By the way, I know that the tulip drives is what is driving the SMC1255TX ... in case anyone was wondering if that's what I'm asking. It's not. It's the hardware MAC address that's puzzling to me as it doesn't exist on this machine anywhere. At least not that I can tell. On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Ashley M. Kirchner <ashley at pcraft.com>wrote: > > So I just finished doing a fresh install of CentOS 6.3. The > machine has three ethernet ports in it: one on the motherboard (VIA > Rhine), and two add-on cards, an Intel Pro100 and an old SMC1255TX. When > CentOS comes up, this is what I see in the dmesg output: > > # dmesg | grep eth > e100 0000:00:08.0: eth0: addr 0xf6043000, irq 16, MAC addr > 00:02:b3:be:02:87 > eth1: ADMtek Comet rev 17 at MMIO 0xf6040000, 00:4c:69:6e:75:79, > IRQ 17. > udev: renamed network interface eth0 to rename2 > udev: renamed network interface eth1 to eth3 > udev: renamed network interface rename2 to eth1 > eth0: VIA Rhine II at 0xf6042000, 00:16:17:17:22:8e, IRQ 23. > eth0: MII PHY found at address 1, status 0x786d advertising 05e1 > Link 45e1. > eth0: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex, lpa 0x45E1 > eth0: no IPv6 routers present > > So, according to the musical playing going on there, the result is: > > eth0: VIA Rhine > eth1: IntelPro 100 (originally comes up as eth0 but gets renamed eth1) > eth3: SMC1255TX (originally comes up as eth1 but gets renamed eth3) > > Here's my issue: > > In udev rules (/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules I see: > > # PCI device 0x1113:0x1216 (tulip) > SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", > ATTR{address}=="00:4c:68:6e:ff:ff", ATTR{type}=="1", > KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth2" > > # PCI device 0x8086:0x1229 (e100) > SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", > ATTR{address}=="00:02:b3:be:02:87", ATTR{type}=="1", > KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth1" > > # PCI device 0x1106:0x3065 (via-rhine) > SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", > ATTR{address}=="00:16:17:17:22:8e", ATTR{type}=="1", > KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0" > > # PCI device 0x1113:0x1216 (tulip) > SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", > ATTR{address}=="00:4c:69:6e:75:79", ATTR{type}=="1", > KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth3" > > > Question is, where did the first tulip interface come from? That's > not any of the interfaces on the machine, it doesn't match the MAC > address of any of the interfaces, so where'd it come from? > > Furthermore, when I look in > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth2, the HWADDR there is the same > as the first interface listed above. But again, it's not in dmesg's > output. As far as I can tell, it's a ghost interface ... > > What gives, and how can I get rid of it so that the proper > interface gets the eth2 spot? > > A > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >