| 1 |
Nadav Horesh <nadavh@×××××××××××.com> posted |
| 2 |
1229955300.25872.4.camel@×××××××××××××××××.il, excerpted below, on Mon, |
| 3 |
22 Dec 2008 16:15:00 +0200: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> 2008/12/16 Nadav Horesh <nadavh@×××××××××××.com>: |
| 6 |
>> > We have a network with a windows dhcp server. Few weeks ago dhcpcd |
| 7 |
>> > did not function at the boot, and since them I have to bring it up |
| 8 |
>> > manually: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I just remembered something else... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
What version of udev do you have? Newer (at least for ~arch, they may |
| 13 |
not have hit stable yet) udev has changed the persistent network |
| 14 |
handling. The ebuild spit out a warning about it, which with newer |
| 15 |
portage should have been displayed at the end of the emerge (even if |
| 16 |
several packages were merged), but if you missed it... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
To list all the network interfaces available, including ones that are |
| 19 |
currently down, use ifconfig -a . If your interface of interest has |
| 20 |
changed name, that would be why it isn't coming up, but you should see it |
| 21 |
in the ifconfig -a output and be able to figure out what name it changed |
| 22 |
to. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If it changed, go back and read the warnings from your last couple udev |
| 25 |
merges. That should give you the info you need to change it back, or you |
| 26 |
can instead update the network config to match. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
FWIW, here it changed eth0 to eth1, because it double-detected the |
| 29 |
interface but the first one it detected wasn't the real interface, so the |
| 30 |
real one got bumped to eth1. Deleting the |
| 31 |
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules file as suggested didn't help |
| 32 |
as the new dynamic detection ended up doing the same thing, so I ended up |
| 33 |
following the instructions therein, changing the appropriate NAME= key to |
| 34 |
eth0, so I got my normal eth0 interface back. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
But as I said, I think this is ~arch only right now. If you're running |
| 37 |
stable udev, I doubt this is the problem. but it never hurts to check. |
| 38 |
If it does turn out to be the problem, once you get the interface |
| 39 |
straightened out again, you should of course be able to return to |
| 40 |
whatever dhcp client you were using before, if desired. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 44 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 45 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives