Re: Port 123 and ipv6
> Why, there's new output. Instead of 3 dhclients you've got 2.
:)
> PIDs are different from the last time too. That's a start, at least.
>
>
>> I don't know how to check further, the /proc/3321/ and /proc/3125 give
>> me no clue.
>
> ps -eo pid,ppid,args | grep 3321
> ps -eo pid,ppid,args | grep 3125
sorry, I rebooted again after clearing something messy, here is the
output with the new pid,
# ps -eo pid,ppid,args | grep 2981
2981 1 dhclient -v -pf /run/dhclient.eth0.pid -lf
/var/lib/dhcp/dhclient.eth0.leases eth0
6571 6560 grep --color=auto 2981
# ps -eo pid,ppid,args | grep 2982
2982 1 dhclient -v -pf /run/dhclient.eth0.pid -lf
/var/lib/dhcp/dhclient.eth0.leases eth0
6573 6560 grep --color=auto 2982
they look the same, do they?
>
> Second number is the parent's PID.
>
> And, while we're at it, please show the result of:
>
> dpkg -l 'network-manager*'
# dpkg -l 'network-manager*'
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
|
Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Architecture
Description
+++-=================================-=====================-=====================-========================================================================
ii network-manager 0.9.4.0-10 amd64
network management framework (daemon and userspace tools)
ii network-manager-gnome 0.9.4.1-5 amd64
network management framework (GNOME frontend)
un network-manager-kde <none>
(no description available)
un network-manager-openconnect <none>
(no description available)
un network-manager-openconnect-gnome <none>
(no description available)
un network-manager-openvpn <none>
(no description available)
un network-manager-openvpn-gnome <none>
(no description available)
un network-manager-pptp <none>
(no description available)
un network-manager-pptp-gnome <none>
(no description available)
un network-manager-vpnc <none>
(no description available)
un network-manager-vpnc-gnome <none>
(no description available)
>
> Reco
>
>
Reply to: