Questions about Fedora 8?

[cryptodan]

[SOLVED]Questions about Fedora 8?

Just installed Fedora, and when I run ifconfig I get the following:

[root@web1 network-scripts]# /sbin/ifconfig
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:0D:56:FD:9C:11
          inet addr:169.254.112.124  Bcast:169.254.255.255  Mask:255.255.0.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::20d:56ff:fefd:9c11/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:2835 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:2266 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:249708 (243.8 KiB)  TX bytes:1008844 (985.1 KiB)
          Interrupt:18

eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:0D:56:FD:9C:12
          UP BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
          Interrupt:19

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
          RX packets:766 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:766 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
          RX bytes:2592892 (2.4 MiB)  TX bytes:2592892 (2.4 MiB)

[root@web1 network-scripts]#

What process is giving eth0 that IP address? It should have 24.227.161.119

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Solved by editing /etc/networks file to reflect 24.227.0.0

 

[floyd]

I don't think that is correct. My /etc/networks file:

default 0.0.0.0
loopback 127.0.0.0
link-local 169.254.0.0

 

[cryptodan]

I don't think that is correct. My /etc/networks file:

It may not be correct, but I have successfully installed DA and have it fully up and running. All I had to do was change my etc/networks file to reflect my 24.227.0.0 network and it installed without a hitch other wise DA would have failed, because: 169.254.112.124 is a generic non-routeable IP address. I have no idea why Fedora/Red Hat Teams insisted on putting that network in, but it is an issue for new users using Fedora.

 

[floyd]

but it is an issue for new users using Fedora

No its not normally an issue. I have a feeling you didn't set up the network properly when doing the initial install. Check /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0

I specifically have 2 Fedora 8 servers and several other versions of Fedora. None have had that problem.

 

[cryptodan]

No its not normally an issue. I have a feeling you didn't set up the network properly when doing the initial install. Check /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0

I specifically have 2 Fedora 8 servers and several other versions of Fedora. None have had that problem.

The settings in ifcfg-eth0 were correct, yet eth0 still got that non-routable IP address. I replaced the link-local in network with 24.227.0.0 and what do you know eth0 now has the correct IP address shown. If the device wasn't setup successfully and completely. I would not have been able to connect to it via ssh from Laurel, Maryland as the server is in Texas. As far as i am concerned that should never happen when there is a successful connection. It only happens on windows when the network card cannot get any IP information.

This happened on 2 installs of Fedora 8, so it is an issue which may cause DA to be configured for the wrong IP address. Either way it is an issue that people should be aware of.

 

[nobaloney]

A bit of googling shows the purpose of the /etc/networks file. The /etc/networks file maps network names to network numbers, and vice versa. (Look here.

My latest CentOS servers don't even have an /etc/networks file; have you tried just removing the contents?


Jeff

 

[cryptodan]

A bit of googling shows the purpose of the /etc/networks file. The /etc/networks file maps network names to network numbers, and vice versa. (Look here.

My latest CentOS servers don't even have an /etc/networks file; have you tried just removing the contents?


Jeff

I just edited the 169.254 address to make it 24.227.

 

[floyd]

cryptodan, I think what we are trying to say is that what you did may have worked but it is still the wrong approach and we would not encourage others to do what you did. You should find out what the real problem is and if anybody else has the same problem they should do the same. It may have worked but at best it is a hack and did not resolve the real issue.


I have seen this issue when the server is set up to receive an ip via DHCP but infact there is no DHCP server on the network so it defaults to something like 169.254.112.124

If the device wasn't setup successfully and completely. I would not have been able to connect to it via ssh from Laurel, Maryland as the server is in Texas.

That means there had to be some weird routing going on. Something is definitely not right. If eth0 or eth1 did not have your real ip address then you would not have been able to connect at all unless somebody is doing some weird routing outside your server.

 

[cryptodan]

cryptodan, I think what we are trying to say is that what you did may have worked but it is still the wrong approach and we would not encourage others to do what you did. You should find out what the real problem is and if anybody else has the same problem they should do the same. It may have worked but at best it is a hack and did not resolve the real issue.


I have seen this issue when the server is set up to receive an ip via DHCP but infact there is no DHCP server on the network so it defaults to something like 169.254.112.124



That means there had to be some weird routing going on. Something is definitely not right. If eth0 or eth1 did not have your real ip address then you would not have been able to connect at all unless somebody is doing some weird routing outside your server.

eth0 was statically setup and there is no DHCP Server on the network. All routers have DHCP Disabled. Static IP addressing makes monitoring your network easier. No other Unix/Linux distro did this but Fedora. All others assigned 24.227.161.119 to eth0. I still blame Fedora or Network Management software they use.

 

[nobaloney]

Static IP addressing makes monitoring your network easier.

In what way?

No other Unix/Linux distro did this but Fedora. All others assigned 24.227.161.119 to eth0. I still blame Fedora or Network Management software they use.

From all I've seen in this thread so far, I'd think the others are doing it right. Fedora is (as the developers call it) a cutting edge distro; if you've read my posts you know I don't even believe in using it in a webhosting environment, nor, by the way, do the Fedora developers.

Jeff

 

[cryptodan]

In what way?

You can assign Static IP addresses then have DNS setup so you can name the device in the IP address. Like so: router-1.network.com, office-border.router.com, office-web.network.com.

From all I've seen in this thread so far, I'd think the others are doing it right. Fedora is (as the developers call it) a cutting edge distro; if you've read my posts you know I don't even believe in using it in a webhosting environment, nor, by the way, do the developers.

Jeff

Then I beg to ask the question why is Fedora listed as being supported under DA if you do not recommend using it in a webhosting scenario and other more powerful distros like Slackware, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and others are not listed as being supported. IMPO, If you don't recommend Fedora to be used as a server then you shouldn't have it listed in the system requirements. Just my two cents.

 

[floyd]

If you don't recommend Fedora to be used as a server then you shouldn't have it listed in the system requirements.

I think you are getting Jeff confused with DirectAdmin. Jeff doesn't have Fedora listed as being supported by DirectAdmin. DirectAdmin has Fedora listed as being supported.

 

[cryptodan]

I think you are getting Jeff confused with DirectAdmin. Jeff doesn't have Fedora listed as being supported by DirectAdmin. DirectAdmin has Fedora listed as being supported.

Then I guess I am confused by his signature then.

 

[nobaloney]

I'm sorry, you have me confused with someone who works for JBMC (the producers/distributors of the DirectAdmin Control Panel). I don't. I run an independent third-party support company. I also help out as time and resources permit, on the DirectAdmin forums.

My personal feelings, and the feelings of the DirectAdmin staff can, and often do, differ.

I apologize for the confusion and I suggest you ask them.

You can find their contact information here.

I've edited my previous post to make it more clear that it's the Fedora developers who don't recommend it for production use in webhosting, and not the DirectAdmin developers.

I'm not sure I understand how my signature confuses you; I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know so I can fix it so it's not confusing.

Thanks.

Jeff

 

[floyd]

I still blame Fedora or Network Management software they use.

You can blame whoever you want. That does not make it so. If it happened with Fedora then it would be true of RedHat and CentOS. I have already told you I have several Fedora machines and have never had anything like what you described happen. There are a bunch of other people here who have Fedora machines and they have not reported anything like this. You are the only one. Yet you think it could not possibly be something you have done.

So this is my last word on this since its of no benefit to anyone anymore. Please anyone coming across this thread be very careful about doing what cryptodan did. It is not recommended by experienced admins.

 

[cryptodan]

So this is my last word on this since its of no benefit to anyone anymore. Please anyone coming across this thread be very careful about doing what cryptodan did. It is not recommended by experienced admins.

If fixed my issue, and as such should fix other peoples issues as well. Just a question do your Fedora/CentOS Servers have dual onboard gigabit network interface cards? If so then maybe thats why you dont experience this issue. I will post the settings of ifcfg-eth0 here to who you it was setup properly.

# Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme BCM5704 Gigabit Ethernet
DEVICE=eth0
BOOTPROTO=none
BROADCAST=24.227.161.127
HWADDR=00:0D:56:FD:9C:11
IPADDR=24.227.161.119
NETMASK=255.255.255.240
NETWORK=24.227.161.112
ONBOOT=yes
GATEWAY=24.227.161.113
TYPE=Ethernet
USERCTL=no
IPV6INIT=no
PEERDNS=yes

[root@web1 network-scripts]# route -nv
Kernel IP routing table
Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
24.227.161.112  0.0.0.0         255.255.255.240 U     0      0        0 eth0
169.254.0.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.0.0     U     0      0        0 eth0
0.0.0.0         24.227.161.113  0.0.0.0         UG    0      0        0 eth0