this
> > gibberish generator called ip, so we can just get back to doing the
> > things we want to do with a computer?
>
> Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.

I (in the first person sense) do not expect them to be, but when a change 
is made, and its not an improvement the users can see, as evidenced by 
the level and tone of rhetoric seen here about it, whatever "it" might 
be, something decent docs would tamp down, I'd expect some adjustments 
to be made. Either in the docs, or the code.  I don't believe for a 
millisecond the writers are trying to make life for the average user 
harder, "we understand it, why can't you", but we aren't you, we don't 
understand why a useful tool has been deprecated.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: No ifconfig

[Fungi4All]

> From: geo...@nsup.org
> To: Fungi4All 
> debian-user@lists.debian.org , Gene Heskett 
> 
>
> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
>> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they can
>> become "your" lackeys.
>
> Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd did so
> because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat instead is libelous
> and deeply insulting to them. I suggest you retract and apologize
> immediately.

I am at the stage of awaiting for jury for that one (as in Gene's signature 
order).
I am way beyond soap bubbles.  But don't take it personally, it is only 
politics.

> --
> Nicolas George

Re: No ifconfig

[Nicolas George]

Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they can
> become "your" lackeys.

Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd did so
because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat instead is libelous
and deeply insulting to them. I suggest you retract and apologize
immediately.

-- 
  Nicolas George

Re: No ifconfig

[Nicolas George]

Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they 
> >> can
> >> become "your" lackeys.

> > Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd did so
> > because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat instead is libelous
> > and deeply insulting to them. I suggest you retract and apologize
> > immediately.

> I am at the stage of awaiting for jury for that one (as in Gene's signature 
> order).
> I am way beyond soap bubbles.  But don't take it personally, it is only 
> politics.

As far as I am concerned, the jury has already given its conclusions
about you both, and I have decided to never give you any help
whatsoever, unless you change your attitude dramatically. I suspect most
helpful contributors on this list have already silently decided the
same, or will do so soon if you continue insulting the Debian
developers.

Anyway, I have no hope that you will understand my position, I post it
to make it clear for other readers. No doubt you will answer this mail
with another useless stunt. Please go ahead.

-- 
  Nicolas George

Re: No ifconfig

[Brian]

On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 10:23:37 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Saturday 19 August 2017 09:30:10 Nicolas George wrote:
> 
> > Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > > So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this
> > > gibberish generator called ip, so we can just get back to doing the
> > > things we want to do with a computer?
> >
> > Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.
> 
> I (in the first person sense) do not expect them to be, but when a change 
> is made, and its not an improvement the users can see, as evidenced by 
> the level and tone of rhetoric seen here about it, whatever "it" might 
> be, something decent docs would tamp down, I'd expect some adjustments 
> to be made. Either in the docs, or the code.  I don't believe for a 
> millisecond the writers are trying to make life for the average user 
> harder, "we understand it, why can't you", but we aren't you, we don't 
> understand why a useful tool has been deprecated.

I know this thread has been a long, interesting and involved one but it
included this:

 https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/08/msg00798.html

To remind ourselves (about why net-tools is not in the base system):

 Indeed.  It shouldn't, and it doesn't anymore.  Maybe net-tools should
 be part of the *standard* system, but it certainly does not belong to
 the *base* system anymore.

Continuing:

 It is broken in that it just *can't* handle the Linux networking stack
 except for the bare minimum functionality on IPv4 (no, it doesn't meet
 even the bare minimum for IPv6), and the only reason we had to keep it
 around by default (consistent output that some scripts scrapped) was
 broken by GNU upstream when it took ifconfig out of the bit-rot pit hell
 and started maintaining it again.

A minor effort in research comes up with a posting from 2009:

 https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00780.html

 Luk Claes and me, as the current maintainers of net-tools, we've been
 thinking about it's future. Net-tools has been a core part of Debian and
 any other linux based distro for many years, but it's showing its age.

 It doesnt support many of the modern features of the linux kernel, the
 interface is far from optimal and difficult to use in automatisation,
 and also, it hasn't got much love in the last years.

The average user has to get their head round this (without invoking "I
have eated my potatos mashed for the past thirty years") to understand
why net-tools has been deprecated. And, of course, "deprecated" does not
bar a user from installing the net-tools package. You know what? Both
could be used. Ease yourself in!

Quality of documentation in the iproute2 package? File bugs. (With
patches).

HowILearnedtoStopWorryingandLovetheiproute2Package sounds like a decent
wiki title. It could have loads of examples and contrasts with ifconfig
based on the knowledgeable contributions in this thread. Any takers (he
says, not holding his breath).

