I was asked to forward this to the list
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: 8.2 networking
Date: Saturday 26 April 2003 01:16
From: dep
* Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [030425 16:31]:
connecting to the internet, and the other machine i have going here is of a different domain, such that even though i'm subscribed the message bounces. thanks very much.
It's the strangest thing -- If you unsubscribe your address you can no longer post to the list. -- -ckm
On Friday 25 April 2003 07:48 pm, Christopher Mahmood wrote: | * Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [030425 16:31]: | > connecting to the internet, and the other machine i have going | > here is of a different domain, such that even though i'm | > subscribed the message bounces. thanks very much. | | It's the strangest thing -- If you unsubscribe your address you can | no longer post to the list. i'm delighted that this takes precedence over solving the problem. i've changed sendmail.cf on this machine. i've done my part. now, why won't the goddammed networking work on my 8.2 install? -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com
There's no need to Cc me, I'm subscribed to the list. * dep (dep@linuxandmain.com) [030425 16:59]:
| It's the strangest thing -- If you unsubscribe your address you can | no longer post to the list.
i'm delighted that this takes precedence over solving the problem.
Well, it was problem for you.
i've changed sendmail.cf on this machine. i've done my part.
How gracious.
now, why won't the goddammed networking work on my 8.2 install?
Let's see...
i have tried both a fixed ip address, which is how i had it set up in 7.2, and dhcp. dhcp times out. the fixed ip produces an unremarkable output from ifconfig. i can ping the machine itself via that fixed ip, but i cannot ping the gateway.
That would go through lo.
route *ought* to report this, instantly: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 default 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
instead, it reports this: 192.168.0.0 depoffice.local 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 default 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
and this only after waiting nearly a minute. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What you've shown is the output of 'route', not 'route -n'. That means the system was trying to find the ptr record of 192.168.0.1 and couldn't, hence the minute delay. You've also managed to add two gateways for the same interface. Whatever 'depoffice.local' is ('route -n' would have made this clear) it needs to be removed.
route -n reports the same thing, only instantly and with "0.0.0.0" instead of "default."
It can't show the same thing, what is 'depoffice.local'?
/etc/sysconfig/network/routes contains this: "default 192.168.0.1 - -"
It should be 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 eth0 default 192.168.0.1 - eth0
i'd happily crack open /etc and change values by hand, but i see that suse in its infinite wisdom has reshuffled the configuration files yet again, such that, for instance, routes have been moved from /etc/route.conf to the rather more deeply hidden file mentioned above.
It's not SuSE, it's the LSB, and they've never moved before. -- -ckm
On Friday 25 April 2003 08:34 pm, Christopher Mahmood wrote: | There's no need to Cc me, I'm subscribed to the list. actually, i cc'ed the list; i'd forgotten that this list is, if not unique, at least unusual in replies. and i'm doing all of this because once configured, a suse installation is as good as linux gets, though getting there can be problematic; i've been at this but for a few hours' sleep since just after noon tuesday. | > i have tried both a fixed ip address, which is how i had it set | > up in 7.2, and dhcp. dhcp times out. | > the fixed ip produces an unremarkable | > output from ifconfig. i can ping the machine itself via that | > fixed ip, but i cannot ping the gateway. | | That would go through lo. even if i ping 192.168.0.2, not 127.0.0.1? (192.168.0.2 being the ip address of the instant machine, not the gateway.) | > route *ought* to report this, instantly: | > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref | > Use Iface 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 | > 0 0 eth0 default 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 | > UG 0 0 0 eth0 | > | > instead, it reports this: | > 192.168.0.0 depoffice.local 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 | > eth0 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 | > 0 eth0 default 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 | > 0 0 eth0 | > | > and this only after waiting nearly a minute. | | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | What you've shown is the output of 'route', not 'route -n'. That | means the system was trying to find the ptr record of 192.168.0.1 | and couldn't, hence the minute delay. You've also managed to add | two gateways for the same interface. Whatever 'depoffice.local' is | ('route -n' would have made this clear) it needs to be removed. i followed it with route -n (see below), and whatever i've managed to do has been entirely through yast, feeding it the same data i get by looking at the equivalent modules in yast2 on the 7.2 notebook whence i write this. depoffice is the hostname of the machine; local is truncated "localdomain," the domain name. how they found their way into the output of route i do not know. | > route -n reports the same thing, only instantly and with | > "0.0.0.0" instead of "default." | | It can't show the same thing, what is 'depoffice.local'? well, it does report the same thing, with 192.168.0.2 in lieu of depoffice.local[domain], but the two are synonymous. depoffice.local is [machine].[domain]; why the kernel's routing table has embraced it is unknown to me. i never specified it as a gateway anywhere. | > /etc/sysconfig/network/routes contains this: | > "default 192.168.0.1 - -" | | It should be | 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 eth0 | default 192.168.0.1 - eth0 i have edited it per your advice. route's return is unchanged, either in speed or content. likewise route -n. i do not know where it is picking up the second gateway. i do not believe i have any daemons running that are likely to do it -- i've even turned off hotplugging and hardware scan (though the problem was there when they were on). a knowledgeable friend suggests that the problem may have come because the install blew up during "detecting modems . . .", of which i have none, leaving some weird configuration artifacts. i discount this, because i can't imagine the installer wrote anything to the drive at that point. an additional clue may come from the fact that if i plug a dhcp machine into the same gateway *after* i've booted the one with the fixed ip address of 192.168.0.2, *it* is assigned 192.168.0.2. so the machine with the fixed ip is never even saying "hello" to the gateway and laying claim to the address. i've changed everything -- cables, network card, even the gateway appliance itself -- and reconfigured through yast, with no change in result. i would suspect incompatible hardware -- gigabyte ga-7vax motherboard, via kt400 chipset -- except that as i said it worked flawlessly with the 7.2 install into which i moved it. | > i'd happily crack open /etc and change values by hand, but i see | > that suse in its infinite wisdom has reshuffled the configuration | > files yet again, such that, for instance, routes have been moved | > from /etc/route.conf to the rather more deeply hidden file | > mentioned above. | | It's not SuSE, it's the LSB, and they've never moved before. my apologies on this. you are right. i do wish that in the symlink field that /etc has become, a few extra ones might have been added, for the (apparently few) who have become somewhat familiar with that directory. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com
* dep (dep@linuxandmain.com) [030425 18:25]:
On Friday 25 April 2003 08:34 pm, Christopher Mahmood wrote: | There's no need to Cc me, I'm subscribed to the list.
actually, i cc'ed the list; i'd forgotten that this list is, if not unique, at least unusual in replies.
It's not my problem if other people don't know how to run large mailinglists but please, let's not start this again.
| That would go through lo.
even if i ping 192.168.0.2, not 127.0.0.1? (192.168.0.2 being the ip address of the instant machine, not the gateway.)
Yes.
i have edited it per your advice. route's return is unchanged, either in speed or content. likewise route -n. i do not know where it is picking up the second gateway. i do not believe i have any daemons running that are likely to do it -- i've even turned off hotplugging and hardware scan (though the problem was there when they were on).
Then there's something else wrong not related to this. Recheck your hardware, update your bios in case you have a buggy APIC implementation (or boot with 'safe mode' if no update is available). -- -ckm
On Friday 25 April 2003 20:07 pm, dep wrote:
On Friday 25 April 2003 07:48 pm, Christopher Mahmood wrote: | * Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [030425 16:31]: | > connecting to the internet, and the other machine i have going | > here is of a different domain, such that even though i'm | > subscribed the message bounces. thanks very much. | | It's the strangest thing -- If you unsubscribe your address you can | no longer post to the list.
i'm delighted that this takes precedence over solving the problem. i've changed sendmail.cf on this machine. i've done my part.
now, why won't the goddammed networking work on my 8.2 install?
Don't have an answer to that... but I've done 5 installs now, on Intels and AMD's and not had a problem with networking on any of them.
-- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com
-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 04/25/03 20:53 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "When things go wrong, don't go with them." - Anonymous
On Friday 25 April 2003 08:53 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote: | Don't have an answer to that... but I've done 5 installs now, on | Intels and AMD's and not had a problem with networking on any of | them. good, though your data are of limited interest; i suppose that i can make of them what those who went down on the titanic did with the belief that some in lifeboats would be rescued: how nice for you. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com
On Friday 25 April 2003 22:51 pm, dep wrote:
On Friday 25 April 2003 08:53 pm, Bruce Marshall wrote: | Don't have an answer to that... but I've done 5 installs now, on | Intels and AMD's and not had a problem with networking on any of | them.
good, though your data are of limited interest; i suppose that i can make of them what those who went down on the titanic did with the belief that some in lifeboats would be rescued: how nice for you. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com
Guess I deserved that... :-) I have to add though that two of my installs were on Intel-cpu machines and in each case, 8.2 handed me an AMD kernel... and it was a bit tough to have to recompile the kernel in the middle of the install... ARRRggggg! -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 04/26/03 08:27 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "Caution: I drive like you do"
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 17:07, dep wrote:
On Friday 25 April 2003 07:48 pm, Christopher Mahmood wrote: | * Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) [030425 16:31]: | > connecting to the internet, and the other machine i have going | > here is of a different domain, such that even though i'm | > subscribed the message bounces. thanks very much. | | It's the strangest thing -- If you unsubscribe your address you can | no longer post to the list.
i'm delighted that this takes precedence over solving the problem. i've changed sendmail.cf on this machine. i've done my part.
now, why won't the goddammed networking work on my 8.2 install? -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com
Always wondered who was gonna get large issues :). "but the real killer is the networking, which just flat doesn't work no way no how. again, this is all on hardware that worked flawlessly with 7.2. nic is an rtl8139, for which there are two mutually exclusive kernel modules, 8139too.o and rtl8139.o. i have tried each one, to the same effect." lsmod on a machine that works: 8139too 14696 1 mii 2304 0 [8139too] Network device eth0 Choose the setup method─ (x) Static address setup IP Address Subnet mask 192.168.0.7▒▒▒▒▒▒ 255.255.255.0 Name servers are itself and main DNS server :) Routing goes through the same DNS server...Which is 192.168.0.1 (also acts as my gateway). As for Nvidia, three machines with Nvidia cards and selecting the nvidia retrieval patch via YOU (have to manually select it) with no issues. this is for 3D, it should still work with the 2d nv driver. Matt
On Friday 25 April 2003 09:01 pm, Matthew Johnson wrote: | lsmod on a machine that works: | | 8139too 14696 1 | mii 2304 0 [8139too] and on mine: 8139too 15752 1 mii 2528 [8139too] | Choose the setup method | (x) Static address setup | IP Address Subnet mask | 192.168.0.7 255.255.255.0 | | Name servers are itself and main DNS server :) i added itself as a nameserver, just now, to no apparent effect. i did have two nameservers listed, and they showed up just fine in /etc/resolv.conf, along with "search localdomain," which afaik is correct. now 192.168.0.2 has been added. which i just now realized is silly, because it isn't one, and removed. yours is; mine isn't. | Routing goes through the same DNS server...Which is 192.168.0.1 | (also acts as my gateway). interestingly, the effect of this is to remove the localdomain stuff from the product of route, which now says: 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 default 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 though, again, this is after considerable delay, and the machine still does not see the internet, the gateway, or anything other than itself. | As for Nvidia, three machines with Nvidia cards and selecting the | nvidia retrieval patch via YOU (have to manually select it) with no | issues. this is for 3D, it should still work with the 2d nv driver. this is good to know, though academic at this point. the initial install locked up on the screen that followed the one in which i specified a root password, the "Network configuration" or words to that effect screen during install. it correctly determined that i had an rtl8139, no isdn or dsl, and then threw a box, "Detecting modems . . ." that is where the show ended. after more than an hour during which i believe any reasonable person would have decided that had a search warrant for modems been issued any present would have been found, i rebooted, cold boot, and attempted to configure via yast. which is to say that at no point has the system gotten online at all, never mind getting to some point in the install where retrieval of *anything* online was possible. it is academic because i've now put in a radeon 9000, which works. i still do not know why i get the kgpg box seeking a secret key constantly appears -- i gave it what it wanted, to no effect, and ended up using yast to delete anything having to do with pgp and gpg (which are primarily bandwidth-eating affectations, anyway), but it still appears. i'd undertake a fresh install if i could get past "Detecting modems . . ." but i find no way to do this. i tried a straight install twice, and a "manual install" once, but "manual" apparently means something to suse other than what it means to me, in that except for a couple of terminal framebuffer windows, it was the same. i'd give a few dollars for a "don't autodetect hardware" option that worked, because then i could tell it i have no modem and, perhaps, get online. -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com
On Friday 25 April 2003 22:46 pm, dep wrote:
it is academic because i've now put in a radeon 9000, which works. i still do not know why i get the kgpg box seeking a secret key constantly appears -- i gave it what it wanted, to no effect, and ended up using yast to delete anything having to do with pgp and gpg (which are primarily bandwidth-eating affectations, anyway), but it still appears.
