[CLUE-Tech] Getting There With FC2

[Jed S. Baer]

Hi Folks.

I've started the process of seeing whether I can get Fedora to what is,
for me, a usable state. Fortunately, I got a clue this time and set my
system up dual-boot, so I can now easily switch back to my reliable RH8
setup when I need to actually do something. And FC2 lives all on one
drive, so it'll be a simple matter to make it my primary system, once it's
all fixed up.

The two major things which aren't working are my lan connection (eth0) and
dialup. Well, I can get dialup via kppp, but don't want to use it, as it
doesn't play nice with fvwm, and I don't need a dialer that drags in 4 or
5 kde components just to get ppp running. I can also talk to the modem
just fine with minicom. What doesn't work, and what I really want to get
running, is the chat script that I've been using in flavors of RH since
5.1. All indications are that when chat is invoked by pppd, it sends
things to the modem OK, but doesn't receive anything back. I had the same
problem with SuSE 9.1, so I think this argues for a subtle change in
either pppd or chat, since RH8 (where it still works fine). Running the
chat script standalone (i.e. against stdin instead of the modem device)
indicates it's functioning. I need to increase debug levels even more than
I already have, but other than that, I'm stumped.

As far as eth0 goes, there's no entry in the routing table for it. I tried
to use the GUI network config tool to add one, without success. Figuring
out what config files RH/Fedora uses to setup routes has never been
something I've had to dig into, and for the moment, I haven't gotten
anywhere grepping around in /etc, except to note that the FC2 system was
lacking a file, /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth0, which is
present on the RH8 system, but copying that file over has had no effect. I
did find a file, /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup (symbolic link to
/sbin/ifup) which has these lines:

# Add Zeroconf route.
if [ -z "${NOZEROCONF}" -a "${ISALIAS}" = "no" ]; then
    ip route replace 169.254.0.0/16 dev ${REALDEVICE} 
fi

Which I assume is responsible for the routing entry which does exist (is
the only one in additon to that for 127.0.0.0). So while I'll be doing
some self-study, I really don't know that much about TCP/IP, so any advice
here is appreciated.

TIA.
jed

-- 
http://s88369986.onlinehome.us/freedomsight/

... it is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday
facilitate a police state. -- Bruce Schneier