I have offered to help set up a friends home network but I want some info
before I go to his house so I am prepared.
Does anyone on list know if the S5100i cable modem connected via
Paradise/Telstra Clear can use dhcp?
Yes I have already Googled for the info which suggests it can but it seems
Ignore this request. I just (eventually) got a response from Paradise.
They issue a static IP address so I suppose I will have to install a
router/firewall for my friend.
Robert
Never test the depth of the water with both feet.
-Original Message-
From: Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC)
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:05, Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC) wrote:
Ignore this request. I just (eventually) got a response from Paradise.
They issue a static IP address so I suppose I will have to install a
router/firewall for my friend.
That's right. Paradise cable modems connect to a computer or
Hi everyone,
This is quite off topic but as a number of people reading this list seem to
have wide experience I thought I'd give it go
I need to find a multiport ADSL router (for connecting to phone line) that
has the ability to allow multiple simultaneous VPN sessions (using PPTP)
through
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:42, you wrote:
I have offered to help set up a friends home network but I want some info
before I go to his house so I am prepared.
Does anyone on list know if the S5100i cable modem connected via
Paradise/Telstra Clear can use dhcp?
Paradise allocated me a single
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 09:42, Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC) wrote:
I have offered to help set up a friends home network but I want some info
before I go to his house so I am prepared.
Does anyone on list know if the S5100i cable modem connected via
Paradise/Telstra Clear can use dhcp?
Not in the
are you asking whether it can act as a dhcp server to hand out addresses
to the lan, or whether it acts as a dhcp client to obtain an ip address
from paradise?
in any case the connection is raw and unprotected. its like sex without
a condom, anything can get in or out, and will get in. hell vik
OK, for me I would set up a firewall / dhcp server like IPCop but for my
friend who is less computer literate than me I thought that a hardware NAT /
dhcp server might be better.
Anyone know of a supplier of these in NZ?
Robert
-Original Message-
From: Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC)
Hi again,
So is each workstation making a separate PPTP connection to the router?
No, the pptp tunnel is from the client's PC through to the server on the
internet, the router has to do network address (and port?) translation.
Or are they making a PPTP connection to the remote VPN server on
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 12:06, Bryce Stenberg wrote:
So is each workstation making a separate PPTP connection to the router?
No, the pptp tunnel is from the client's PC through to the server on the
internet, the router has to do network address (and port?) translation.
Or are they making a
this appears to be the tecnical reason:
Q. I cannot connect from more than one computer at the same time.
A. PPTP uses protocol GRE (47) for it's tunnel. When two clients behind a single NAT
firewall
connect to the same PPTP server, their source IP address will be
rewritten by their firewall.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:41:16 +1200
CF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does IPCOP do anything to help in this instance?
http://www.ipcop.org/1.3.0/en/admin/html/vpnaw.html
That says VPNs are possible, terminated from the IPCOP box.
thats an ipsec vpn, quite different to pptp. it creates a tunnel
Could someone give me the agenda for next Monday nights meeting and
confirm that it is at the hall in Sydenham at 7.30 pm.
Many thanks ... Mal
Hi Nick,
Good to actually see the technical reasons for it - I wonder why only the
Nokia bothered making their router work for it. I'm very constrained in
what can be used - and that is a router at most clients sites - the users
have no expertise, but can manage plug their network cables here
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:03, you wrote:
They don't want yet another computer
just to get a connection.
Indeed!
But they _do_ want another computer to protect them from all the evil-doers out there.
You should see my log files with all the cracking attempts.
--
Sincerely etc.,
Christopher Sawtell
and with a NAT router/modem they do get that protection to a large
degree. Nothing gets in without a pinhole set by the user (same as ipcop)
or a flaw in the router (possible, also possible with ipcop).
you don't get to control what goes out (same on ipcop, although a
rewrite of the iptables
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 03:09:01PM +1200, Nick Rout wrote:
and with a NAT router/modem they do get that protection to a large
degree. Nothing gets in without a pinhole set by the user (same as ipcop)
or a flaw in the router (possible, also possible with ipcop).
nevertheless most people are
..and I found some on Trademe.
-Original Message-
From: Nick Rout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2003 3:09 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: OT -ADSL router capable of multiple VPN connections to
sames erve r?
and with a NAT
I am with Nick on this one.
After using IPCop for a while I realised that my ADSL router with NAT did
everything which I used IPCop for, so I retired the IPCop box.
Robert
Never test the depth of the water with both feet.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Gregan [mailto:[EMAIL
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 03:53:02PM +1200, wrote:
I am with Nick on this one.
After using IPCop for a while I realised that my ADSL router with NAT
did everything which I used IPCop for, so I retired the IPCop box.
How does your ADSL router handle source routed packets?
-mjg
--
Matthew
Perhaps I should have worded ..
.everything which I deliberately used IPCop for.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Gregan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2003 3:56 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: OT -ADSL router capable of
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:29:10 +1200
Matthew Gregan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 03:09:01PM +1200, Nick Rout wrote:
and with a NAT router/modem they do get that protection to a large
degree. Nothing gets in without a pinhole set by the user (same as ipcop)
or a flaw in
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:05:36PM +1200, wrote:
Perhaps I should have worded ..
.everything which I deliberately used IPCop for.
You weren't using IPCop as a firewall?
NAT does not provide the same protection as a packet filter or firewall.
I tried to hint at this with my
I cannot remember the details now but I used the fairly standard IPCop
settings with a couple of pinholes enabled.
Robert
Never test the depth of the water with both feet.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Gregan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 September 2003 4:11
Does anyone know of an NZ unix server co-operative?
By that, I mean a unix box on the Internet, where a member can have root
access easily available?
I co-admin ourshack.com, which runs in the UK, and there we have about a
dozen sysadmins, all pitching in to different parts of the system. It
Hi Jaco,
Is it save to upgrade to gcc 3.2 on a RH7.3 box ?
This I cannot answer sorry...
I have unsuccessfully tried to install Epson's Iscan some time back.
OT Chris is quite right about xsane not being on top of scanning. It is
okay for colour prints, colour slide film and bw negatives,
Hi there,
is your cd volume muted/turned right down. run the mixer and check.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:28:36 +1200
Mal R Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I upgraded to Linux Mandrake 9.1 but it lost me the use of KsCD . Any
suggestion on how to get it running again. It is still in the
have you got iscan running on mandrake 9.1 yet?
this person did:
http://www.mostang.com/pipermail/sane-devel/2003-August/008593.html
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 04:32:07 + (GMT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot get quality scans on 4x6 high-quality prints with xsane. Iscan
(when I had mandrake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Matthew Gregan wrote:
NAT does not provide the same protection as a packet filter or firewall.
That depends on a lot of factors and exactly what you define as a packet
filter or a firewall.
There's a few misunderstandings
post of the month, thanks for the explanation.
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:41:21 +1200 (NZST)
David Zanetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Matthew Gregan wrote:
NAT does not provide the same protection as a packet filter or
Hi there,
have you got iscan running on mandrake 9.1 yet?
Not yet.
this person did:
http://www.mostang.com/pipermail/sane-devel/2003-August/008593.html
I hadn't read that, but already tried the method mentioned. I note that
Iscan docs claim if you installed sane from rpm, get iscan from
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 04:49:16 + (GMT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
have you got iscan running on mandrake 9.1 yet?
Not yet.
this person did:
http://www.mostang.com/pipermail/sane-devel/2003-August/008593.html
I hadn't read that, but already tried the method
I cannot get quality scans on 4x6 high-quality prints with xsane. Iscan
(when I had mandrake 9.0) was able to do a beautiful job, even right up
at 1200 dpi. Xsane scans even at super-high res makes pictures taken on
my thousand dollar Minolta SLR camera look like they came from a cheap
35mm
33 matches
Mail list logo
