Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 159108
error message comes up after ethernet bonding
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:07:18 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)
Description of problem:
We have two ethernet cards on our HP proliant 360 server, and we have already set up the ethernet bonding. The OS running on the server is RHEL4. The warning message when restarting the network is as following,
âkernel: bonding: Warning: the permanent HWaddr of eth0 - 00:12:79:94:66:1A - is still in use by bond0. Set the HWaddr of eth0 to a different address to avoid conflictsâ.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Set up the ethernet bonding
Actual Results: Error message comes up.
Expected Results: No error message.
For detail information of ethernet bonding we follow, please go to
Please attach the output of running "sysreport".
When the network restarts, does the bond function correctly? Are all expected
interfaces still part of the bond?
When the bonding interface comes-up, it "steals" a MAC address from one of its
slaves (generally the first one). The message you are seeing occurs when the
interface that had it's MAC address stolen is removed from the bond while the
bond remains active.
My guess is that this is just an artifact of the restart process removing
interfaces from the bond prior to bringing the bond down before restarting.
If the bond continues to work properly after the network restart, then the
message can be safely ignored.
Created attachment 115165 [details]
Output of sysreport
Thanks for getting back about this.
OK - as you have seen - sysreport uploaded.
Yes - the bonding does seem to always work; we were just concerned that we were
getting errors and didn't want it to bite us in the backside later on.
So is something starting/stoppin in the wrong order? Does something need
modifying in /etc/init.d/network?
Considering the situation, I don't really think it would be right to call it
the "wrong" order. It would be difficult to keep track of the perfect order
for bringing the slave interfaces up and down, all just to avoid a warning
message that ultimately doesn't effect the situation.
I'm going to close this as NOTABUG, since it is at worst really just an
annoying message. Feel free to reopen this if you observe actual loss of
Hi John - thanks for the info on this.
I'm not going to reopen... I just wanted confirmation that things were operating
properly and that we hadn't set something up wrong.