From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Aug 18 01:22:10 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766CABBD69B for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:22:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from doug@mail.sermon-archive.info) Received: from zoom.lafn.org (zoom.lafn.org [108.92.93.123]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFCA11CB for ; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:22:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from doug@mail.sermon-archive.info) Received: from [10.0.1.4] (unknown [71.177.216.148]) by zoom.lafn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA36934A9E2; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:22:09 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: Non working NIC From: Doug Hardie In-Reply-To: <174B1185-C1FF-4699-81B6-861E97A30181@mail.sermon-archive.info> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:22:08 -0700 Cc: FreeBSD Questions Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <21C5CB57-F898-48DB-B3C4-24D4D57DB5FF@mail.sermon-archive.info> References: <224DCDD3-162F-4E67-8C1D-9332C85FC032@mail.sermon-archive.info> <6A68E1F3-95CC-42AE-94B4-02B153E4E83F@mail.sermon-archive.info> <20160818010513.0c95f8df.freebsd@edvax.de> <20160818015848.d9fd126e.freebsd@edvax.de> <174B1185-C1FF-4699-81B6-861E97A30181@mail.sermon-archive.info> To: Polytropon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98 at zoom.lafn.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:22:10 -0000 > On 17 August 2016, at 18:17, Doug Hardie = wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> On 17 August 2016, at 16:58, Polytropon wrote: >>=20 >> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:32:20 -0700, Doug Hardie wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On 17 August 2016, at 16:05, Polytropon wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:56:15 -0700, Doug Hardie wrote: >>>>> Added a new NIC (rl0). Removed any reference to msk0 in rc.conf.=20= >>>>> Set rl0 for DHCP. Same result, but some additional messages: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Starting Network: mske0 >>>>> Starting Network: rl0 >>>>> rl0: link state changed to up >>>>> Starting Network: lo0 >>>>> Starting dhclient >>>>> rl0: not found >>>>> exiting >>>>>=20 >>>>> I am out of ideas here. How can I figure out what is going on and = correct it? >>>>=20 >>>> This almost looks like a problem with the contents of rc.conf. >>>> Can you show all the relevant lines? >>>=20 >>> I switched to a minimal rc.conf: >>>=20 >>> fsck_y_enable=3D"YES" >>> background_fsck=3D"NO" >>> dumpdev=3D"NO" >>> hostname=3D"steve" >>> ifconfig_rl0=3D"DHCP" >>> sshd_enable=3D"YES" >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Same results. >>=20 >> No errors in this file. However it's interesting that (if I remember >> the thread so far) you reported the disappearing of a network = interface >> with two different devices... however, there's something strange = about >> the message: when I try to run dhclient for a network interface that >> does not exist on my system, I get this: >>=20 >> # dhclient fxp0 >> ifconfig: interface fxp0 does not exist >> fxp0: not found >> exiting. >>=20 >> Note the ifconfig-related line. And if you run "ifconfig -a" and the >> interface _is_ listed, this makes the whole thing even more = strange... >=20 > I created the following code: >=20 > #include > #include > #include > #include >=20 > int main (int argc, char *argv[]) > { > int rc; > struct ifaddrs *ifi; >=20 > rc =3D getifaddrs (&ifi); > printf ("rc =3D %d\n", rc); > } >=20 >=20 > Compiled it with debugging and ran it. after the getifaddrs call (it = returned 0), there were 3 entries in the table. All 3 have the name of = "".=20 >=20 > I commented out the networking calls in rc.conf, rebooted the machine = and then ran the code. Same result. I rebooted in single user mode and = ran the code and the same results. The boot process is not setting the = interface names properly. Whats even more fascinating about this is I = have upgraded other machines (although they are newer) from 9.3 to = 11.0-RC1 and they worked just fine. I just noticed, all the systems that upgraded and worked properly are = amd64. This one is i386.