Bug 83134

Summary: Second NIC, eth1, does not recieve DHCP address
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Paul Witting <pwitting>
Component: dhcpAssignee: Daniel Walsh <dwalsh>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 8.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-03-10 21:41:34 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 Paul Witting 2003-01-30 16:49:35 UTC
Description of problem:
Second ethernet interface does not pick up dhcp address when it is brought up. 
Manually requesting on via dhclient eth1 does work. See exchange below:

[root@admin18 network-scripts]# ifup eth1
[root@admin18 network-scripts]# ifconfig eth1
eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:90:27:6A:DB:EF  
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 
          RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
          Interrupt:21 Base address:0xe000 

[root@admin18 network-scripts]# dhclient eth1
Internet Software Consortium DHCP Client V3.0pl1
Copyright 1995-2001 Internet Software Consortium.
All rights reserved.
For info, please visit http://www.isc.org/products/DHCP

Listening on LPF/eth1/00:90:27:6a:db:ef
Sending on   LPF/eth1/00:90:27:6a:db:ef
Sending on   Socket/fallback
DHCPDISCOVER on eth1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 6
DHCPOFFER from 10.15.102.3
DHCPREQUEST on eth1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67
DHCPACK from 10.15.102.3
bound to 10.15.102.18 -- renewal in 138799 seconds.
[root@admin18 network-scripts]# ifconfig eth1
eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:90:27:6A:DB:EF  
          inet addr:10.15.102.18  Bcast:10.15.102.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:5 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 
          RX bytes:926 (926.0 b)  TX bytes:830 (830.0 b)
          Interrupt:21 Base address:0xe000 

eth0 works fine, and the interfaces are configured identically, though one is a 
3com card and the other is an intel. This behavior is repeatable on several 
different machines (The NICs are on a primary net and a dedicated NFS net, so 
there are many systems with this config, we wish to migrate them to DHCP from 
the current static IP's)

[root@admin18 network-scripts]# cat ifcfg-eth0
DEVICE=eth0
BOOTPROTO=dhcp
ONBOOT=yes
[root@admin18 network-scripts]# cat ifcfg-eth1
DEVICE=eth1
BOTOPROTO=dhcp
ONBOOT=yes


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Every time

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Kickstart a dual NIC system
2.set second NIC to ONBOOT=yes and BOOTPROTO=dhcp
3.Stop & Start network service, or simple ifup eth1
    
Actual results:
eth1 does not recieve IP address, but eth0 does

Expected results:
Both interfaces should get addresses

Additional info:
running dhclient eth1 gets the correct IP with no problems.

Comment 1 Paul Witting 2003-02-02 03:48:29 UTC
Modified the ks.cfg script to specify both adapters explicitly:

network --interface eth0 --bootproto dhcp
network --interface eth1 --bootproto dhcp 

Syntax may be off, but this is the crux of it. Both interfaces come right up 
now, curiously the network-scripts are identical from the config that works to 
the config that doesn't, implying that something else (beyond ifcfg-eth1) needs 
to be modified to let dhcp on the second interface work... 

Comment 2 Daniel Walsh 2003-03-10 21:41:34 UTC
I just tried this and it works fine on my machine.
 
I am using with the latest dhcp client.  Have you tried installing the version
on rawhide?



Comment 3 Paul Witting 2003-03-10 22:50:50 UTC
I'm sorry, but what did you try exactly, my initial problem (standard ks.cfg
generated by redhat-config-kickstart) or my workaround (manually edit ks.cfg to
specify both in my ammendment)?

I'm curious because this was a very repeatable problem, on two different systems
(same kickstart disk, redhat 8.0, psyche); making the change to the ks.cfg file
made the problem go away even though there were no differences in the original
ifcfg-eth1 and the now working ifcfg-eth1

But I'll leave it closed because I'm happy with my work-around for now and the
systems are now in production, so I can no longer test.

Comment 4 David Lawrence 2006-04-24 19:04:13 UTC
Adding to blocker bug 185486 and adding IBM group.

Comment 5 David Lawrence 2006-04-24 19:46:12 UTC
The last changes to these bugs were mistakenly made. Removing incorrect blocker
bug and confidential group.