-- 
Brian.

Re: No ifconfig

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 19 August 2017 10:49:57 Nicolas George wrote:

> Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> > >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat
> > >> and they can become "your" lackeys.
> > >
> > > Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd did
> > > so because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat instead is
> > > libelous and deeply insulting to them. I suggest you retract and
> > > apologize immediately.
> >
> > I am at the stage of awaiting for jury for that one (as in Gene's
> > signature order). I am way beyond soap bubbles.  But don't take it
> > personally, it is only politics.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the jury has already given its conclusions
> about you both, and I have decided to never give you any help
> whatsoever, unless you change your attitude dramatically. I suspect
> most helpful contributors on this list have already silently decided
> the same, or will do so soon if you continue insulting the Debian
> developers.

This has already affected my willingness to help people having trouble 
with network-mangler.

For folks with a small SOHO network setup that involves the maximum of 
253 or so maximum addresses, the most dependable intermachine method is 
identical /etc/hosts files, combined with an identical /etc/resolv.conf 
on all machines.  You then setup an eth0 stanza 
in /etc/network/interfaces that matches the name assigned to that 
machine. Interfaces will look something like this:
=
auto lo

# The loopback network interface
iface lo inet loopback
address 127.0.0.1
netmask 255.255.255.0

auto eth0

# regular network for coyote.den
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.xx.xx
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.xx.xx
=

Substituting that machines address in place of the xx.xx
Shut down dhcpd as its not needed, nor is network-mangler.

And the best part? It Just Works(TM).

But I've caught so much static over preaching about a non-network-mangler 
solution that is 90% less trouble to setup that I have given up speaking 
up when to me that solution is the ideal solution to their problems.

So you can ignore me, and I'll ignore you, until you contradict me, 
thereby adding to the poor OP's confusion.  Where your expertise exceeds 
mine, I'll do the same.  Fair?

> Anyway, I have no hope that you will understand my position, I post it
> to make it clear for other readers. No doubt you will answer this mail
> with another useless stunt. Please go ahead.


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: No ifconfig

[Brian]

On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 14:38:57 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Saturday 19 August 2017 10:49:57 Nicolas George wrote:
> 
> > Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> > > >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat
> > > >> and they can become "your" lackeys.
> > > >
> > > > Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd did
> > > > so because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat instead is
> > > > libelous and deeply insulting to them. I suggest you retract and
> > > > apologize immediately.
> > >
> > > I am at the stage of awaiting for jury for that one (as in Gene's
> > > signature order). I am way beyond soap bubbles.  But don't take it
> > > personally, it is only politics.
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, the jury has already given its conclusions
> > about you both, and I have decided to never give you any help
> > whatsoever, unless you change your attitude dramatically. I suspect
> > most helpful contributors on this list have already silently decided
> > the same, or will do so soon if you continue insulting the Debian
> > developers.
> 
> This has already affected my willingness to help people having trouble 
> with network-mangler.
> 
> For folks with a small SOHO network setup that involves the maximum of 
> 253 or so maximum addresses, the most dependable intermachine method is 
> identical /etc/hosts files, combined with an identical /etc/resolv.conf 
> on all machines.  You then setup an eth0 stanza 
> in /etc/network/interfaces that matches the name assigned to that 
> machine. Interfaces will look something like this:
> =
> auto lo
> 
> # The loopback network interface
> iface lo inet loopback
> address 127.0.0.1
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> 
> auto eth0
> 
> # regular network for coyote.den
> iface eth0 inet static
> address 192.168.xx.xx
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> gateway 192.168.xx.xx
> =
> 
> Substituting that machines address in place of the xx.xx
> Shut down dhcpd as its not needed, nor is network-mangler.
> 
> And the best part? It Just Works(TM).
> 
> But I've caught so much static over preaching about a non-network-mangler 
> solution that is 90% less trouble to setup that I have given up speaking 
> up when to me that solution is the ideal solution to their problems.
> 
> So you can ignore me, and I'll ignore you, until you contradict me, 
> thereby adding to the poor OP's confusion.  Where your expertise exceeds 
> mine, I'll do the same.  Fair?

Which "poor OP" are you referring to? It has been a long thread.
 
> > Anyway, I have no hope that you will understand my position, I post it
> > to make it clear for other readers. No doubt you will answer this mail
> > with another useless stunt. Please go ahead.

network-mangler? This demonstrates a disdain for the work put into
making networking comfortable on Debian. It also probably infers a
lack of any deep understanding of how the software works.

/etc/hosts files advocated? What is wrong with using avahi-demon?
This is 2017.

-- 
Brian.

Re: No ifconfig

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 19 August 2017 14:57:46 Brian wrote:

> On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 14:38:57 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 August 2017 10:49:57 Nicolas George wrote:
> > > Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Fungi4All a écrit :
> > > > >> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red
> > > > >> hat and they can become "your" lackeys.
> > > > >
> > > > > Suggesting that the Debian developers who chose to use systemd
> > > > > did so because they are corrupt and were payed by RedHat
> > > > > instead is libelous and deeply insulting to them. I suggest
> > > > > you retract and apologize immediately.
> > > >
> > > > I am at the stage of awaiting for jury for that one (as in
> > > > Gene's signature order). I am way beyond soap bubbles.  But
> > > > don't take it personally, it is only politics.
> > >
> > > As far as I am concerned, the jury has already given its
> > > conclusions about you both, and I have decided to never give you
> > > any help whatsoever, unless you change your attitude dramatically.
> > > I suspect most helpful contributors on this list have already
> > > silently decided the same, or will do so soon if you continue
> > > insulting the Debian developers.
> >
> > This has already affected my willingness to help people having
> > trouble with network-mangler.
> >
> > For folks with a small SOHO network setup that involves the maximum
> > of 253 or so maximum addresses, the most dependable intermachine
> > method is identical /etc/hosts files, combined with an identical
> > /etc/resolv.conf on all machines.  You then setup an eth0 stanza
> > in /etc/network/interfaces that matches the name assigned to that
> > machine. Interfaces will look something like this:
> > =
> > auto lo
> >
> > # The loopback network interface
> > iface lo inet loopback
> > address 127.0.0.1
> > netmask 255.255.255.0
> >
> > auto eth0
> >
> > # regular network for coyote.den
> > iface eth0 inet static
> > address 192.168.xx.xx
> > netmask 255.255.255.0
> > gateway 192.168.xx.xx
> > =
> >
> > Substituting that machines address in place of the xx.xx
> > Shut down dhcpd as its not needed, nor is network-mangler.
> >
> > And the best part? It Just Works(TM).
> >
> > But I've caught so much static over preaching about a
> > non-network-mangler solution that is 90% less trouble to setup that
> > I have given up speaking up when to me that solution is the ideal
> > solution to their problems.
> >
> > So you can ignore me, and I'll ignore you, until you contradict me,
> > thereby adding to the poor OP's confusion.  Where your expertise
> > exceeds mine, I'll do the same.  Fair?
>
> Which "poor OP" are you referring to? It has been a long thread.
>
Heck of a good question Brian, it has indeed been a long thread, and my 
short term memory fails me.

> > > Anyway, I have no hope that you will understand my position, I
> > > post it to make it clear for other readers. No doubt you will
> > > answer this mail with another useless stunt. Please go ahead.
>
> network-mangler? This demonstrates a disdain for the work put into
> making networking comfortable on Debian. It also probably infers a
> lack of any deep understanding of how the software works.
>
> /etc/hosts files advocated? What is wrong with using avahi-demon?
> This is 2017.

For starters, it seems not to want to use 192.168 addresses very well.  I 
run it, but no clue what it does except assign the wrong address to what 
it discovers.

But my curiosity bump needed scratching, so I looked at /etc/avahi/hosts, 
and the only machine/address it discovered is correct, for my brother 
MFC's scanner.local.  The tabloid capable printer in it is also at that 
address.  I looked at the manpage for daemon.conf but have not looked at 
the file.  It seems to me that if its to be usefull, it should detect 
everything in my local class D block. There are from 4 to 6 other 
machines here, 4 others minimum.  Why did it not detect them also? If 
its to be OOTB a substitute for /etc/hosts, its not doing at all well.

Thanks Brian.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: No ifconfig

[Brian]

On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 15:26:02 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

> On Saturday 19 August 2017 14:57:46 Brian wrote:
> 
> > /etc/hosts files advocated? What is wrong with using avahi-demon?
> > This is 2017.
> 
> For starters, it seems not to want to use 192.168 addresses very well.  I 
> run it, but no clue what it does except assign the wrong address to what 
> it discovers.
> 
> But my curiosity bump needed scratching, so I looked at /etc/avahi/hosts, 
> and the only machine/address it discovered is correct, for my brother 
> MFC's scanner.local.  The tabloid capable printer in it is also at that 
> address.  I looked at the manpage for daemon.conf but have not looked at 
> the file.  It seems to me that if its to be usefull, it should detect 
> everything in my local class D block. There are from 4 to 6 other 
> machines here, 4 others minimum.  Why did it not detect them also? If 
> its to be OOTB a substitute for /etc/hosts, its not doing at all well.

Cannot help you with the 192.168 addresses thing. But, given your
curiosity bent, I think you could sort this out if you look at what
/etc/hosts and avahi do. I've never need to alter /etc/avahi/hosts.

-- 
Brian. 

Re: No ifconfig

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 19 August 2017 15:38:14 Brian wrote:

> On Sat 19 Aug 2017 at 15:26:02 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 August 2017 14:57:46 Brian wrote:
> > > /etc/hosts files advocated? What is wrong with using avahi-demon?
> > > This is 2017.
> >
> > For starters, it seems not to want to use 192.168 addresses very
> > well.  I run it, but no clue what it does except assign the wrong
> > address to what it discovers.
> >
> > But my curiosity bump needed scratching, so I looked at
> > /etc/avahi/hosts, and the only machine/address it discovered is
> > correct, for my brother MFC's scanner.local.  The tabloid capable
> > printer in it is also at that address.  I looked at the manpage for
> > daemon.conf but have not looked at the file.  It seems to me that if
> > its to be usefull, it should detect everything in my local class D
> > block. There are from 4 to 6 other machines here, 4 others minimum. 
> > Why did it not detect them also? If its to be OOTB a substitute for
> > /etc/hosts, its not doing at all well.
>
> Cannot help you with the 192.168 addresses thing. But, given your
> curiosity bent, I think you could sort this out if you look at what
> /etc/hosts and avahi do. I've never need to alter /etc/avahi/hosts.

I know what etc/hosts is, but the instant question is "do I 
add /etc/avahi/hosts as a 3rd place to look for this data?, and if so, 
the expected syntax to use in my /etc/resolv.conf?" Currently:

# Generated by Gene Heskett
nameserver 192.168.71.1
search host,dns
domain coyote.den

Thanks Brian.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: No ifconfig

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:23:37AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 19 August 2017 09:30:10 Nicolas George wrote:
> 
> > Le duodi 2 fructidor, an CCXXV, Gene Heskett a écrit :
> > > So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this
> > > gibberish generator called ip, so we can just get back to doing the
> > > things we want to do with a computer?
> >
> > Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.
> 
> I (in the first person sense) do not expect them to be, but when a change 
> is made, and its not an improvement the users can see, as evidenced by 
> the level and tone of rhetoric seen here about it, whatever "it" might 
> be, something decent docs would tamp down, I'd expect some adjustments 
> to be made.

> Either in the docs,

It's just doco, even other genders can do that, so by all means ...
feel free to help out.


> or the code.

It's just codind, even other genders can do that, so by all means ...
feel free to help out.


> I don't believe for a 
> millisecond the writers are trying to make life for the average user 
> harder, "we understand it, why can't you", but we aren't you, we don't 
> understand why a useful tool has been deprecated.
> 
> Cheers, Gene Heskett
> -- 
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
>  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
> Genes Web page 
> 

Re: No ifconfig

[Liam O'Toole]

On 2017-08-19, Brian  wrote:

(...)

> network-mangler? This demonstrates a disdain for the work put into
> making networking comfortable on Debian. It also probably infers a
> lack of any deep understanding of how the software works.

s/infers/implies

Other than that, +1

-- 

Liam

Re: No ifconfig

[Liam O'Toole]

On 2017-08-19, Gene Heskett  wrote:
> On Saturday 19 August 2017 04:15:42 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>
>> Glenn English:
>> > I've written many scripts over the years, using ifconfig and others,
>> > and having everything broken now is a major PITA.
>> >
>> > I very much agree that sysV init and those old commands were a mess,
>> > especially with the introduction of ipv6. But I'd have more inclined
>> > to fix what was there than to replace it with commands that return
>> > gibberish and kill so many scripts so many people have written.
>>
> +10
>
>> That is, in fact, what the BSD people did.  On FreeBSD and OpenBSD,
>> for examples, modern ifconfig has fully functional IPv6 capability,
>> with parameters like (to pick just some at random) eui64, prefixlen,
>> auto_linklocal, autoconfprivacy, defaultif, and ifdisabled.
>
> So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this gibberish 
> generator call ip, so we can just get back to doing the things we want 
> to do with a computer?

Please feel free to port those improvements. If you are unable or
unwilling to do that, you will need to persuade or pay someone else to
do it for you.

-- 

Liam

Re: No ifconfig

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Fungi4All  writes:
>> Never. Debian developers are not your lackeys.
>
> Unless you are willing to pay more than n s a sys tem d red hat and they can
> become "your" lackeys.

Could you take your crazy conspiracy theories somewhere else?  I'm also
very tempted to suggest contacting a mental health professional if you
truly believe what you write and are not just trolling.

Ansgar

Re: No ifconfig

[Erik Christiansen]

On 19.08.17 18:40, Brian wrote:
> I know this thread has been a long, interesting and involved one but it
> included this:
> 
>  https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/08/msg00798.html
> 
> To remind ourselves (about why net-tools is not in the base system):
> 
>  Indeed.  It shouldn't, and it doesn't anymore.  Maybe net-tools should
>  be part of the *standard* system, but it certainly does not belong to
>  the *base* system anymore.
> 
> Continuing:
> 
>  It is broken in that it just *can't* handle the Linux networking stack
>  except for the bare minimum functionality on IPv4 (no, it doesn't meet
>  even the bare minimum for IPv6), and the only reason we had to keep it
>  around by default (consistent output that some scripts scrapped) was
>  broken by GNU upstream when it took ifconfig out of the bit-rot pit hell
>  and started maintaining it again.

Any reasonable reader of this thread accepts that it should not be in
the base distro, I'm certain. It would be an act of generosity to old
fogeys to include it in the standard distro. (They're probably not running
IPv6, if Gene and I are any guide.)

But it took only a moment to apt-get the package, giving me ifconfig on
debian 9.0, and nullifying all reason to seek any default inclusions.

Gene, if ya can make your own nipples for black powder longarms, then a
bit of DIY debian isn't a show stopper, I figure.

I've nibbled on the skinny end of "ip" by using "ip route" in lieu of
"netstat -rn" in the last few days, and could get used to some of it.

Erik

Re: No ifconfig

[tomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 10:30:05PM +1000, Erik Christiansen wrote:

[...]

> Any reasonable reader of this thread accepts that it should not be in
> the base distro, I'm certain. It would be an act of generosity to old
> fogeys to include it in the standard distro. (They're probably not running
> IPv6, if Gene and I are any guide.)
> 
> But it took only a moment to apt-get the package, giving me ifconfig on
> debian 9.0, and nullifying all reason to seek any default inclusions.

Gosh. At last a reasonable standpoint, thanks. In the case of systemd I can
understand some excitement (I don't get all the bile on both sides, the
one patholigizing the other ("you're just change-averse" [1]), the other
criminalizing the one ("you're trying to kill Holy Unix").

But in this case, where ifconfig isn't going anywhere, well, apt-get
install it. It can coexist peacefully with ip (disclosure: I just have
both). And if you are keen on keeping it, just join the packager's
mailing list, lurk there for a while and see whether you can pick up
some task (buying the maintainer a pizza or a beer does count!).

> Gene, if ya can make your own nipples for black powder longarms, then a
> bit of DIY debian isn't a show stopper, I figure.

:-))

Cheers

[1] Or "It's 2017, ferchrissake!". As if history developed linearly
   and always new > old.

- -- tomás
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlmZgxEACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYcjwCfdGWMesjsK110eA7aOvCzOWAL
OfoAniVLGt4OnwpPgVC5w9HzmHomZ4v0
=bxF4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: No ifconfig

[Erik Christiansen]

On 19.08.17 09:26, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 19 August 2017 04:15:42 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> > That is, in fact, what the BSD people did.  On FreeBSD and OpenBSD,
> > for examples, modern ifconfig has fully functional IPv6 capability,
> > with parameters like (to pick just some at random) eui64, prefixlen,
> > auto_linklocal, autoconfprivacy, defaultif, and ifdisabled.
> 
> So when do we get that ported and into debian, replacing this gibberish 
> generator call ip, so we can just get back to doing the things we want 
> to do with a computer?

Gene, ifconfig is SysV flavoured, so not favoured on the Systemd
journey, AIUI.

I'll try Devuan on one of my machines when time permits, but FreeBSD has
a Linux compatibility layer, allowing it to run Linux binaries, IIUC.
It might be worth a try. There are big corporations relying on it on
their servers, so it seems pretty solid. It is more SysV flavoured, and
Systemd-free.

Erik