[nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
Hey guys, I have a spanking new CentOS desktop install in front of me that is playing silly with networking. The install process from DVD seems to have gone according to plan. Yet its network configuration is not working. I've reviewed the following: /etc/resolv.confas expected /etc/networkas expected /etc/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 normal The results of a route command are most troubling - no default gateway even there is one in the /etc/network file. Why does route show 169.254.0.0 assigned to eth0? I just added a default route and am now able to get to the network. Is this a know fault?? Howard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
Are you using an onboard NIC? Is it a Marvell chipset? I've noticed a couple weird things like this with very particular Marvell chips. (instance where things would looks correct and it wouldn't necessarily report problems, but it would not get a gateway or wouldn't pick up an IP from DHCP.) My solution was to toss in a PCI NIC and update the kernel. If that didn't fix it, I downloaded and installed the actual NIC module from Marvell. Chris On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Howard hwh...@vcch.com wrote: Hey guys, I have a spanking new CentOS desktop install in front of me that is playing silly with networking. The install process from DVD seems to have gone according to plan. Yet its network configuration is not working. I've reviewed the following: /etc/resolv.confas expected /etc/networkas expected /etc/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 normal The results of a route command are most troubling - no default gateway even there is one in the /etc/network file. Why does route show 169.254.0.0 assigned to eth0? I just added a default route and am now able to get to the network. Is this a know fault?? Howard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comnlug-talk%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
Chris McQuistion wrote: Are you using an onboard NIC? Is it a Marvell chipset? I've noticed a couple weird things like this with very particular Marvell chips. (instance where things would looks correct and it wouldn't necessarily report problems, but it would not get a gateway or wouldn't pick up an IP from DHCP.) My solution was to toss in a PCI NIC and update the kernel. If that didn't fix it, I downloaded and installed the actual NIC module from Marvell. Chris This system is a Dell Precision 450 w/ an Intel 82545EM Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper). lspci says it's on 03:0e.0 for what it's worth. Subbing NIC is worth a try to learn something :) Howard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
Hello Howard, Check /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/. I have been using CentOS on some stuff for a while, but not the desktop version. If I was guessing I would not be surprised if they are using something in the way of NetworkManager, which I have found to be a very evil problem in the past. I forget what I installed on the laptop as an alternative, but I got really tired of fixing the problems (which are most likely now fixed) in the NetworkManager program. Dave On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 13:19 -0600, Howard wrote: Hey guys, I have a spanking new CentOS desktop install in front of me that is playing silly with networking. The install process from DVD seems to have gone according to plan. Yet its network configuration is not working. I've reviewed the following: /etc/resolv.confas expected /etc/networkas expected /etc/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 normal The results of a route command are most troubling - no default gateway even there is one in the /etc/network file. Why does route show 169.254.0.0 assigned to eth0? I just added a default route and am now able to get to the network. Is this a know fault?? Howard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:02 PM, David R. Wilson da...@wwns.com wrote: Hello Howard, Check /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/. I have been using CentOS on some stuff for a while, but not the desktop version. If I was guessing I would not be surprised if they are using something in the way of NetworkManager, which I have found to be a very evil problem in the past. I forget what I installed on the laptop as an alternative, but I got really tired of fixing the problems (which are most likely now fixed) in the NetworkManager program. Dave On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 13:19 -0600, Howard wrote: Hey guys, I have a spanking new CentOS desktop install in front of me that is playing silly with networking. The install process from DVD seems to have gone according to plan. Yet its network configuration is not working. I've reviewed the following: /etc/resolv.conf as expected /etc/network as expected /etc/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 normal The results of a route command are most troubling - no default gateway even there is one in the /etc/network file. Why does route show 169.254.0.0 assigned to eth0? I just added a default route and am now able to get to the network. Is this a know fault?? Howard I've got a few CentOS installs, and I've noticed on the 5.3 version from DVD that some of the network stuff I filled in during install didn't quite make it to the proper config files. So, to answer the question, yea, it's probably normal. If you check the /etc/sysconfig directories you'll find the scripts /config files that need to be updated (as Dave mentions). Are you using 5.4? I'm curious because I'd like to know whether to expect the problem to continue. :-D -- See Ya' Howard Coles Jr. John 3:16! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:02:52PM -0600, David R. Wilson wrote: Hello Howard, Check /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/. Seconded. NetworkMangler does bad things to the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-ethX interface definition files at times. I have been using CentOS on some stuff for a while, but not the desktop version. If I was guessing I would not be surprised if they are using CentOS is CentOS; desktop vs server is for the most part irrelevant as far as network configuration goes with the except of NetworkMangler. something in the way of NetworkManager, which I have found to be a very evil problem in the past. NetworkMangler should not be installed on any system that one expects or requires stability / reliability. yum erase NetworkManager; watch the deps it wants to remove, but it should be ok overall. I forget what I installed on the laptop as an alternative, but I got really tired of fixing the problems (which are most likely now fixed) in the NetworkManager program. There are still issues with NetworkMangler and I suspect there always will be for the lifetime of C5; C6 should be based on Fedora 11 or 12 (likely 12) so while it may see some improvements in this arena I personally wouldn't hold my breath. If, for some reason, your NIC is not supported give the ElRepo third-party repository a look; it's where we point people that have hardware requirements that the stock C4/C5 kernels do not support. You can find more information about this repo, and the others, at the following url. *Please* pay attention to the section on yum-priorities (ignore the junk at the top of the wiki article, you *must* use priorities with most of the third-party repos unless you want the C4/C5 base stomped on: http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories John -- If man does find the solution for world peace it will be the most revolutionary reversal of his record we have ever known. -- George C. Marshall (1880 - 1959), American military leader and statesman, creator of the Marshall Plan, the only US Army general to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, Biennial Report of the Chief of Staff, US Army, 1 September 1945 pgp3cIOTtiw45.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
John R. Dennison wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 02:02:52PM -0600, David R. Wilson wrote: Hello Howard, Check /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/. Seconded. NetworkMangler does bad things to the /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-ethX interface definition files at times. I have been using CentOS on some stuff for a while, but not the desktop version. If I was guessing I would not be surprised if they are using CentOS is CentOS; desktop vs server is for the most part irrelevant as far as network configuration goes with the except of NetworkMangler. something in the way of NetworkManager, which I have found to be a very evil problem in the past. NetworkMangler should not be installed on any system that one expects or requires stability / reliability. yum erase NetworkManager; watch the deps it wants to remove, but it should be ok overall. I forget what I installed on the laptop as an alternative, but I got really tired of fixing the problems (which are most likely now fixed) in the NetworkManager program. There are still issues with NetworkMangler and I suspect there always will be for the lifetime of C5; C6 should be based on Fedora 11 or 12 (likely 12) so while it may see some improvements in this arena I personally wouldn't hold my breath. If, for some reason, your NIC is not supported give the ElRepo third-party repository a look; it's where we point people that have hardware requirements that the stock C4/C5 kernels do not support. You can find more information about this repo, and the others, at the following url. *Please* pay attention to the section on yum-priorities (ignore the junk at the top of the wiki article, you *must* use priorities with most of the third-party repos unless you want the C4/C5 base stomped on: http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories John Many thanks for the responses. Allow me to reiterate that the /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 files are correct. I did as John Dennison suggests and yum erase NetworkManager to no net change in behavior. The fact that I can enter a default route: route add default gw blah.blah.blah.blah and the network comes up lays to rest any issues with the NIC working with the kernel --- mostly ;) I sure wish I could find where to strangle whatever NetworkManager Linux Mint installs! All I want to be able to do is ifdown eth0 then ifup eth0. Unknown interface... They've papered over the dirty stuff. Howard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
just 2 cents here (oops) isnt the 169.254.x.x zeroconf addressing? I know M$ puts in the same when dhcp fails -- -- NOT sent from an iphone,blackberry,Nokia, or any handheld. -- I'm a PC(x86 AND ppc) AND I RUN LINUX!!! Linux is like ice cream. It comes in many flavors and everyone has their favorite, but we all get the same smile regardless of which we choose to scoop. - Leo Rosten - Money can't buy happiness, but neither can poverty. - http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38644.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 05:20:18PM -0600, Howard wrote: Many thanks for the responses. Allow me to reiterate that the /etc/sysconfig/network and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 files are correct. I did as John Dennison suggests and yum erase NetworkManager to no net change in behavior. The fact that I can enter a default route: route add default gw blah.blah.blah.blah and the network comes up lays to rest any issues with the NIC working with the kernel --- mostly ;) /etc/sysconfig/network is not correct if you have to manually add a default route :) Are you sure you have a GATEWAY=a.b.c.d statement in there? John -- If you can give your son or daughter only one gift, let it be enthusiasm. -- Bruce Barton (1886-1967), American author, advertising expert pgpoLEVCdl63B.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
./aal wrote: just 2 cents here (oops) isnt the 169.254.x.x zeroconf addressing? I know M$ puts in the same when dhcp fails That is part of the weirdness that caused me to bring this issue to the list. I am seeing similar behavior on another CentOS 5.4 install that I'm working with. M$ isn't the only system that responds to a dhcp failure this way. I'm responding to John Dennison's later post with my config files. I don't got no dhcp to fail. u I don't think I do anyway :/ Howard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
John R. Dennison wrote: /etc/sysconfig/network is not correct if you have to manually add a default route :) Are you sure you have a GATEWAY=a.b.c.d statement in there? John Well let's restate my premise a bit. My /etc/sysconfig/network reads correctly to me but not to some process in the system. NETWORKING=yes NETWORKING_IPV6=yes HOSTNAME=host.domain.tld GATEWAY=198.168.1.1 ifcfg-eth0: # Intel Corporation 82545EM Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper) DEVICE=eth0 BOOTPROTO=static BROADCAST=192.168.1.255 HWADDR=00:08:74:4F:3E:8A IPADDR=192.168.1.5 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 NETWORK=192.168.1.0 ONBOOT=yes Thank you again for taking a look at these annoyances. Howard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Jan 19, 2010, at 5:29 PM, ./aal wrote: isnt the 169.254.x.x zeroconf addressing? It's a default that is used if no other address is given to the card. I know M$ puts in the same when dhcp fails No, they don't. It's the card's firmware that puts it in. This happens regardless of the OS. If you're seeing this, it means that your card isn't being configured on startup. Not by DHCP, not by /etc/sysconfig/whatever, not by anything. Interestingly, I had pretty much the same issue when I tried Fedora 12 on my old tower PC here. But CENT 5.4 works fine. Never found out why, I just switched to CENTOS. Maybe it had to do with the Evil NetworkManager, which was installed by default on Fedora but not on CENT. Ken -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Howard wrote: GATEWAY=198.168.1.1 WRONG NETWORK! The card is on 192.whatever, not 198 (see below) ifcfg-eth0: # Intel Corporation 82545EM Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper) DEVICE=eth0 BOOTPROTO=static BROADCAST=192.168.1.255 HWADDR=00:08:74:4F:3E:8A IPADDR=192.168.1.5 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 06:10:50PM -0600, Howard wrote: Well let's restate my premise a bit. My /etc/sysconfig/network reads correctly to me but not to some process in the system. NETWORKING=yes NETWORKING_IPV6=yes HOSTNAME=host.domain.tld GATEWAY=198.168.1.1 Yep, looks sane. If you don't need IPv6 you may wish to consider setting NETWORKING_IPV6=no; this won't remove kernel support but it will prevent IPv6 addresses from being added and such. # Intel Corporation 82545EM Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper) DEVICE=eth0 BOOTPROTO=static BROADCAST=192.168.1.255 HWADDR=00:08:74:4F:3E:8A IPADDR=192.168.1.5 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 NETWORK=192.168.1.0 ONBOOT=yes Have you double checked the HWADDR to ensure that it's correct? This is very straight forward and should be working fine; the only possible issue I see is if HWADDR is incorrect and if that is the case then it would definately cause ifup and friends to fail. John -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. -- Frank Zappa (1940-1993), composer, musician, film director pgpABwt44Fo2b.