[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Windows Domains? (was: getting a 3C905B network card



Erik Price wrote:
Thanks very much for the explanation of how that works.  I think that
my problem happened because when I restarted the machine and booted
into Linux, I manually assigned myself a static IP address that had
been formerly provided for me by DHCP.

Still shouldn't have mattered. Giving yourself a static IP address on your Linux box that is the same number as what your Windows side had shouldn't prevent your Windows box from getting a valid DHCP address next time it booted. However, since Linux didn't register with the DHCP server, the DHCP server might have given out the same address to another Windows (or other DHCP client) box on the network. In such a case, there'd be two machines on the network with the same IP. After that, your network admins (or perhaps some automated response system) may have done something to break your Windows network, but I seriously doubt it. I'm still thinking it was just a coincidence that Windows lost its networking (after all, it *is* Windows . . .).

But at any rate, you don't want to assign a static IP address to your Linux box unless your network admins have given you a static IP address. Conflicts might occur, as mentioned above.


So what I'm wondering is whether or not I will be able to use DHCP in
Linux without Linux talking to the Domain Controllers.

Yes.


IOW, what I am
wondering is whether or not the machine will still be assigned a
dynamic IP when it is booted into Linux.

Yes, if you configure it properly. Make your "/etc/networking/interfaces" file look something like:

# /etc/network/interfaces -- configuration file for ifup(8), ifdown(8)

# The loopback interface
# automatically added when upgrading
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

# The first network card - this entry was created during the Debian installation
# automatically added when upgrading
auto eth0
#iface eth0 inet static
#    address 150.252.xxx.yyy
#    network 150.252.xxx.yyy
#    netmask 255.255.xxx.yyy
#    broadcast 150.252.xxx.yyy
#    gateway 150.252..xxx.yyy

iface eth0 inet dhcp


Notice I've commented out the static entries and replaced them with the one line for dhcp. Then just restart networking and you should be good to go.

In Linux, I could not access
the network until I did assign myself a static IP, which is possibly
what caused the problem, but this may be because I didn't set up the
right services to allow my Linux box to be assigned a dynamic IP.

So, in short, I won't override DHCP again, because I'm afraid that's
what fudged up my network connection, keeping me from logging into the
box via the domain.

Again, I can't think of any way that it would have fudge up your network connection from Windows.


Then bring
up a command prompt, and type "ipconfig" to see what your current IP settings are. If necessary, "ipconfig /release" followed by "ipconfig /renew" should renew your DHCP settings. (Depending on your version of Windows, it might be "winipcfg" instead of "ipconfig".)


So then, what should I do from there?  That's exactly what I did
(except the /release /renew part) in the first place, but when I
statically assigned myself that IP in Linux by writing it to
/etc/network/interfaces, I had the problem.


The "ipconfig" command by itself just reports what Windows believes is its current IP address. The /release tells Windows to tell the DHCP server that it no longer wants this address and the server can have it back to reallocate to whatever client needs one. The /renew tells Windows to ask the DHCP server for an address, and in many cases will result in the same IP being given back to the client.

If the /renew doesn't work, there's something else at work on your network, such as a network switch getting confused (we had some similar problems a few years ago on our new ATM network). Generally, waiting 15 minutes or so allowed the "glitch" to clear up out of the network hardware. (Or alternatively we could move to a different network port and get going again.)


Kent



Reply to: