Hi All, OK, I'll explain registration.
If an unidentified MAC asks the cable box (STB) for an IP through DHCP, it is assigned a 10.0.0.0/8 address and every DNS request is redirected to the address of start.ntl. So all you need is a java capable browser to register a MAC address. Currently you can't register Bering boxes by NAT'ing though them because they use their root DNS servers, not the ones passed through DHCP. > "Is it possible that you have your firewalling set to block access to > private-address network ranges (including 10.0.0.0/8)?" Is the firewall blocking rfc1918? Wait a minute, isn't there something somewhere that blocks ALL rfc1918 addresses in shorewall? That norfc switch in shorewalls, erm, one of the shorewall files? I know that NTL uses many rfc1918 networks, so would shorewall block packets from a DHCP server with that address? > "Do you "clear" shorewall, *then* run ifup (or pump directly) from the > command line?" Yes, I run shorewall clear then pump. > "At this point, what ruleset information does Shorewall report?" I don't know, how would I find that out/dump it to a file? > "And what does "ip" tell you about your interfaces?" "ip addr show" shows me lo, eho0 and eth1. Both adaptors have the usual info. eth0 has no IP address. eth1 is fine. Now, uClibc. After all that, last night I have re-established connectivity. I spoofed my external MAC on a Win98 box and I know that the clean uClibc disk that I was testing with works (except DNS, does this need configuration with 2.2?). Now, until I get back tonight, I won't be able to test my Bering 1.2 disks with this registered setup. If it works, then I guess I was blocking rfc1918 addresses somewhere and the net DHCP server was 10.0.0.0/8. Regardless, no, my Bering 1.2 disks are stock and have had no security updates applied. Currently, how bad is this? I would have some things to move over to a new system, vtun tunnels, wondershaper. I don't know if B-uC 2.2 supports those yet. But I *would* get it back on one disk again. Two is a hassle and so slow to load. And what's up with all these changes to shorewall? Is that a new version or just a custom config that comes with B-uC 2.2? Right, I think that's everything. Thanks Ray. James. -----Original Message----- From: Ray Olszewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 September 2004 04:58 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [leaf-user] DHCP & NTL cable problem. Unless I missed something, you haven't yet resolved this. So here are a few thoughts. At 09:25 AM 8/26/2004 +0100, James Neave wrote: >Hi all, > >NTL has recently upgraded my cable box, taking my line from 1Mb/s to >1.5Mb/s. Very nice of them. >But my fairly long serving Bering 1.2 box has thrown a hissy fit, >because NTL reset the MAC registration which only lets you connect >registered NICs to their network. Now, pump won't get an IP address. >It's MEANT to get a 10.a.b.c address and all HTML requests are >redirected to the registration server. All I get is "Operation Failed" >when you try to restart the networking. Is it possible that you have your firewalling set to block access to private-address network ranges (including 10.0.0.0/8)? The registration server itself if probably some 10.b.c.d address. >Can anybody tell he how I can diagnose what's going wrong? > >We've successfully registered a Win98 box on the thing, which works >fine. I think the next step is to tell us what procedure is involved in "registering" a MAC address. Do you have to run some piece of software that is available ONLY for Windows PCs? Or are you talking here merely about connecting the Windows PC directly to your cable modem? Or something else? (Your earlier comment about "the registration server" seem to say "something else", but I may be misunderstanding you.) >It's not cables, all connectivity has been checked. >I've cleared shorewall and prevented my vtun tunnels from trying to >build themselves. Please clarify the sequence here. Do you "clear" shorewall, *then* run ifup (or pump directly) from the command line? At this point, what ruleset information does Shorewall report? And what does "ip" tell you about your interfaces? >I also read the ifupdown man page on how to spoof a MAC address, but >that implies that you can only use he hwaddress switch with static ip >interfaces, not dynamic. I'm not sure what the man page for ifupdown says that "implies" this, but older systems, ones that use ifconfig, can set the hardware address independently of the method used to get an IP address. I don't have a system handy with the man page for "ip", but my memory says that it too can set MAC address independently of IP address. (Subject to the customary qualification, for both commands, that the NIC driver needs to suppor this feature.) >Finally, should I just take this as a good opportunity to upgrade to >-uClibc? If you think of uClibc as a hammer, not all problems are nails. You'd do better to figure out the cause of your problem than to try solutions at random. While moving to uClibc is probably a good idea (is your Bering 1.2 setup current on all security issues?), it may not fix your immediate problem. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idP47&alloc_id808&op=click ------------------------------------------------------------------------ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
