Re: Yikes

Post #61,947 by rickmoen 11/9/02 12:36:59 AM Reply	Re: Yikes deSitter wrote: Good eyes to Rick for spotting that. Thanks. Truth to tell, it had to percolate through my brain for a while. That is, the original problem description with the "neighbour table overflow" message rang a distant bell when Jack posted it, but I couldn't remember what it was supposed to remind me of. Much later, he posted that /sbin/ifconfig output, and my unconscious tapped me on the shoulder, saying "Hello. That's the loopback misconfiguration problem I was trying to remind you about, earlier." I've encountered the problem before, but not recently. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #61,961 by kmself 11/9/02 6:09:12 AM Reply	lo (and bug, incidentally) I saw the problem and recognized, it, but kept losing my posts here from a w3m session. I'll try to track this down further. \r\n\r\n I'm not sure what the cause of the unconfigured lo was, but I've seen this show up from time to time, I don't believe the `ifupdown` package configures `/etc/network/interfaces` in all instances. If any other Debian types know where this configuration is initated from normally (as opposed to manually) please share. --\r\nKarsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n[link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n [link\|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/\|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n \r\n Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
Post #62,007 by jake123 11/9/02 11:39:07 PM Reply	Re: lo (and bug, incidentally) Yes... there's no way I would have disabled loopback... and being a dedicated ViM user, I know that I didn't kill that in interfaces. The thing I was going yikes about was that I never noticed that loopback didn't have an address defined in the output of ifconfig... I can't believe that I looked over that output so many times without noticing that. Forest -> Trees, I guess. --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \r\n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \r\n Laval Qu\ufffdbec Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #62,019 by rickmoen 11/10/02 1:57:14 AM Reply	Re: lo (and bug, incidentally) Jack wrote: The thing I was going yikes about was that I never noticed that loopback didn't have an address defined in the output of ifconfig... I can't believe that I looked over that output so many times without noticing that. Forest -> Trees, I guess. It's easy to miss. I'm pretty much conditioned to look for it. ;-) Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Welcome to IWETHEY!