Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Description of problem: When setting a network interface (e.g., eth0) using system-config-network, if the nickname is different from the real device name, bringing up the interface fails. In the following, I have set the nickname to eth0Dynamic. Setting it to eth0 makes everything work: # service network start Bringing up loopback interface: [ OK ] Bringing up interface eth0Dynamic: Determining IP information for eth0.../sbin/dhclient-script: configuration for eth0 not found. Continuing with defaults. /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/network-functions: line 51: eth0: No such file or directory /sbin/dhclient-script: configuration for eth0 not found. Continuing with defaults. /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/network-functions: line 51: eth0: No such file or directory done. # service network stop Shutting down interface eth0Dynamic: /sbin/dhclient-script: configuration for eth0 not found. Continuing with defaults. /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/network-functions: line 51: eth0: No such file or directory [ OK ] Shutting down loopback interface: [ OK ] Disabling IPv4 packet forwarding: net.ipv4.ip_forward = 0 [ OK ]
Can you attach your configs?
Created attachment 132125 [details] Configuration files for eth0
The problem does not seem to be inside the configuration file, the problem is that when you give the interface a nick like eth0Dynamic, the file gets the name ifcfg-eth0Dynamic, and dhclient-script is no longer able to find the configuration, because it looks for ifcfg-eth0, not ifcfg-eth0Dynamic.
Hm, when was the last time this worked for you?
It works for me, as long as the interface does not use DHCP. A static assignment works fine with a nick e.g. eth0Static.
Sorry, that did not answer your question. It has never worked for me before, but works if the interface does not use DHCP.
Thank you for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 196324 ***