route command baffles me. - Networking

This is a discussion on route command baffles me. - Networking ; on solaris, i get along just fine. i set my default route and it works. for some reason things never go so smoothly for me on linux. my "test" linux box is working, but it's "completely ordinary." possibly my problem ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: route command baffles me.

  1. route command baffles me.


    on solaris, i get along just fine. i set my default route
    and it works. for some reason things never go so smoothly
    for me on linux. my "test" linux box is working, but
    it's "completely ordinary."

    possibly my problem is that for the first time, i'm hooking
    ripped, the new machine, to an 802.1q trunk. the box has two PHYSICAL
    enets on it. for the moment, i only want to use eth0.

    is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?
    i assume if i rename the ifup (or whatever it is) script
    and reboot it'll go away.

    i did
    vconfig add eth0 2

    now, if i want the machine to respond to 10.20.30.40
    well, frankly, what do i do? i read the man page for vconfig,
    ifconfig, web pages on 802.1q, and so on, but when i try to
    ping the gateway on 10.20 i always get destinatino host
    unreachable. what do i WANT my netstat -nr output to look like?
    i feel like i've tried all reasonable combinations, and same
    thing every time.

    just as a side point, there's always that 169.254.0.0 route,
    can one safely get rid of that? what's it for?

    sorry if i'm grumpy. i'm frustrated. this ought to be simple
    but i'm getting nowhere.

    j.

    --
    Jay Scott 512-835-3553 gl@arlut.utexas.edu
    Head of Sun Support, Sr. Operating Systems Specialist
    Applied Research Labs, Computer Science Div. S224
    University of Texas at Austin

  2. Re: route command baffles me.

    In news:eu9592$7e6$1@ns3.arlut.utexas.edu,
    Jay G. Scott wrote:

    > is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    > i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?


    # /sbin/ifconfig eth1 down

    > i assume if i rename the ifup (or whatever it is) script
    > and reboot it'll go away.


    Gee, what's the opposite of up?

    > on solaris, i get along just fine.


    I sincerely doubt that, given your proposed solutions to your troubles. May
    I suggest a study of the use of the "man" command?


  3. Re: route command baffles me.

    In article <56qnkqF2aem2dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    patrick wrote:
    >In news:eu9592$7e6$1@ns3.arlut.utexas.edu,
    >Jay G. Scott wrote:
    >
    >> is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    >> i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?

    >
    ># /sbin/ifconfig eth1 down


    when you do ifconfig -a under with eth1 down, it still shows
    eth1. i want ifconfig -a to not show anything about eth1
    at all. i've done down, and down doesn't do that.
    if you unplumb on solaris, ifconfig -a won't mention it
    at all.

    >
    >> i assume if i rename the ifup (or whatever it is) script
    >> and reboot it'll go away.

    >
    >Gee, what's the opposite of up?


    down.

    >
    >> on solaris, i get along just fine.

    >
    >I sincerely doubt that, given your proposed solutions to your troubles. May
    >I suggest a study of the use of the "man" command?
    >


    i've read the man pages.


    --
    Jay Scott 512-835-3553 gl@arlut.utexas.edu
    Head of Sun Support, Sr. Operating Systems Specialist
    Applied Research Labs, Computer Science Div. S224
    University of Texas at Austin

  4. Re: route command baffles me.


    Do a "ifconfig del eth1"







  5. Re: route command baffles me.

    In article <1174943186.203260.136070@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.c om>,
    Kalyan Manchikanti wrote:
    >
    >Do a "ifconfig del eth1"


    ahhh, but according to the man page, that deletes the ipv6 interface,
    which i don't have anyway. that would still leave the ipv4 interface
    around, right? (can't test this myself right now, i had to give up
    the console to another user.)

    j.


    --
    Jay Scott 512-835-3553 gl@arlut.utexas.edu
    Head of Sun Support, Sr. Operating Systems Specialist
    Applied Research Labs, Computer Science Div. S224
    University of Texas at Austin

  6. Re: route command baffles me.

    gl@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu (Jay G. Scott) writes:

    > In article <56qnkqF2aem2dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    > patrick wrote:
    > >In news:eu9592$7e6$1@ns3.arlut.utexas.edu,
    > >Jay G. Scott wrote:
    > >
    > >> is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    > >> i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?

    > >
    > ># /sbin/ifconfig eth1 down


    Better would be "/sbin/ifdown eth1". It is a script that does
    additional cleanup in certain configurations.

    Network configuration is different under different distributions of
    Linux. Which one do you have?

    > when you do ifconfig -a under with eth1 down, it still shows
    > eth1. i want ifconfig -a to not show anything about eth1
    > at all. i've done down, and down doesn't do that.
    > if you unplumb on solaris, ifconfig -a won't mention it
    > at all.


    [snip]

    The man page under my version of Linux (Fedora Core 6) says that
    ifconfig -a shows all interfaces. Why do you care? If it's down,
    it's down. It's not in the routing tables, and it doesn't affect you.
    Use ifconfig without the -a to show all the active interfaces. If
    your eth0 and eth1 used different drivers, it *might* be possible to
    use rmmod to remove the kernel module supporting one of the
    devices--no guarantees. I've never heard of unrecognizing an ethernet
    interface after booting. Maybe there's a way to do it, but it might
    depend on exactly which driver you're using. So what is the content
    of your "/etc/mod*.conf"? (It's usually named either
    "/etc/modules.conf" of "/etc/modprobe.conf".)

    You might be able to force eth1 not to be recognized at boot time by
    putting the line "alias eth1 off" in your "/etc/mod*.conf". I
    wouldn't count on it, since this is a command to the kernel to not
    load a driver. If eth0 uses the same driver, I would expect the
    driver to find both interfaces.

    While you can certainly use command line tools to configure your VLAN
    (and I would do it that way myself, the first time) you will probably
    want to use the existing networking scripts for doing so. In my
    distribution (FC6) they can be found in
    "/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts". You can read the scripts to find
    out what they do, grep them for "VLAN" or "vconfig" to find out how
    they are used and configuration files they look at. There are also
    GUI configuration tools to setup the network. I tend to use them only
    at initial installation, and then tweak things by hand if necessary.
    FC6 has "system-config-network".

    I don't use VLANs under Linux, so I might not be able to help you
    there. I do know something about routing.

    Scott
    --
    Scott Hemphill hemphill@alumni.caltech.edu
    "This isn't flying. This is falling, with style." -- Buzz Lightyear

  7. Re: route command baffles me.

    Jay G. Scott wrote:
    > In article <56qnkqF2aem2dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    > patrick wrote:
    >> In news:eu9592$7e6$1@ns3.arlut.utexas.edu,
    >> Jay G. Scott wrote:
    >>
    >>> is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    >>> i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?

    >> # /sbin/ifconfig eth1 down

    >
    > when you do ifconfig -a under with eth1 down, it still shows
    > eth1. i want ifconfig -a to not show anything about eth1
    > at all. i've done down, and down doesn't do that.
    > if you unplumb on solaris, ifconfig -a won't mention it
    > at all.


    Open box, remove card.... Or am I missing something? Why can't it
    show up as an unconfigured interface if that's what it is?

    The only other way I can think of is to remove the kernel module driving
    the card. But why do you need to do that?

    What is the goal of this exercise? Seems like you're trying to do
    something "the solaris way" when this ain't solaris. Do it (whatever it
    is) the linux way.

    What are you trying to achieve?

  8. Re: route command baffles me.

    In article <130gh4pt9uifn6d@corp.supernews.com>,
    CptDondo wrote:
    >Jay G. Scott wrote:
    >> In article <56qnkqF2aem2dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    >> patrick wrote:
    >>> In news:eu9592$7e6$1@ns3.arlut.utexas.edu,
    >>> Jay G. Scott wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    >>>> i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?
    >>> # /sbin/ifconfig eth1 down

    >>
    >> when you do ifconfig -a under with eth1 down, it still shows
    >> eth1. i want ifconfig -a to not show anything about eth1
    >> at all. i've done down, and down doesn't do that.
    >> if you unplumb on solaris, ifconfig -a won't mention it
    >> at all.

    >
    >Open box, remove card.... Or am I missing something? Why can't it
    >show up as an unconfigured interface if that's what it is?
    >
    >The only other way I can think of is to remove the kernel module driving
    >the card. But why do you need to do that?
    >
    >What is the goal of this exercise? Seems like you're trying to do
    >something "the solaris way" when this ain't solaris. Do it (whatever it
    >is) the linux way.
    >
    >What are you trying to achieve?


    both physical interfaces are on the motherboard. i was hoping there would
    be a way to have eth1 omitted from ifconfig -a output, since i only have a
    text console at the moment and it would save me some typing and it would
    be quicker to recognize that eth0 was set up as i wanted. i guessed,
    wrongly, that there would be a way to do that. there isn't. i get it.
    point made.

    j.
    --
    Jay Scott 512-835-3553 gl@arlut.utexas.edu
    Head of Sun Support, Sr. Operating Systems Specialist
    Applied Research Labs, Computer Science Div. S224
    University of Texas at Austin

  9. Re: route command baffles me.

    Jay G. Scott wrote:
    >
    > both physical interfaces are on the motherboard. i was hoping there would
    > be a way to have eth1 omitted from ifconfig -a output, since i only have a
    > text console at the moment and it would save me some typing and it would
    > be quicker to recognize that eth0 was set up as i wanted. i guessed,
    > wrongly, that there would be a way to do that. there isn't. i get it.
    > point made.
    >


    ifconfig eth0

    will dump all the info for eth0

  10. Re: route command baffles me.

    gl@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu (Jay G. Scott) writes:

    >In article <56qnkqF2aem2dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    >patrick wrote:
    >>In news:eu9592$7e6$1@ns3.arlut.utexas.edu,
    >>Jay G. Scott wrote:
    >>
    >>> is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    >>> i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?

    >>
    >># /sbin/ifconfig eth1 down


    >when you do ifconfig -a under with eth1 down, it still shows
    >eth1. i want ifconfig -a to not show anything about eth1
    >at all. i've done down, and down doesn't do that.
    >if you unplumb on solaris, ifconfig -a won't mention it
    >at all.


    >>
    >>> i assume if i rename the ifup (or whatever it is) script
    >>> and reboot it'll go away.

    >>
    >>Gee, what's the opposite of up?


    >down.


    Excellent. And what might then be the command corresponding to ifup eth1?

    Note that under Linux, the system tries to assign eth when the device
    driver is loaded. So the best idea for you would be to also remove the
    device driver
    eg
    modprobe -r eth1





    >>
    >>> on solaris, i get along just fine.

    >>
    >>I sincerely doubt that, given your proposed solutions to your troubles. May
    >>I suggest a study of the use of the "man" command?
    >>


    >i've read the man pages.




  11. Re: route command baffles me.

    CptDondo writes:

    > Jay G. Scott wrote:
    > > both physical interfaces are on the motherboard. i was hoping there
    > > would
    > > be a way to have eth1 omitted from ifconfig -a output, since i only have a
    > > text console at the moment and it would save me some typing and it would
    > > be quicker to recognize that eth0 was set up as i wanted. i guessed,
    > > wrongly, that there would be a way to do that. there isn't. i get it.
    > > point made.
    > >

    >
    > ifconfig eth0
    >
    > will dump all the info for eth0


    Furthermore,

    ifconfig

    will dump the info for eth0 if it up and won't dump the info for eth1
    if it is down.

    Scott

    --
    Scott Hemphill hemphill@alumni.caltech.edu
    "This isn't flying. This is falling, with style." -- Buzz Lightyear

  12. Re: route command baffles me.

    Unruh writes:

    > gl@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu (Jay G. Scott) writes:
    >
    > >In article <56qnkqF2aem2dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    > >patrick wrote:
    > >>In news:eu9592$7e6$1@ns3.arlut.utexas.edu,
    > >>Jay G. Scott wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    > >>> i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?
    > >>
    > >># /sbin/ifconfig eth1 down

    >
    > >when you do ifconfig -a under with eth1 down, it still shows
    > >eth1. i want ifconfig -a to not show anything about eth1
    > >at all. i've done down, and down doesn't do that.
    > >if you unplumb on solaris, ifconfig -a won't mention it
    > >at all.

    >
    > >>
    > >>> i assume if i rename the ifup (or whatever it is) script
    > >>> and reboot it'll go away.
    > >>
    > >>Gee, what's the opposite of up?

    >
    > >down.

    >
    > Excellent. And what might then be the command corresponding to ifup eth1?
    >
    > Note that under Linux, the system tries to assign eth when the device
    > driver is loaded. So the best idea for you would be to also remove the
    > device driver
    > eg
    > modprobe -r eth1


    But you don't want to remove this module if it is the same one that
    serves eth0.

    Depending on what module that is, there may be arguments that can be
    passed to the module to override the automatic probing of the hardware
    done at boot time. So at boot time, you could have the driver
    recognize only one interface.

    Scott
    --
    Scott Hemphill hemphill@alumni.caltech.edu
    "This isn't flying. This is falling, with style." -- Buzz Lightyear

  13. Re: route command baffles me.

    In article <130gji5j8eceh79@corp.supernews.com>,
    CptDondo wrote:
    >Jay G. Scott wrote:
    >>
    >> both physical interfaces are on the motherboard. i was hoping there would
    >> be a way to have eth1 omitted from ifconfig -a output, since i only have a
    >> text console at the moment and it would save me some typing and it would
    >> be quicker to recognize that eth0 was set up as i wanted. i guessed,
    >> wrongly, that there would be a way to do that. there isn't. i get it.
    >> point made.
    >>

    >
    >ifconfig eth0
    >
    >will dump all the info for eth0



    yeah, i know. and you told me ifconfig would show me just the active
    interfaces. i assume that's correct; i haven't been able to try it yet.
    thanks.
    j.
    --
    Jay Scott 512-835-3553 gl@arlut.utexas.edu
    Head of Sun Support, Sr. Operating Systems Specialist
    Applied Research Labs, Computer Science Div. S224
    University of Texas at Austin

  14. Re: route command baffles me.

    gl@csdsun1.arlut.utexas.edu (Jay G. Scott) writes:

    >In article <130gh4pt9uifn6d@corp.supernews.com>,
    >CptDondo wrote:
    >>Jay G. Scott wrote:
    >>> In article <56qnkqF2aem2dU1@mid.individual.net>,
    >>> patrick wrote:
    >>>> In news:eu9592$7e6$1@ns3.arlut.utexas.edu,
    >>>> Jay G. Scott wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    >>>>> i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?
    >>>> # /sbin/ifconfig eth1 down
    >>>
    >>> when you do ifconfig -a under with eth1 down, it still shows
    >>> eth1. i want ifconfig -a to not show anything about eth1
    >>> at all. i've done down, and down doesn't do that.
    >>> if you unplumb on solaris, ifconfig -a won't mention it
    >>> at all.

    >>
    >>Open box, remove card.... Or am I missing something? Why can't it
    >>show up as an unconfigured interface if that's what it is?
    >>
    >>The only other way I can think of is to remove the kernel module driving
    >>the card. But why do you need to do that?
    >>
    >>What is the goal of this exercise? Seems like you're trying to do
    >>something "the solaris way" when this ain't solaris. Do it (whatever it
    >>is) the linux way.
    >>
    >>What are you trying to achieve?


    >both physical interfaces are on the motherboard. i was hoping there would
    >be a way to have eth1 omitted from ifconfig -a output, since i only have a
    >text console at the moment and it would save me some typing and it would
    >be quicker to recognize that eth0 was set up as i wanted. i guessed,
    >wrongly, that there would be a way to do that. there isn't. i get it.
    >point made.


    ifconfig eth0
    will list only eth0
    modprobe -r eth1
    will remove the device driver for that ethernet card.
    etc.
    Ie, there are lots of waysto do things. What is it you want done?



  15. Re: route command baffles me.

    On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:00:50 +0000 (UTC), Jay G. Scott wrote:
    |
    | on solaris, i get along just fine. i set my default route
    | and it works. for some reason things never go so smoothly
    | for me on linux. my "test" linux box is working, but
    | it's "completely ordinary."
    |
    | possibly my problem is that for the first time, i'm hooking
    | ripped, the new machine, to an 802.1q trunk. the box has two PHYSICAL
    | enets on it. for the moment, i only want to use eth0.
    |
    | is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    | i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?
    | i assume if i rename the ifup (or whatever it is) script
    | and reboot it'll go away.
    |
    | i did
    | vconfig add eth0 2
    |
    | now, if i want the machine to respond to 10.20.30.40
    | well, frankly, what do i do? i read the man page for vconfig,
    | ifconfig, web pages on 802.1q, and so on, but when i try to
    | ping the gateway on 10.20 i always get destinatino host
    | unreachable. what do i WANT my netstat -nr output to look like?
    | i feel like i've tried all reasonable combinations, and same
    | thing every time.
    |
    | just as a side point, there's always that 169.254.0.0 route,
    | can one safely get rid of that? what's it for?
    |
    | sorry if i'm grumpy. i'm frustrated. this ought to be simple
    | but i'm getting nowhere.


    If there is no cable connected to the interface, then installing ifplugd
    should let the boot process skip configuring that interface.

    It certainly worked that way for me, with my 2 on-board interfaces.


    --
    Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
    Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
    http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

  16. Re: route command baffles me.

    Jay G. Scott wrote:
    > is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that
    > i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?


    ifconfig eth1 down
    ifconfig eth1 inet 0.0.0.0

    Possibly in the other order (I can't remember)
    Chris

+ Reply to Thread