Second interface is up and running but there is no "running" flag 1

[sunny1504]

I have two interface on my Sun-Fire-V440
The first interface is ce0 and the other is ce1
both the interface are plumbed.
If you notice that the first interface ce0 had the flag UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4 but the second interface ce1 has the flag UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,IPv4.
here in the second interface the flag RUNNING is missing.

please see the below mentioned output of ifconfig

#ifconfig -a
lo0: flags=1000849<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 8232 index 1
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000
ce0: flags=1000843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index 2
inet 192.168.8.29 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.8.255
ether 0:3:ba:56:b:51
ce1: flags=1000803<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index 20
inet 192.168.8.23 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.8.255
ether 0:3:ba:56:b:52


Because of this I cannot ping the second interface from other machine please can some one suggest.

thanks
Sunny

 

[sunny1504]

I am nor sure When I will reboot the server but as soon as I reboot the server |I will update everyone.

 

[sunny1504]

The server was reeboted and still no effect.

Below is my configuring again.
bash-2.05# more /etc/hostname.ce0
sun
2bash-2.05# more /etc/hostname.ce1
sun-12

below mentioned parameter is set to true
set-local-mac-address=true

bash-2.05# more /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 localhost
192.168.8.29 sun.internal.sunny.com sun loghost
192.168.8.23 sun-12.internal.sunny.com sun-12

Also after the reboot the second interface(ce1) value was set to null i.e I had to set the Ip address and the netmask manually (ifconfig ce1 192.168.8.23 netmask 255.255.255.0).


# ifconfig -a
lo0: flags=1000849<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 8232 index 1
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000
ce0: flags=1000843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index 2
inet 192.168.8.29 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.8.255
ether 0:3:ba:56:b:51
ce1: flags=1000803<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST,IPv4> mtu 1500 index 3
inet 192.168.8.23 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.8.255
ether 0:3:ba:56:b:52


I tried to ping the second interface form the same machine and tried to snoop the device ce1 with the command # snoop -d ce1 but there was no activity(traffic)
bash-2.05# ping 192.168.8.23
192.168.8.23 is alive

The link light is still up.

 

[cndcadams]

sunny1504;

Stange!!

A couple of things;

When you ping ce1 from the same system it is just using an internal loop, it does not actually go out through the ethernet. Even if you had the cable unplugged to the ce1 device you would still get an alive response. ( I checked it on my configuration).

If you try ping from a remote host you will not get an alive response.

Have you tried another cable(I understand you have a link light but I would still check the cable). Do you have another system you can try the cable on.


Are you receiveing any errors in /var/adm/messages?

These are the errors I get if I unplug and plug back in the ethernet cable


Dec 6 14:49:58 v240 bge: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: bge1: link down
Dec 6 14:49:58 v240 in.routed[207]: [ID 238047 daemon.warning] interface bge1 to 192.168.1.201 turned off
Dec 6 14:50:05 v240 bge: [ID 801593 kern.notice] NOTICE: bge1: link up 100Mbps Full-Duplex

Thanks

CA

 

[Annihilannic]

Just swap the cables to the two interfaces around, you'll soon see whether the problem follows the cable or stays with the interface.

Annihilannic.

 

[daFranze]

as your routingtable says, the ce1 was/is never used

bash-2.05# netstat -rn

Routing Table: IPv4
  Destination           Gateway           Flags  Ref   Use   Interface
-------------------- -------------------- ----- ----- ------ ---------
10.X.X.254           192.168.8.252        UGHD      1      1
192.168.8.0          192.168.8.29         U         1  14686  ce0
192.168.8.0          192.168.8.23         U         1      [b]0[/b]  ce1
224.0.0.0            192.168.8.29         U         1      0  ce0
default              192.168.8.253        UG        1  13440
127.0.0.1            127.0.0.1            UH      31095216904  lo0
bash-2.05#

the routing table is a first match table; netaddresses have lower priority than hostrouting addresses.

You can add some hostroutings or configure a different subnet to get traffic on this NIC.

What was the intention to add this NIC with this IP? Loadbalancing th.?

Best Regards, Franz
--
Solaris System Manager from Munich, Germany
I used to work for Sun Microsystems Support (EMEA) for 5 years in the domain of the OS, Backup and Storage