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

Re: network problem



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:00 PM, Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel@gmail.com> wrote:

> hi,
> I have the following problem on my laptop.
> my /etc/network/interfaces file contains:
> auto enp0s1
> iface enp0s1 inet static
> address 192.168.1.10
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> gateway 192.168.1.1
>
> but after boot, ifconfig gives
>
> address 192.168.0.163
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> gateway 192.168.1.1
>
> Then, networking works i.e. I can reach Internet, but of course
> not my desktop and other devices 192.168.1.xx
>
> I looked on the entire disk to find where this address 192.168.0.163
> is hidden, but I was unable to find it !
>
> rather strange, isn't it?

Most peculiar indeed.

Does the interface always get the same address?

Have you tried setting the IP with ifconfig -- after the box is up with the bad IP address?

Is there anything in /etc/init.d that might be doing it?

Have you looked at dmesg?  (That 163's gotta be somewhere.)

Have you looked at what's in /etc/network/interfaces.d?  (There's nothing in mine, but ifup works as expected here.)

Have you tried Webmin?  (I know, I know, but it works.)

Have you tried pinging the two addresses?  (Not likely, but something's bent somewhere.)

A workaround: change the netmask everywhere on your LAN to 255.255.0.0 and let the address be whatever systemd wants to assign to it :-)

--
Glenn English
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: ProtonMail

wsBzBAEBCAAGBQJhXL2SACEJEJ/XhjGCrIwyFiEELKJzD0JScCVjQA2Xn9eG
MYKsjDLdhwgAwp4apR3uGebYU5bOx+qQbh8iGDFa+sPxMzqdzYa0bVBcoaUE
hzxPw1+pAe3vEfD/VYYrm5GGC4aUHILqH7SffpMMbWEZtSaL5ghKC8EGZhlk
wcP0d7p3paPNvKpCHMOUkxDQOd04Cqu+gudkeiQasqAPBqnTzLpk0sEBIsj9
EMeA/RCivsIGt+VvNQPaR2+surTnubOx95pwT/SmFT1at6awcbiYYNjUU08T
rnOdSAA1A7/X5UED1Mo5R+6k/DT3DqKzkK1jmwY1IKt24iBLH4wn/2md6j8w
WpbLDjn/U9Gb+rpNqdEhLkVwMgLrxFRkyKkH+gJangN7JyExoT6RbQ==
=Ze8U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: