[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Assorted arm-buster problems - network configuration



On Saturday 06 July 2019 15:35:10 Brian wrote:

> On Fri 05 Jul 2019 at 21:35:25 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Friday 05 July 2019 15:23:38 Brian wrote:
> > > I was rather hoping someone would clarify why not having
> > > avahi-daemon in the first place was a good thing in general. Your
> > > problem doesn't particularly interest me because it is probably
> > > something you have brought on yourself due to previous actions.
> > >
> > > > Here is your Clarification: I used apt to purge avahi-daemon
> > > > which took nsswitch with it,
> > >
> > > I stopped reading there. I am not into fantasy.
> >
> > Which proves another theorem of mine. Folks with a sheepskin on the
> > office wall stop learning, and by your stopping without reading the
> > explanation is evidence of that effect. I can lead you to the facts,
> > but
>
> Your first "fact" is demonstrably incorrect and has been shown to be
> so. Indeed, you seem to have backed away from your claim that
> avahi-daemon is the cause of your difficulties. The only place you
> lead people is up the misleading garden path. A clear statement of
> what you did and what happened is more likely to bring results; making
> attacking software a lifestyle choice gets a bit boring after a while.
>
> > like the horse refusing to drink when led to water, I'll drop the
> > reins. You may, or may not drink the water of knowledge. I can't
> > control that.
>
> Is this an attempt at some self-promotion as the fount of knowledge?
> I never thought I would live to see the day!

If you read the full thread, you will find where I found and fixed that 
problem, by killing dhcpd5 with htop, and restarting networking, and the 
problem was fixed, everything then worked correctly, but I have not 
reinstalled avahi-daemon to see if it returns.  Perhaps I should because 
it appears there were 2 sources of that trash.

Yes, I purged what was left as it wouldn't reinstall, then reinstalled 
avahi-daemon.  results:

With avahi-daemon running. the trash in the ip a report was back after a 
networking restart, BUT allthough it showed in an ip r report with a 
metric of 202, I could still ping yahoo.com. I could not before.

So I service avahi-daemon stopped it, and restarted the networking, trash 
169.254 junk gone. An yahoo.com still pinged.

So I've purged it again.  And restarted the networking yet again.
ip a:
pi@picnc:~ $ ip a
1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group 
default qlen 1000
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 ::1/128 scope host
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether b8:27:eb:d3:47:2d brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 192.168.71.12/24 brd 192.168.71.255 scope global eth0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 fe80::8815:60eb:fe0a:d5bc/64 scope link
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
3: wlan0: <NO-CARRIER,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast 
state DOWN group default qlen 1000
    link/ether b8:27:eb:86:12:78 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff

ip r:
pi@picnc:~ $ ip r
default via 192.168.71.1 dev eth0 onlink
192.168.71.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.71.12

So I now have a working network. Free of the bogus inventions of dhcpd5 
and avahi.  That _was_ the point of all this hoopla in the first place.

Now, I have learned what works to _my_ satisfaction.

Have you? Or did you quit reading the instant I went off the edge of your 
menu?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>


Reply to: