Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network
> That file includes:
> # PCI device 0x10ec:0x8168 (r8169)
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
> ATTR{address}=="xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1",
> KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
> # PCI device 0x10b7:0x9050 (3c59x)
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
> ATTR{address}=="xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1",
> KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth1"
> On further checking, it may be that renaming is acceptable - in
> /var/log/messages:
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.122403] 3c59x 0000:03:02.0: PCI INT A
> -> GSI 18 (level, low) -> IRQ 18
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.122407] 3c59x: Donald Becker and
> others.
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.122411] 0000:03:02.0: 3Com PCI 3c905
> Boomerang 100baseTx at 000000000001df00.
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.148201] Linux agpgart interface v0.103
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.153035] udev: renamed network
> interface eth0 to eth1
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.156559] r8169 Gigabit Ethernet driver
> 2.3LK-NAPI loaded
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.156573] r8169 0000:02:00.0: PCI INT A
> -> GSI 17 (level, low) -> IRQ 17
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.157040] eth0: RTL8168d/8111d at
> 0xffffc90000c78000, x:x:x:x:x:x, XID 083000c0 IRQ 32
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.161239] r8169 0000:02:00.0: firmware:
> requesting rtl8168d-2.fw
> Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [ 6.234448] eth0: unable to apply firmware
> patch
> Perhaps the kernel brings eth1 into existence by first establishing it as
> eth0, then renaming it to eth1; then bringing the "real" eth0 into
> existence.
> The "unable to apply firmware patch" seems potentially alarming, but it
> used to work as a single-interface system. lspci -v indicates both
> NICs have "Kernel driver in use".
Re the renaming of eth1/3c59x: is eth1/3c59x compiled into the kernel
and eth0/r8169 is compiled as module?
Re eth0/r8169 firmware: is rtl8168d-2.fw in /lib/firmware? if eth0 is
up and running it might not need this patch (!). can you ping through
eth0 if you remove eth1?
I have just looked at your first email. eth0 does not have a default gateway.
Reply to: