Bug 3160

Summary:	Cannot specify hexadecimal internal IPX network number
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Adam Thompson <athompso>
Component:	linuxconf	Assignee:	Michael K. Johnson <johnsonm>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6.0	CC:	jack
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	1999-12-15 20:56:51 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Adam Thompson 1999-05-30 20:50:04 UTC

Linuxconf (linuxconf-1.14r4-4) does not allow the letters
"A" through "F" in the "Internet Network Number(opt)" field
of the IPX configuration dialog.

IPX network numbers are expressed in hexadecimal, and the
IPX utilities treat the number entered as a hexadecimal
number.  Many sites (including mine) require that internal
network numbers adhere to a specific standard that often
includes (as in my case) A through F.

I would assume that the other "network number" fields in
this dialog have the same behaviour, but those are less
critical because they can be autoprobed.  The internal net#
cannot be autoprobed, by definition.

The workaround is to directly edit
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 afterwards and
reboot (or at least start/stop IPX - it's usually easier to
reboot).

Comment 1 Michael K. Johnson 1999-07-29 22:01:59 UTC

Added Jacques to the CC line so that he can investigate this bug.

Comment 2 jack 1999-11-30 17:10:59 UTC

This was fixed after 1.14r4. Can't remember exactly when. Tested on 1.16r10.

Comment 3 Michael K. Johnson 1999-12-02 16:55:59 UTC

So this may be fixed in the linuxconf-1.16r1.3-1 errata release that we
did for 6.0, may not exist in linuxconf-1.16r3.2-2 released in 6.1, and
will certainly not exist in linuxconf-1.16r10-1 or later which we will,
after some testing, release as an errata update to 6.1.

------- Email Received From  "Adam N. Thompson" <athompso> 12/03/99 02:03 -------

Comment 4 Dale Lovelace 1999-12-03 18:42:59 UTC

This is indeed fixed in 1.16r10

Comment 5 Michael K. Johnson 1999-12-15 20:56:59 UTC

1.16r10-2 released