TX errors, internal nic
My debian firewall (router) has now been working for about a week. and
quite nicely, it has been working. (I would not be able to send this email
if the router were not working...)
anyways, i was looking around at some of my machines, when i happened to do
a $ifconfig on my router. This is what came up:
---------------------------------------------------------
p166deb:~# ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:5F:91:5C:F4
inet addr:207.6.213.51 Bcast:207.6.223.255 Mask:255.255.240.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:10248837 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:10302952 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:16401 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:4141755765 (3.8 GiB) TX bytes:2221216353 (2.0 GiB)
Interrupt:11 Base address:0x1000
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:50:BF:97:D9:18
inet addr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:10330332 errors:4 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:6
TX packets:0 errors:10247612 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:20345878
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:2195996995 (2.0 GiB) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
Interrupt:11 Base address:0x1400
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:9451 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:9451 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:473839 (462.7 KiB) TX bytes:473839 (462.7 KiB)
------------------------------------------------------------
eth0 looks completely normal. but such is not the case for eth1 (eth0 is
external, eth1 is internal)
eth1 -- TX packets:0 errors:10247612 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:20345878
why is TX at 0? how is the nic transmitting anything to the internal
network when TX is at 0? and for some reason, it's putting in an error for
each packet. also, what is this carrier number, and why is it so high?
this isn't really an emergency since everything is running and working as
far as i can see, but i just found this bit odd.
-rp
Reply to: