Aaron Konstam: >>> We already determined that 192.168.1.6 is not the machine's address, Tim: >> I don't recall seeing a message stating what was the true cause of the >> rejection. Aaron Konstam: > When the OP ran service network restart > it would not restart getting an error that that ip address was already > in use. That means to me that the ip address could not be asigned to the > machine in question. To the *interface* in question... But anyway, I've already read that, and it doesn't really address the first two quoted paragraphs above your reply (the "why" and a proper "resolution"). By the way, who's crappy client made the subject line go "Re: Re: Re:"? -- [tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr 2.6.23.1-10.fc7 i686 i386 Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5. Today, it's FC7. Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
