From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 21 06:45:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1242737B401 for ; Wed, 21 May 2003 06:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jeamland.ca (jeamland.ca [66.11.170.102]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 299FA43F85 for ; Wed, 21 May 2003 06:45:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from stark@jeamland.ca) Received: (qmail 19870 invoked by uid 1029); 21 May 2003 13:45:18 -0000 Message-ID: <20030521134518.19869.qmail@jeamland.ca> From: "stark" To: current@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:45:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99b (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Help with 5.1-beta snapshot X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:45:20 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 13:45:20 -0000 (I'm using the 5.1-beta .iso snapshot from 0521) Basically, I think I'm missing something painfully obvious but i can't figure out what. I've got an Asus A7V8X which has a Promise 20476 on it, which doesn't work in 5.0, so I have to go newer. Well, everything works but I can't get a network connection up. I've got a bge0, a de0, and an rl0 (I tried everything I had :) and different cables to different switches. The link lights indicate a link, the ifconfig line shows that it detected the link speed/duplex properly, but I can't ping or make a tcp connection. the rl0 and bge0 give me "watchdog timeout : resetting" whenever I ifconfig up them, and the de0 just plain doesn't do anything. Any suggestions? I feel I'm missing something stupid but I can't figure it out, and I can't see anything in the current archives that lead to this (but feel free to point it out if I missed something :) It's a KT400 chipset board, if that makes a difference. (I'm using the 'stock' kernel : I'm going to recompile it and see if that makes a difference later today.) Thanks Dana Lacoste Ottawa, Canada