Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.sun.admin > #233 > unrolled thread

Nodename issue

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.sun.admin

Contents

  Nodename issue Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2015-04-06 14:23 +0200
    Re: Nodename issue Bruce Esquibel <bje@ripco.com> - 2015-04-07 12:31 +0000
      Re: Nodename issue mmoel <mic1@t-online.de> - 2015-04-07 15:48 +0200
        Re: Nodename issue Gary <nobody@nomail.com> - 2015-04-07 19:05 -0400
          Re: Nodename issue Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 13:20 +0200
            Re: Nodename issue Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2015-04-08 11:27 +0000
              Re: Nodename issue Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 14:50 +0200
                Re: Nodename issue Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2015-04-08 13:04 +0000
                  Re: Nodename issue Gary <nobody@nomail.com> - 2015-04-08 13:41 -0400
                    Re: Nodename issue Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2015-04-08 20:48 +0200
                      Re: Nodename issue Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2015-04-08 21:40 +0000
                        Re: Nodename issue Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 12:24 +0200
                          Re: Nodename issue Gary <nobody@nomail.com> - 2015-04-09 06:32 -0400
                            Re: Nodename issue Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 12:43 +0200
                          Re: Nodename issue Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 12:34 +0200
                          Re: Nodename issue Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2015-04-09 11:27 +0000
                            Re: Nodename issue Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 14:21 +0200
                              Re: Nodename issue Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2015-04-09 12:48 +0000
                                Re: Nodename issue Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> - 2015-04-09 16:13 +0200
                Re: Nodename issue Gary <nobody@nomail.com> - 2015-04-08 13:35 -0400

#233 — Nodename issue

Hi,

in the course of a network expansion I had to connect an SS5,
Sol 2.6, to a new subrouter.

Oddly enough, a first trial using 'route add default <NEW IP>'
followed by 'ifconfig le0 auto-dhcp' failed, so I changed the
routers address in /etc/defaultrouter and did a reboot.

This worked but the machine changed its name to 'new-host-3',
which is undesirable. /etc/nodename still contains the right
name, though.

Where do I miss something?


Regards
Michael

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#234

Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> wrote:
> Hi,

> in the course of a network expansion I had to connect an SS5,
> Sol 2.6, to a new subrouter.

> Oddly enough, a first trial using 'route add default <NEW IP>'
> followed by 'ifconfig le0 auto-dhcp' failed, so I changed the
> routers address in /etc/defaultrouter and did a reboot.

> This worked but the machine changed its name to 'new-host-3',
> which is undesirable. /etc/nodename still contains the right
> name, though.

> Where do I miss something?

My WAG is /etc/hosts

Something like:

192.168.1.123	whatever.domain.com   whatever

with the IP address of the machine should fix it using 2.6.

-bruce
bje@ripco.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235

Thats what I expected to work too. After reboot
the entry always is reset to 'new-host-3' by the
system.
A comparison with a backup of /etc shows that any
occurence of the workstations given name now has
changed to 'new-host-3', except in file 'nodename'.


Michael


On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Bruce Esquibel wrote:

> Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>
>> in the course of a network expansion I had to connect an SS5,
>> Sol 2.6, to a new subrouter.
>
>> Oddly enough, a first trial using 'route add default <NEW IP>'
>> followed by 'ifconfig le0 auto-dhcp' failed, so I changed the
>> routers address in /etc/defaultrouter and did a reboot.
>
>> This worked but the machine changed its name to 'new-host-3',
>> which is undesirable. /etc/nodename still contains the right
>> name, though.
>
>> Where do I miss something?
>
> My WAG is /etc/hosts
>
> Something like:
>
> 192.168.1.123	whatever.domain.com   whatever
>
> with the IP address of the machine should fix it using 2.6.
>
> -bruce
> bje@ripco.com
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#236

I think you're up against the DHCP server renaming the box. I've
never had good luck with DHCP. You might see if you can configure
the DHCP server with a reserved name and IP for your MAC. Other
than that, reserve the MAC/IP in the DHCP server and set a static
IP on the Sun.

mmoel wrote:

> Thats what I expected to work too. After reboot
> the entry always is reset to 'new-host-3' by the
> system.
> A comparison with a backup of /etc shows that any
> occurence of the workstations given name now has
> changed to 'new-host-3', except in file 'nodename'.
>
> Michael
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Bruce Esquibel wrote:
>
> > Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >
> >> in the course of a network expansion I had to connect an SS5,
> >> Sol 2.6, to a new subrouter.
> >
> >> Oddly enough, a first trial using 'route add default <NEW IP>'
> >> followed by 'ifconfig le0 auto-dhcp' failed, so I changed the
> >> routers address in /etc/defaultrouter and did a reboot.
> >
> >> This worked but the machine changed its name to 'new-host-3',
> >> which is undesirable. /etc/nodename still contains the right
> >> name, though.
> >
> >> Where do I miss something?
> >
> > My WAG is /etc/hosts
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > 192.168.1.123 whatever.domain.com   whatever
> >
> > with the IP address of the machine should fix it using 2.6.
> >
> > -bruce
> > bje@ripco.com
> >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#237

Some PCs and Macs are connected to this router without any
problems and until last week it worked with the Sun too.
Giving the router another IP is no reason for silently renaming
the Sun. Maybe thats an uninformed assumption but I'd rather
presume I triggered this behaviour on the client side somehow.
If I can't figure out whats going on I'll have to try the
static IP. Thanks.


Michael


Am 04/08/2015 01:05 AM, schrieb Gary:
> I think you're up against the DHCP server renaming the box. I've
> never had good luck with DHCP. You might see if you can configure
> the DHCP server with a reserved name and IP for your MAC. Other
> than that, reserve the MAC/IP in the DHCP server and set a static
> IP on the Sun.
>
> mmoel wrote:
>
>> Thats what I expected to work too. After reboot
>> the entry always is reset to 'new-host-3' by the
>> system.
>> A comparison with a backup of /etc shows that any
>> occurence of the workstations given name now has
>> changed to 'new-host-3', except in file 'nodename'.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Apr 2015, Bruce Esquibel wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> in the course of a network expansion I had to connect an SS5,
>>>> Sol 2.6, to a new subrouter.
>>>
>>>> Oddly enough, a first trial using 'route add default <NEW IP>'
>>>> followed by 'ifconfig le0 auto-dhcp' failed, so I changed the
>>>> routers address in /etc/defaultrouter and did a reboot.
>>>
>>>> This worked but the machine changed its name to 'new-host-3',
>>>> which is undesirable. /etc/nodename still contains the right
>>>> name, though.
>>>
>>>> Where do I miss something?
>>>
>>> My WAG is /etc/hosts
>>>
>>> Something like:
>>>
>>> 192.168.1.123 whatever.domain.com   whatever
>>>
>>> with the IP address of the machine should fix it using 2.6.
>>>
>>> -bruce
>>> bje@ripco.com
>>>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238

Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:

>Some PCs and Macs are connected to this router without any
>problems and until last week it worked with the Sun too.
>Giving the router another IP is no reason for silently renaming
>the Sun. Maybe thats an uninformed assumption but I'd rather
>presume I triggered this behaviour on the client side somehow.
>If I can't figure out whats going on I'll have to try the
>static IP. Thanks.

This is likely caused because the new nodename is what is define
in DNS.  When a system is configured to use DHCP, it likely gets
all information including the hostname from the DHCP server.

Casper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#239

Am 04/08/2015 01:27 PM, schrieb Casper H.S. Dik:
> Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> Some PCs and Macs are connected to this router without any
>> problems and until last week it worked with the Sun too.
>> Giving the router another IP is no reason for silently renaming
>> the Sun. Maybe thats an uninformed assumption but I'd rather
>> presume I triggered this behaviour on the client side somehow.
>> If I can't figure out whats going on I'll have to try the
>> static IP. Thanks.
>
> This is likely caused because the new nodename is what is define
> in DNS.  When a system is configured to use DHCP, it likely gets
> all information including the hostname from the DHCP server.
>
> Casper
>

Perhaps it's important to say the server is a Cisco business router.
Afaik it doesn't care about the clients names and I changed them at
times without difficulty. Since it worked before the fault is likely
to be client sided. None of the other machines names were altered by
DHCP.

