Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
deadwax wrote:
There are certainly workarounds, but I'd rather know what's going on.
You could run "journalctl -b" and review the log. Somewhere you should see what/who caused a DHCP client to get an address off your router.
If you have diffculty reading the log file, you could always copy it and paste it here (or at some pastebin-like service), and at least I would have a look.
I'll add a couple more stupid questions: Is it an ISPs router or your own? Is there a Windows 10 build 18.09 or higher computer on the same network, and was it running on the network when you attempted assigning the static address to Debian?
TC
You can't believe your eyes if your imagination is out of focus.
reinob wrote:You could run "journalctl -b" and review the log.
I'm becoming a big fan of cockpit for troubleshooting busted services. Click on the failed service and you get the relevant snippet of the log.
Good to know (I use journalctl -u <unit>), in this case however, the very problem is that we don't know which service/unit/program/daemon/... decided to play with DHCP. So the whole log needs to be reviewed..
deadwax wrote:From the relevant part of journalctl -b
I see you're running connman, but is apparently respecting your static address (.15).
Other than that, there's no mention of dhcp anywhere... which makes me think that maybe you removed too much off the log as irrelevant..
All I can say is, try again (or post the full log from a fresh reboot).
Also, to double-check, could you post the output of "ifconfig" and "ip a". So we have an overview of interfaces and addresses assigned to them.
OK, so conman is enabled as well as networking.service and it seems to be controlling the interface (as reinob noted earlier). Not sure why wpa_supplicant.service is enabled though, that might cause conflicts for a wireless connection.
So if we could see the outputs requested by reinob in their last post that would clarify exactly which addresses are assigned to which devices.
Ok, during the last two boots it has not brought up the static address. I don't know why, I shutdown immediately after checking the enabled services this morning at which point the static address had come up normally.
Thanks for the log. Apparently you get your static (.15) address at the beginning, and then later connman assigns the dynamic one (.108).
Unfortunately connman doens't seem to log to the journal. In any case, if you only want a static address you don't need any connection manager, so after testing what @Head_on_a_Stick has recommended, you should
The last two posts from Head_on_a_Stick and reinob result in more sensible behaviour, with the dynamic address disappearing.
I am not certain why connman was running or why it ignores the interfaces config. Only thing I can think of for the former is that it is brought in by the LXQT desktop packages (selected at installation by tasksel). The default beahviour doesn't seem ideal or very clear, I'm not certain anyone would be happy to accept this as a bug report though. Happy to be corrected on that.
deadwax wrote:The last two posts from Head_on_a_Stick and reinob result in more sensible behaviour, with the dynamic address disappearing.
I am not certain why connman was running or why it ignores the interfaces config. Only thing I can think of for the former is that it is brought in by the LXQT desktop packages (selected at installation by tasksel). The default beahviour doesn't seem ideal or very clear, I'm not certain anyone would be happy to accept this as a bug report though. Happy to be corrected on that.
I imagine that most people will install either gnome or kde, which would automatically install the network manager, while those installing lxqt automatically get connman, and expect it to work out of the box, i.e. with DHCP.
I guess one could file a bug agaist connman, which should respect /etc/network/interfaces. I think NM does that.