Re: Second ethernet card seems to cause networking failure?
On Tue, 26 May 2009 18:20:07 +0200, Frank Miles wrote:
> Sure, can provide more info...
>
> ============ /etc/network/interfaces :
>
> auto lo
> iface lo inet loopback
>
> # The primary network interface
> auto eth0
> #iface eth0 inet dhcp
> iface eth0 inet static
> address xxx.yyy.zzz.32
> network xxx.yyy.zzz.0
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> broadcast xxx.yyy.zzz.255
> gateway xxx.yyy.zzz.100
> pre-up /etc/iptables/iptables.sh start post-down
> /etc/iptables/iptables.sh stop
>
> # The secondary network interface
> auto eth1
> #iface eth0 inet dhcp
> iface eth1 inet static
> address 192.168.42.100
> network 192.168.42.0
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> #broadcast 192.168.42.255
> gateway 192.168.42.100
>
> =============== route result:
>
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface xxx.yyy.zzz.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> 0 eth0 192.168.42.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0
0
> 0 eth1
>
> ===============
>
> To reiterate:
>
> * The fundamental breakdown involves communication over the eth0
> interface. Things just seem to "hang" when trying stuff like apt-
get
> update.
>
> * ssh'ing into this machine from another host (directly to the IP of
> this machine) always works.
>
> * firewall is "unchanged"; well, ok, added:
> $IPT -A OUTPUT -o eth1 ! -s 192.168.42.0/25 -j DROP $IPT -A OUTPUT
> -o eth1 -s 192.168.42.0/24 -j ACCEPT $IPT -A INPUT -i eth1 ! -s
> 192.168.42.0/24 -j DROP $IPT -A INPUT -i eth1 -s 192.168.42.0/24 -j
> ACCEPT
> All communication with 192.168.42.x devices is functional. Listing
> iptables -L -n -v shows eth0 where it should.
> * simply turning firewall off (allowing everything)
> does not (at least by itself) fix eth0 communication.
>
> * as you can see, this is IPs are entirely static - no dhcp *
> "network-manager" not installed
>
> Since turning eth1 entirely OFF seems key to restoring eth0 full
> functionality, I agree that somehow the system seems confused
about
> which interface to use.
>
> Any other thoughts/ideas welcome!
>
> -f
> *
This may be a somewhat naive question, but ...
Do the HWaddr's reported by ifconfig correctly match the MAC addresses
for both eth0 and eth1?
.... Rich
Reply to: