Hello, the wifi on my Fedora 36 laptop is painfully slow after a general system update. I have confirmed that this is not an ISP issue as the speed on my ethernet port works perfectly.
I am running Fedora on a Thinkpad E14 with Kernel 5.18.16-200.fc36.x86_64. Thinking it might be a kernel issue, I also tried an older kernel 5.18.5-200.fc36.x86_64 which did not work.
On Wifi,
> resolvectl query google.com
google.com: resolve call failed: No appropriate name servers or networks for name found
> resolvectl query google.com
google.com: resolve call failed: Lookup failed due to system error: No route to host
The same works on the ethernet port,
> resolvectl query google.com
google.com: 142.250.77.110 -- link: enp2s0
2404:6800:4009:828::200e -- link: enp2s0
-- Information acquired via protocol DNS in 10.0ms.
-- Data is authenticated: no; Data was acquired via local or encrypted transport: no
-- Data from: network
ifconfig
output
br-7ccd4f24420d: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.19.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 172.19.255.255
inet6 fe80::42:d3ff:fe86:a59 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 02:42:d3:86:0a:59 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
br-86800297cb10: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.6.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.6.255
ether 02:42:ae:81:d9:8a txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
docker0: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.17.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 172.17.255.255
ether 02:42:35:68:df:1a txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
enp2s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.29.150 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.29.255
inet6 fe80::b77f:12b:57de:858f prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
inet6 2405:201:d006:615c:31f6:c2b9:25e4:fbf2 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
ether 90:2e:16:aa:7a:d0 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 55740 bytes 49577301 (47.2 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 36314 bytes 11248347 (10.7 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x10<host>
loop txqueuelen 1000 (Local Loopback)
RX packets 28558 bytes 5339939 (5.0 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 28558 bytes 5339939 (5.0 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
veth1337f9a: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::823:d3ff:feb5:1bfe prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 0a:23:d3:b5:1b:fe txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 9625 bytes 1888624 (1.8 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 8932 bytes 2074779 (1.9 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
virbr0: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.122.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.122.255
ether 52:54:00:8f:91:b4 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
wlp3s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.29.46 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.29.255
inet6 fe80::afdd:4825:e10a:f5a0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
inet6 2405:201:d006:615c:390:15ef:7d45:5ebe prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
ether f8:89:d2:c8:51:51 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 10235 bytes 3099953 (2.9 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 6338 bytes 1079187 (1.0 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
I looked around and found,
The Reddit link is suspiciously similar to what I am facing. The timeline matches. Is there any know bug?
I understand I may not be providing the required information. Please let me know what information I need to provide to help debug this issue. Thanks!