ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth1: link is not ready
The kernel log shows the message in the subject line among its startup
messages. It also shows it if I do ifdown eth1 followed by ifup.
DHCPDISCOVER from the card is failing; if I interpret the message the
driver is not loading properly, so DHCP has no chance. My dhcp server
isn't reporting any activity.
Networking in general has been erratic on this machine, working
sometimes and not others. I also have an ethernet 1000 interface on
the motherboard that was even more trouble. I think it gave similar
errors to the one in the subject line.
A few days ago I had three systems fighting over the card:
1. /etc/network/interfaces says it should do dhcp, and was auto
2. zeroconf was trying to give it some other ip addresses
3. hotplug/udev
Typically the card worked, although sometimes I had to ifdown and ifup
manually. Sometimes it showed an IP assigned from zeroconf but still
worked with the dhcp assigned IP.
A few days ago I removed zeroconf; the card was working when I did
ifdown/up then. I've also done an upgrade since then.
The motherboard is a very recent Intel 945 (PSN, I think). Chip is
Pentium IV. SMP Linux kernel 2.6.15. SATA disk drive.
The kernel documentation gave some debugging suggestions for the e100
driver. I tried dmesg -n 8 (using modprobe to remove and insert the
driver), but nothing interesting shows in the log (at least that I can
tell--nothing that looks like an error message).
I've searched the net and found that messages about similar errors
seem to involve problems with the driver itself. However, I'm not
sure if my symptoms are quite the same. I wouldn't expect
difficulties with Intel ethernet, but the newness of the motherboard
may have caused some problems (and one of the threads did discuss
interference with the SATA drive).
I'd appreciate any suggestions about how to proceed.
Thanks.
Ross Boylan
P.S. I also tried starting a Linux Console session in KDE's Konsole,
but it doesn't seem to display anything. Should it, or is that just a
different style for a regular terminal?
Reply to: