* [9fans] PPP error: cannot write IP - link not up
@ 2007-03-05 9:52 Stevie_Lancaster
2007-03-05 10:20 ` Vester Thacker
2007-03-06 9:41 ` [9fans] " Stevie_Lancaster
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stevie_Lancaster @ 2007-03-05 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
hi!
I have a problem with the direct PPPoE connection to my ISP.
I have a realtek 8139 NIC and wrote ether=type=rtl8139 in my
plan9.ini.
The kernel knows my NIC at startup. Until there everything is
allright.
There is no /net/ipifc/0 when the system just started and when I go on
and type:
ip/pppoe -dP
ndb/cs
ndb/dns -r
the error gets reproted in my ppp logfile.
PPPoE cannot write the IP. That is clear to me, because the interface
is not up.
If I bind the ether0 manually ( echo bind ether /net/ether0 > /net/
ipifc/clone) a "0" interface gets created. But PPPoE creates another
one "1". when I cat status of "1" there is no ether device.
Under "1" everything is there. Also my dynamic IP adress, there is
just no device for all that stuff...
What can I do to tell ip/pppoe to just use my formerly created "0"
interface?
Thanks for your help.
lancaster
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] PPP error: cannot write IP - link not up
2007-03-05 9:52 [9fans] PPP error: cannot write IP - link not up Stevie_Lancaster
@ 2007-03-05 10:20 ` Vester Thacker
2007-03-06 9:41 ` [9fans] " Stevie_Lancaster
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vester Thacker @ 2007-03-05 10:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
On 3/5/07, Stevie_Lancaster <teenageriot@gmx.de> wrote:
> What can I do to tell ip/pppoe to just use my formerly created "0"
> interface?
Before running "ip/pppoe -dP", ensure "bind -b '#l0' /net" has been executed.
HTH,
Vester Thacker
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: PPP error: cannot write IP - link not up
2007-03-05 9:52 [9fans] PPP error: cannot write IP - link not up Stevie_Lancaster
2007-03-05 10:20 ` Vester Thacker
@ 2007-03-06 9:41 ` Stevie_Lancaster
2007-03-06 9:55 ` Vester Thacker
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stevie_Lancaster @ 2007-03-06 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On 5 Mrz., 11:21, vester.thac...@gmail.com (Vester Thacker) wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Stevie_Lancaster <teenager...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > What can I do to tell ip/pppoe to just use my formerly created "0"
> > interface?
>
> Before running "ip/pppoe -dP", ensure "bind -b '#l0' /net" has been executed.
>
> HTH,
>
> Vester Thacker
Thanks for your reply. Under /net there is already a directory ether0.
So I guess the device got binded there. Am I right?
Are bind -a and bind -b in this case the same?
lancaster
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: PPP error: cannot write IP - link not up
2007-03-06 9:41 ` [9fans] " Stevie_Lancaster
@ 2007-03-06 9:55 ` Vester Thacker
2007-03-06 11:17 ` erik quanstrom
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vester Thacker @ 2007-03-06 9:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
On 3/6/07, Stevie_Lancaster <teenageriot@gmx.de> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. Under /net there is already a directory ether0.
> So I guess the device got binded there. Am I right?
I believe it to mean that the device was recognized, but it does not
mean that it was binded.
> Are bind -a and bind -b in this case the same?
Yes.
Regards,
Vester Thacker
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: PPP error: cannot write IP - link not up
2007-03-06 9:55 ` Vester Thacker
@ 2007-03-06 11:17 ` erik quanstrom
2007-03-06 11:47 ` Vester Thacker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2007-03-06 11:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1093 bytes --]
On Tue Mar 6 04:55:44 EST 2007, vester.thacker@gmail.com wrote:
> On 3/6/07, Stevie_Lancaster <teenageriot@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your reply. Under /net there is already a directory ether0.
> > So I guess the device got binded there. Am I right?
>
> I believe it to mean that the device was recognized, but it does not
> mean that it was binded.
i guess this is pedantic but, yes it does mean the device is bound
into the namespace and in most cases you can send and receive
raw ethernet frames.
i've attached an overly-complicated program which prints out the
ip configuration by interface. output is like so:
; ipifc
0:/net/ether0 00a0c973fa3f 1514
205.185.197.2/120 205.185.197.0
0:/net.alt/ether1 000102ed3163 1514
65.14.39.132/123 65.14.39.128
the first line is the ipifc index, a ':', the mountpoint, mac and mtu.
subsequent indented lines are address, a '/', netmask and
network for each configured address. you can get the same
information with
; cat cat /net*/ipifc/?/status>[2=]
but it's a lot harder to read. ;-)
- erik
[-- Attachment #2: ipifc.c --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1141 bytes --]
#include <u.h>
#include <libc.h>
#include <ip.h>
char *mtab[10] = {"/net", "/net.alt"};
int nmtab = 2;
void
ipifcprint(char *m, int idx)
{
Ipifc *ifc;
Iplifc *l;
uchar eth[6];
for(ifc = readipifc(m, 0, idx); ifc; ifc = ifc->next){
print("%d:%s ", ifc->index, ifc->dev);
if(myetheraddr(eth, ifc->dev) == 0)
print("\t" "%E", eth);
print("\t" "%d\n", ifc->mtu);
for(l = ifc->lifc; l; l = l->next)
print("\t" "%I%M" "\t" "%I\n", l->ip, l->mask, l->net);
}
// freeipifc(ifc);
}
void
usage(void)
{
fprint(2, "usage: ipfic [-m net mtpt] [interface number] ...\n");
exits("usage");
}
void
main(int argc, char **argv){
char* r;
int i, m;
m = 0;
ARGBEGIN{
case 'm':
if(m++ == 0)
nmtab = 0;
if(++nmtab < nelem(mtab))
mtab[nmtab-1] = EARGF(usage());
break;
}ARGEND;
fmtinstall('I', eipfmt);
fmtinstall('M', eipfmt);
fmtinstall('E', eipfmt);
if(*argv)
for(; *argv; argv++){
i = strtoul(*argv, &r, 0);
if (*r)
usage();
ipifcprint(mtab[0], i);
}
else
for(i = 0; i < nmtab; i++)
ipifcprint(mtab[i], -1);
exits(0);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Re: PPP error: cannot write IP - link not up
2007-03-06 11:17 ` erik quanstrom
@ 2007-03-06 11:47 ` Vester Thacker
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vester Thacker @ 2007-03-06 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
On 3/6/07, erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com> wrote:
>
> i guess this is pedantic but, yes it does mean the device is bound
> into the namespace and in most cases you can send and receive
> raw ethernet frames.
I do not consider it pedantic at all. Thank you very much for the correction!
My apologies for the conceptual error.
--Vester
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-06 11:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-03-05 9:52 [9fans] PPP error: cannot write IP - link not up Stevie_Lancaster
2007-03-05 10:20 ` Vester Thacker
2007-03-06 9:41 ` [9fans] " Stevie_Lancaster
2007-03-06 9:55 ` Vester Thacker
2007-03-06 11:17 ` erik quanstrom
2007-03-06 11:47 ` Vester Thacker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).