On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:29:12 -0500 Marty Landman <MLandman@face2interface.com> wrote: > At 06:55 PM 2/16/2004, Jacob S. wrote: > > >If you have /etc/network/interfaces setup properly, I've found it > >easier to simply do an "/etc/init.d/networking restart". > > Yepper, that did it alright. Thanks again Jacob. > > >Half guessing, half remembering the config files I sent you as > >examples... This sounds like XP assigns the IPs dynamically, but you > >setup Debian to think it's running static. > > Semi-dynamic perhaps on the windows gateway? Because I found when > setting up the network with xp ics that once assigned the ip's > remained quite static. Matter of fact now that I think of it even when > I installed debian, redhat & fbsd over three different windows boxes > those ip's did not change. If you're meaning the XP's IP stays the same, it would, if it's setup to think it's the dhcp server for the network. Dhcp servers are typically the lowest valid ip address in the subnet (though not always). As for various computers on the network keeping the same ip address, it's not uncommon for a dhcp server to continue giving them the same one (there's a lot that can vary here, but I know a lot of cable internet users that have the same ip for months on end, or even close to a year). > Something dramatic from my xp workstation's pov must've happened in > the past day or less. As said earlier I got an alert on my workstation > today that a network cable had become unplugged. Of course that didn't > happen but something did. Maybe I'll post this to a Windows tech list > and see if anything comes up there; you know how it goes.... if this > is a one shot deal I'm wasting my time but if it starts to become a > pattern best to get some lead time on the fix that'll eventually be > needed. Sorry. My knowledge about Windows is (purposely) decreasing. I got tired of the maintenance costs (in both time and money) when I used to use Win98 and have been trying to keep my distance from anything newer than WinME as often as possible. > >Which means when XP gets half a mind to do something different (like > >a "new" win98 box on the network), it will think it's reassigned all > >the IPs properly (using dhcp) > > If it was using dhcp wouldn't I see new ip's after every reboot of the > xp box (about every couple weeks)? Not necessarily. It depends on 1) the dhcp server software 2) the dhcp client software 3) the configuration of both 1 & 2. > >- especially after a reboot - > > xp hasn't been rebooted for ~4 days now Good. (I'll refrain from the wisecracks on that one.) > >Meaning you could have an ip conflict on your network. In which case > >the other computer with the Debian ip might be > >getting the ping responses that make the "Network unreachable". > > No, I've checked all the boxes, there's only five on my lan. Plus all > the names are in one place which is the xp box's host file; also I > have apache servers running on 4/5 boxes and there are virtual hosts. > And it all kept on working except the debian box. Ok, that's good that no IPs are conflicting. On Debian, the dhcp server pays no attention to the 'host' file when assigning IP addresses. Don't know about XP's dhcp server. I would suspect it at least depends on the dhcp server's configuration though. > >If the above is true, I would definitely recommend telling Debian to > >get it's ip via DHCP. > > But then I'd have to edit the xp host file each time or lose my > virtual hosts. True... frequent changes in IP addresses can cause lots of problems. That's why I like to setup the dhcp server to recognize computers based on the MAC address of their network card and always give them the same IP. > >Then whenever the semi-daily XP reboot comes along > > Wiseguy, eh? Naw... read my above comments about Windows, combined with helping several friends who have had everything happen to their Windows machines - from viruses, to network printers that stop printing, to XP boxes that won't talk to Win98. > >the Debian box will know to get a new lease on it's IP and change > >things accordingly if it gets a different one instead. > > Whatever happened it only affected the Debian box, not the fbsd or rh > ones. That does make it more curious. Though unfortunately it doesn't have to mean a whole lot (but still remember it when looking for clues). In my example of a dhcp server assigning different IPs, it wouldn't be impossible for only one out of 5 machines to get a different IP. (I know you've said that's not the problem. I'm just lacking creativity in thinking of another example right now.) > Y'know on the side I'm finally feeling a little comfort level with > unix. Hitting an impossible problem that may become worse or never > happen again, or that I might run into at a gig 10 years from now... > now that's what makes computers fun! Good! It's definitely fun, especially as you get more knowledgeable and can move on to the harder experiments and projects (IMO). Sorry I don't have more information for you. HTH, Jacob ----- GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135 Random .signature #55: Given enough time and money, eventually Microsoft will re-invent UNIX.
Attachment:
pgpY9h3Pm_ABg.pgp
Description: PGP signature