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 06:14:59PM -0600, Ken Barber wrote: If you're seeing this, it means that your card isn't being configured on startup. Not by DHCP, not by /etc/sysconfig/whatever, not by anything. Umm, not necessarily. RHEL and respins add a route for 169.254.0.0/16 to the primary interface. If you wish to prevent this behavior add NOZEROCONF=yes to the definition file /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0. Interestingly, I had pretty much the same issue when I tried Fedora 12 on my old tower PC here. But CENT 5.4 works fine. Never found out why, I just switched to CENTOS. Maybe it had to do with the Evil NetworkManager, which was installed by default on Fedora but not on CENT. I've not done non-kickstart installs for years and I specifically exclude NetworkMangler as I'm pretty sure it's installed by default in a gui install (network-manager-gnome gets installed in a Gnome environment which calls it in as a dep). John -- Like the wind crying endlessly through the universe, Time carries away the names and the deeds of conquerors and commoners alike. And all that we are, all that remains, is in the memories of those who cared we came this way for a brief moment. -- Harlan Ellison (27 May 1934-), American author and media critic, Paladin of the Lost Hour (1985) pgpqhlxp8azcY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 06:18:52PM -0600, Ken Barber wrote: On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Howard wrote: GATEWAY=198.168.1.1 WRONG NETWORK! The card is on 192.whatever, not 198 (see below) Opps. You are, sir, indeed correct. I think it's time I went to have my eyes checked :( John -- From empirical experience, your Exchange admin needs to put down the crack pipe and open a window to disperse the fumes. -- Ralf Hildebrandt pgpQtA6CnE9jf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: I specifically exclude NetworkMangler as I'm pretty sure it's installed by default in a gui install (network-manager-gnome gets installed in a Gnome environment I don't install or use the abomination known as Gnome, which might explain why I didn't get NetworkMangler on my CENT box. Why Fedora installed it anyway... hmmm, good question.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:31 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: RHEL and respins add a route for 169.254.0.0/16 to the primary interface. If you wish to prevent this behavior add NOZEROCONF=yes to the definition file /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0. Ooh- thanks for that tip, John. I once did an aptitude update without checking the list of new packages closely enough, and zeroconf started adding 169.254.0.0 addresses to my route in addition to what I'd set manually. Major snafu until I uninstalled it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
I have not poked around with IPV6 much, but if your not using it and your on an IPV4 network with bits of IPV6 enabled that might cause some interesting ugliness. How about: NETWORKING IPV6=NO ? Dave On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 18:10 -0600, Howard wrote: John R. Dennison wrote: /etc/sysconfig/network is not correct if you have to manually add a default route :) Are you sure you have a GATEWAY=a.b.c.d statement in there? John Well let's restate my premise a bit. My /etc/sysconfig/network reads correctly to me but not to some process in the system. NETWORKING=yes NETWORKING_IPV6=yes HOSTNAME=host.domain.tld GATEWAY=198.168.1.1 ifcfg-eth0: # Intel Corporation 82545EM Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper) DEVICE=eth0 BOOTPROTO=static BROADCAST=192.168.1.255 HWADDR=00:08:74:4F:3E:8A IPADDR=192.168.1.5 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 NETWORK=192.168.1.0 ONBOOT=yes Thank you again for taking a look at these annoyances. Howard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
FIXED!!! Re: [nlug] CentOS 5.4 weirdness
Ken Barber wrote: On Jan 19, 2010, at 6:10 PM, Howard wrote: GATEWAY=198.168.1.1 WRONG NETWORK! The card is on 192.whatever, not 198 (see below) ifcfg-eth0: # Intel Corporation 82545EM Gigabit Ethernet Controller (Copper) DEVICE=eth0 BOOTPROTO=static BROADCAST=192.168.1.255 HWADDR=00:08:74:4F:3E:8A IPADDR=192.168.1.5 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 Thank you all for the time you spent looking at my typographical error! 198.168.1.1 is not going to get me anywhere; not at least on this network. Major props to John Dennison for letting us in on the NOZEROCONF switch in the ifcfg file. I can apply this to several systems. Thanks. Yes, David Wilson, I had originally configured this system without IPV6 but turned it back on in my random hunt for the real problem. Howard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups NLUG group. To post to this group, send email to nlug-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nlug-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en
