Re: Can't get seconf NIC to work
Only the first NIC is autodetected, for a second card, you need to add
a boot parameter (if compiled into the kernel) or a line in
/etc/conf.modules (if a compiled as a module). This is explained in
section 3.2 of the Ethernet-HOWTO (in Debian's doc-linux-text package or at
http://metalab.unc.edu/linux/HOWTO/Ethernet-HOWTO.html
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 07:54:15PM +0100, Patrick Kirk wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a URL on how to get a second NIC to work under kernel 2.2.13? The modules directory only has dummy.o in it. What is it I have missed? The family are getting aggrieved that what was supposed tp be an upgrade seems to have removed all net access for the PCs on the private IPs.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 12:34:51PM +0100, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Effortless is one word I wouldn't use to describe the move to the 2.2
> > kernel. Can anyone suggest why lsmod shows nothing, why I can't load the
> > tulip module or what I need to do to add a route for 10.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > enterprise:~# cat /proc/modules
> > enterprise:~# route add -net 10.0.0.0 dev eth1
> > SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument
> > enterprise:~# cd /lib/modules/2.2.9/net/
> > enterprise:/lib/modules/2.2.9/net# ls
> > dummy.o tulip.o
> > enterprise:/lib/modules/2.2.9/net# modprobe tulip
> > /lib/modules/2.2.9/net/tulip.o: init_module: Device or resource busy
> > /lib/modules/2.2.9/net/tulip.o: insmod /lib/modules/2.2.9/net/tulip.o failed
> > /lib/modules/2.2.9/net/tulip.o: insmod tulip failed
> > enterprise:/lib/modules/2.2.9/net# rmmod de4x5.o
> > de4x5.o: No such file or directory
> > enterprise:/lib/modules/2.2.9/net# lsmod
> > Module Size Used by
> > enterprise:/lib/modules/2.2.9/net#
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
> >
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
--
Bob Nielsen Internet: nielsen@primenet.com
Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: w6swe@w6swe.ampr.org
DM42nh http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen
Reply to: