[Server-devel] Weird Device Recognition in 163

[John Watlington]

On May 30, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Anna wrote:

>>> The other weird device thing involved the second NIC. The first  
>>> one gets recognized as eth0 just fine. However, the second one is  
>>> seen as dummy0. I put the hardware address for the second NIC in  
>>> both /etc/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/ifcfg-eth1 and /etc/sysconfig/ 
>>> network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1, but service network restart still  
>>> brought up dummy0. As this was late Friday afternoon before a  
>>> holiday weekend, the library staff was anxious to leave and  
>>> needed to lock up, so I couldn't play around with it anymore and  
>>> halted the system. So here's another question - any thoughts on  
>>> why it wants to see the second NIC as dummy0 and how can I make  
>>> it be eth1?
>> What hw and drivers are loaded?

> I saved off the outputs of lsmod, lspci, dmesg, and /var/log/ 
> messages if you're still interested, but I did get eth1 working.   
> It wasn't being recognized according to lspci, so I popped open the  
> case and moved it to another slot.  Eth1 then initialized on boot,  
> but dummy0 kept getting assigned 172.18.0.1.  So, here's what I did:
>
> ifdown dummy0
> ifconfig eth1 172.18.0.1 netmask 255.255.240.0
> service dhcpd restart

You've already diagnosed and fixed the problem, but here are some  
more details.

The XS networking setup expects the gateway to be at 172.18.0.1,  
which is normally
assigned to the second wired interface.   If no second wired  
interface can be found
(because the second NIC wasn't being seen), then a dummy0 interface  
is created
with that IP address.

Once you moved the NIC, and it was being discovered correctly, you  
should have been
able to run `/etc/sysconfig/olpc-scripts/network-config 0` (which is  
run at first boot) and it
should have set things up correctly.   That script, however, is not  
well tested for this case
(it expects an unconfigured system).

> The two test XOs were able to pull IPs from the XS after that.   
> Like last Friday, I didn't have time to fool around with it anymore  
> or test registration cause they were closing up the school.
>
> On my way out, I discovered there's another issue that I'm going to  
> have to find some way to deal with.  The school IT personnel is  
> dead set on finding some way to integrate all the wireless access  
> points and the XS/XO into their existing network.  Why?  I wish I  
> knew.  Anyway, they're on their own IP scheme and they're pitching  
> a fit that the XS isn't in line with that.  172.18 stuff is all  
> over the XS and I can't even fathom changing it.

Until they are willing to take over the server installation and  
maintenance, they shouldn't try to change this.
It isn't hardwired into the XS/XO system "per se" --- you CAN  
configure a server to work with other IP ranges
inside a school with pre-existing networking services --- but it is  
hardwired into the XS network subsystem.

> I have a real problem with their mentality.  First of all, the  
> existing school infrastructure requires an outside connection, even  
> for basic LAN functionality.  As in, if the connection to the  
> (Windows, naturally) server room downtown goes down, school staff  
> can't even print.  That happens on an appallingly frequent basis.   
> Unless I hear specific, concrete reasons exactly why the XS/XO  
> stuff needs to be integrated into the existing network, I'm going  
> to assume there aren't any and try solidify specific, compelling  
> reasons to not do that.

We will back you up on that.

> My vision, and this is obviously not shared by the school system IT  
> staff (all Windows guys who hate Linux, but don't get me started),  
> is that the XS/XO LANs will be fully independent, self contained  
> ecosystems that doesn't necessarily require outside access to  
> function.  Sure, it'd be nice for the different schools to talk to  
> each other, but it's not vital and if it requires messing around  
> with their existing, unreliable Windows network to get that done,  
> I'd just as soon not have to deal with that headache.  Goodness  
> knows I have an annoying enough time setting up Samba to share  
> files with the XP machine (not mine) on my home LAN.

They hate it because it is unknown and invalidates all their MSCE  
certification.

> Sorry.  Kinda venting here.

No problem.

> Anna Schoolfield
> Birmingham
> _______________________________________________
> Server-devel mailing list
> Server-devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/server-devel