Interesting.... Of the 5 installs I've done, I've gotten that kgpg box on every one but got it to go away by giving it what it wanted.
i'd undertake a fresh install if i could get past "Detecting modems . . ." but i find no way to do this. i tried a straight install twice, and a "manual install" once, but "manual" apparently means something to suse other than what it means to me, in that except for a couple of terminal framebuffer windows, it was the same. i'd give a few dollars for a "don't autodetect hardware" option that worked, because then i could tell it i have no modem and, perhaps, get online. --
Wow... lots of problems. Don't blame you for getting a bit upset. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 04/26/03 08:24 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "A large income is the best recipe for happiness I ever heard of." - Jane Austin
On Saturday 26 April 2003 00:33, Anders Johansson wrote: <snip>
but the real killer is the networking, which just flat doesn't work no way no how. again, this is all on hardware that worked flawlessly with 7.2. nic is an rtl8139, for which there are two mutually exclusive kernel modules, 8139too.o and rtl8139.o. i have tried each one, to the same effect.
<snip> Have you selected "acpi=off" when the pc is booted. I had exactly the same problem after installing SuSE 8.2. The on-board LAN interface did not work at all. after inserting a network card in the pci slot, it was not recognised either. After re-installing with "acpi disabled option", both interface cards are now recognised. LW999
On Saturday 26 April 2003 04:06 am, LinuxWorld999 wrote: | Have you selected "acpi=off" when the pc is booted. I had exactly | the same problem after installing SuSE 8.2. The on-board LAN | interface did not work at all. after inserting a network card in | the pci slot, it was not recognised either. After re-installing | with "acpi disabled option", both interface cards are now | recognised. give the man a cigar! that fixed it! now. anybody know how to make the kgpg box stop popping up? giving it what it wants is not the answer. what file causes it to pop up? -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 08:55, dep wrote:
On Saturday 26 April 2003 04:06 am, LinuxWorld999 wrote:
| Have you selected "acpi=off" when the pc is booted. I had exactly | the same problem after installing SuSE 8.2. The on-board LAN | interface did not work at all. after inserting a network card in | the pci slot, it was not recognised either. After re-installing | with "acpi disabled option", both interface cards are now | recognised.
give the man a cigar! that fixed it!
now. anybody know how to make the kgpg box stop popping up? giving it what it wants is not the answer. what file causes it to pop up? -- dep http://www.linuxandmain.com
I have not yet installed my copy of 8.2, but over the last week I did take note on this list of some sort of kgpg problem. Two suggested solutions were to: 1. uninstall newpg 2. in ~/.gnupg/options comment out "use agent" Offered as suggestions only, until I actually install 8.2 and see these items I really do not know what the impacts might be. -- Ralph Sanford - If your government does not trust you, rsanford@telusplanet.net - should you trust your government? DH/DSS Key - 0x7A1BEA01
Here is the link to dep's review of 8.2 http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=333 -- Tim Visit us online at http://www.pipandtim.com
participants (8)
-
Anders Johansson -
Bruce Marshall -
Christopher Mahmood -
dep -
LinuxWorld999 -
Matthew Johnson -
Ralph Sanford -
Tim