To come a little closer to a solution let me put it another way:
Is it under my control at all (regrading a client on a Sun Sparc,
Sol 2.6) whether the server overrides the clients hostname or not?
And if so, whats the right course of action in the respective case?
I didn't find something useful in the documentation, so far.


Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#240

Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:

>Perhaps it's important to say the server is a Cisco business router.
>Afaik it doesn't care about the clients names and I changed them at
>times without difficulty. Since it worked before the fault is likely
>to be client sided. None of the other machines names were altered by
>DHCP.

Is it the name returned by DNS?

I believe you can remove what the DHCP client asks for by
editing /etc/default/dhcp and drop the hostname (param 12)


But Solaris 2.6 is, of course, a very old release (end of 1997?)
and a lot of things have changed; I also do not have a Solaris 2.6
system to check this on.

Casper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#242

Didn't think of that! Good point. For what it's worth I've encountered the
same issue on newer versions of Solaris as well. I'll see if I can find time
to test the change to /etc/default/dhcp on one of my lab boxes.

"Casper H.S. Dik" wrote:

> Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:
>
> >Perhaps it's important to say the server is a Cisco business router.
> >Afaik it doesn't care about the clients names and I changed them at
> >times without difficulty. Since it worked before the fault is likely
> >to be client sided. None of the other machines names were altered by
> >DHCP.
>
> Is it the name returned by DNS?
>
> I believe you can remove what the DHCP client asks for by
> editing /etc/default/dhcp and drop the hostname (param 12)
>
> But Solaris 2.6 is, of course, a very old release (end of 1997?)
> and a lot of things have changed; I also do not have a Solaris 2.6
> system to check this on.
>
> Casper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#243

Am 04/08/2015 07:41 PM, schrieb Gary:
> Didn't think of that! Good point. For what it's worth I've encountered the
> same issue on newer versions of Solaris as well. I'll see if I can find time
> to test the change to /etc/default/dhcp on one of my lab boxes.
>
> "Casper H.S. Dik" wrote:
>
>> Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:
>>
>>> Perhaps it's important to say the server is a Cisco business router.
>>> Afaik it doesn't care about the clients names and I changed them at
>>> times without difficulty. Since it worked before the fault is likely
>>> to be client sided. None of the other machines names were altered by
>>> DHCP.
>>
>> Is it the name returned by DNS?
>>
>> I believe you can remove what the DHCP client asks for by
>> editing /etc/default/dhcp and drop the hostname (param 12)
>>
>> But Solaris 2.6 is, of course, a very old release (end of 1997?)
>> and a lot of things have changed; I also do not have a Solaris 2.6
>> system to check this on.
>>
>> Casper
>
/etc/default/dhcp is called /etc/dhcp/dhcptags on Solais 2.6.
Param 12 deals with the hostname, though. There are some remarks
which strongly discourage messing around with the settings.

Why it worked before I assigned a new address to the router still
is the big question.

Could it be DHCP behaves different on a subnet router compared to
one running PPPoE at the WAN side? Newer machines can handle this
while the Sun can't?


Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#244

Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:

>/etc/default/dhcp is called /etc/dhcp/dhcptags on Solais 2.6.
>Param 12 deals with the hostname, though. There are some remarks
>which strongly discourage messing around with the settings.

If you don't want to receive a hostname, you should not ask
for it.

>Why it worked before I assigned a new address to the router still
>is the big question.

I'm not sure exactly what you did before?

>Could it be DHCP behaves different on a subnet router compared to
>one running PPPoE at the WAN side? Newer machines can handle this
>while the Sun can't?

Please dump the DHCP packet and see what it contains; if it
contains a hostname, Sun will use it because is wants to
use.

You are complaining that an 18 year old OS isn't as capable
as a more modern OS?  Really?

Casper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#245

Am 04/08/2015 11:40 PM, schrieb Casper H.S. Dik:
 > Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:
 >
 >> /etc/default/dhcp is called /etc/dhcp/dhcptags on Solais 2.6.
 >> Param 12 deals with the hostname, though. There are some remarks
 >> which strongly discourage messing around with the settings.
 >
 > If you don't want to receive a hostname, you should not ask
 > for it.
 >

Understood. Makes sense.

 >> Why it worked before I assigned a new address to the router still
 >> is the big question.
 >
 > I'm not sure exactly what you did before?
 >

Thats easy, because I wrote it down back then.
I set up Solaris 2.6, put the empty files hostname.le0 and dhcp.le0
in /etc, default router IP goes to /etc/defaultrouter and the ISPs 
addresses in /etc/resolv.conf. After reboot I've got DHCP running with
the real hostname like any of the PCs and Macs with a recent OS.

By default at setup Sol 2.6 asks for a hostname and a static IP.
These were used by the router as entries for its DHCP table. After
changing the routers IP, it's not working any more.

 >> Could it be DHCP behaves different on a subnet router compared to
 >> one running PPPoE at the WAN side? Newer machines can handle this
 >> while the Sun can't?
 >
 > Please dump the DHCP packet and see what it contains; if it
 > contains a hostname, Sun will use it because is wants to
 > use.

Ok, I'll try this with another Sparc.
Meanwhile I gave it a static IP, so work continues. I'd like
to understand what's going on, though.

 > You are complaining that an 18 year old OS isn't as capable
 > as a more modern OS?  Really?

Yes, because it worked before I changed the routers IP there
must be a way to accomplish this.


Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#246

Is it possible that this is a different DHCP server you're dealing with now?

Michael Moeller wrote:

> Am 04/08/2015 11:40 PM, schrieb Casper H.S. Dik:
>  > Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:
>  >
>  >> /etc/default/dhcp is called /etc/dhcp/dhcptags on Solais 2.6.
>  >> Param 12 deals with the hostname, though. There are some remarks
>  >> which strongly discourage messing around with the settings.
>  >
>  > If you don't want to receive a hostname, you should not ask
>  > for it.
>  >
>
> Understood. Makes sense.
>
>  >> Why it worked before I assigned a new address to the router still
>  >> is the big question.
>  >
>  > I'm not sure exactly what you did before?
>  >
>
> Thats easy, because I wrote it down back then.
> I set up Solaris 2.6, put the empty files hostname.le0 and dhcp.le0
> in /etc, default router IP goes to /etc/defaultrouter and the ISPs
> addresses in /etc/resolv.conf. After reboot I've got DHCP running with
> the real hostname like any of the PCs and Macs with a recent OS.
>
> By default at setup Sol 2.6 asks for a hostname and a static IP.
> These were used by the router as entries for its DHCP table. After
> changing the routers IP, it's not working any more.
>
>  >> Could it be DHCP behaves different on a subnet router compared to
>  >> one running PPPoE at the WAN side? Newer machines can handle this
>  >> while the Sun can't?
>  >
>  > Please dump the DHCP packet and see what it contains; if it
>  > contains a hostname, Sun will use it because is wants to
>  > use.
>
> Ok, I'll try this with another Sparc.
> Meanwhile I gave it a static IP, so work continues. I'd like
> to understand what's going on, though.
>
>  > You are complaining that an 18 year old OS isn't as capable
>  > as a more modern OS?  Really?
>
> Yes, because it worked before I changed the routers IP there
> must be a way to accomplish this.
>
> Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#248

Am 04/09/2015 12:32 PM, schrieb Gary:
> Is it possible that this is a different DHCP server you're dealing with now?

No, same router with different IP. The DHCP address range has changed
too. Maybe this is important.
Connecting with a newly set up OS and calling for DHCP seems to be
different from re-conncting to the same router, since nothing on the
Sparc has changed.


Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#247

Am 04/09/2015 12:24 PM, schrieb Michael Moeller:

> I set up Solaris 2.6, put the empty files hostname.le0 and dhcp.le0
> in /etc, default router IP goes to /etc/defaultrouter and the ISPs
> addresses in /etc/resolv.conf. After reboot I've got DHCP running with
> the real hostname like any of the PCs and Macs with a recent OS.

> Michael

I forgot: in /etc/inet/hosts the given static IP must be commented out
in case of DHCP.


Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249

Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:

>By default at setup Sol 2.6 asks for a hostname and a static IP.
>These were used by the router as entries for its DHCP table. After
>changing the routers IP, it's not working any more.

Was the network changed or only the last bits of the address?

It can't give addresses not in the connected networks.

>Yes, because it worked before I changed the routers IP there
>must be a way to accomplish this.

What exactly was the change?

Casper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#250

Am 04/09/2015 01:27 PM, schrieb Casper H.S. Dik:
> Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> By default at setup Sol 2.6 asks for a hostname and a static IP.
>> These were used by the router as entries for its DHCP table. After
>> changing the routers IP, it's not working any more.
>
> Was the network changed or only the last bits of the address?
>
> It can't give addresses not in the connected networks.
>
>> Yes, because it worked before I changed the routers IP there
>> must be a way to accomplish this.
>
> What exactly was the change?

Because of a change from ADSL2+ to VDSL the first router had to
be replaced (it also drives the phone installation now). So the
formerly first router (192.168.1.1) changed to be the second
(now 192.168.3.1). The new one calls itself 192.168.2.1 by default,
so I didn't change it.


Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#251

Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:

>Because of a change from ADSL2+ to VDSL the first router had to
>be replaced (it also drives the phone installation now). So the
>formerly first router (192.168.1.1) changed to be the second
>(now 192.168.3.1). The new one calls itself 192.168.2.1 by default,
>so I didn't change it.

So the SPARC system needs to change its IP address too. (It will need
to ask for an address in 192.168.2.0)

Casper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#252

Am 04/09/2015 02:48 PM, schrieb Casper H.S. Dik:
> Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:
>
>> Because of a change from ADSL2+ to VDSL the first router had to
>> be replaced (it also drives the phone installation now). So the
>> formerly first router (192.168.1.1) changed to be the second
>> (now 192.168.3.1). The new one calls itself 192.168.2.1 by default,
>> so I didn't change it.
>
> So the SPARC system needs to change its IP address too. (It will need
> to ask for an address in 192.168.2.0)
>
> Casper
>
You are right. But now I have to go off-topic.
Normally the second router isn't needed at all, as long as you grant
third party access to any TR-069 capable device on your net, A
sub-router with no or disabled TR-069 support and his own IP is
recommended in case you don't want this. Disabling TR-069 on the router
given by the ISP is a violation of contract. At least where I live.


Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#241

I've never had good luck using DHCP with Suns. I think what happens
is after the RARP from the DHCP server the sun does an nslookup on
its IP and takes that as its name. The best I've ever been able to come up
with is reserving the MAC/IP in the DHCP server and doing static on the
Sun. That means you'll also need to setup the DNS server info on the Sun
as well, as that is normally passed from the DHCP server. (As is the default
route).

The servers I've managed were always placed in a reserved range on the
DHCP server. That was since they were offering various services, clients
needed a stable name/IP to access them. We also always had DNS A
records set accordingly.

Michael Moeller wrote:

> Am 04/08/2015 01:27 PM, schrieb Casper H.S. Dik:
> > Michael Moeller <mmoel@t-online.de> writes:
> >
> >> Some PCs and Macs are connected to this router without any
> >> problems and until last week it worked with the Sun too.
> >> Giving the router another IP is no reason for silently renaming
> >> the Sun. Maybe thats an uninformed assumption but I'd rather
> >> presume I triggered this behaviour on the client side somehow.
> >> If I can't figure out whats going on I'll have to try the
> >> static IP. Thanks.
> >
> > This is likely caused because the new nodename is what is define
> > in DNS.  When a system is configured to use DHCP, it likely gets
> > all information including the hostname from the DHCP server.
> >
> > Casper
> >
>
> Perhaps it's important to say the server is a Cisco business router.
> Afaik it doesn't care about the clients names and I changed them at
> times without difficulty. Since it worked before the fault is likely
> to be client sided. None of the other machines names were altered by
> DHCP.
>
> To come a little closer to a solution let me put it another way:
> Is it under my control at all (regrading a client on a Sun Sparc,
> Sol 2.6) whether the server overrides the clients hostname or not?
> And if so, whats the right course of action in the respective case?
> I didn't find something useful in the documentation, so far.
>
> Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.sun.admin

csiph-web