Linux-Networking Digest #948, Volume #9 Wed, 20 Jan 99 06:13:41 EST
Contents:
Re: onboard DSP winmodem? (Ray)
2 modems one connection ("Your Name")
3Com 3c509b, not working under RH 5.2 (Melvin Mathew Meadlin II)
Re: Hackers used my linuxserver be hacked gateway How to fixing? ("Scot E. Wilcoxon")
Re: diald and assigned IP (and ipfwadm?) (Peter W)
to get SATAN... ("Michael Lee Yohe")
Re: Telnet, 2 minutes for conect.. ("Douglas S. Huneycutt, Sr.")
Re: Disappearing Default IP Route (Bob)
Diald make on RH 5.1 ("Joseph Kexel")
Re: IP Aliasing problem (Alex Tsekhansky)
Re: PPP/ISDN Problems. Help! (Clifford Kite)
Newbie with Connection Problems ("The News")
Questions about NAMED at STARTUP ("[D]�J")
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (jedi)
Re: Can't telnet to IMAP daemon's ports (Bob)
Re: Telnet, 2 minutes for conect.. (TeoeT)
RedHat 5.2 and NE2000 ("EC_IT")
Re: Disappearing Default IP Route (Brian McCauley)
Re: ip masq... client ping time out. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux/Win98 Network Problem (Gereon Wenzel)
Re: Help! Ethernet problem II (still no clue) (Richard Hector)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: onboard DSP winmodem?
Date: 20 Jan 1999 08:29:46 GMT
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:07:27 -0000, Simon Allfrey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I take it that this means that it's non-supported status is due to the
> fact that proprietary software is required rather than it's being an
>intrinsically crummy device which freeloads off the CPU?
These still use the host's cpu to do some of the work, just not as much and
they still don't use the standard UART interface that real modems use. Not
only won't these work in Linux, but Windows users will end up throwing them
away when Windows 2000 or whatever comes out unless Luscent feels like
re-writing the drivers.
>
>Rob Clark wrote in message
>>Although it is not HSP, it is HCF, i.e. host-controller. So it's still a
>>winmodem, just a different flavor of winmodem.
>>http://www.multiwave.com/pd_cw56kpci_lu.htm
>>Rob Clark, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>http://www.o2.net/~gromitkc/winmodem.html
>
>
--
Ray
ray AT sonictech DOT net
------------------------------
From: "Your Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 2 modems one connection
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:14:38 +0000
I was wondering how I would go about using two mdoems, connecting them to
the same isp and evenly distributing the bandwidth between the two of them.
tortexbigfoot.com
-AL
------------------------------
From: Melvin Mathew Meadlin II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: 3Com 3c509b, not working under RH 5.2
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:42:48 -0800
Hello,
I have a 3com 3c509b ethernet card which works fine under Windows 95,
but I can't get it to work under Red Hat 5.2. Does anyone have any
suggestions????
--
Melvin Mathew Meadlin II
If is the biggest word in the middle of life
Melvin Mathew Meadlin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:12:50 -0600
From: "Scot E. Wilcoxon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hackers used my linuxserver be hacked gateway How to fixing?
> I thought the security bugs were long ago fixed! Or are you reporting
> something which was only true long ago? I haven't see anything from CERT
> on this in recent software...
See http://www.redhat.com/support/docs/rhl/rh52-errata-general.html
but it says the 5.2 server was already repaired.
------------------------------
From: Peter W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: diald and assigned IP (and ipfwadm?)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:17:22 -0500
Troutman wrote:
> Also....when setting up rules in ipfwadm, it requires the ip of the
> interface. When running pppd using a variable IP address, what is the
> easiest way to get the info into IPFWADM?
ipfwadm does NOT require your interface's IP address. Use the -W option, e.g.
for SMTP
ipfwadm -I -P tcp -a accept -W ppp0 -D 0.0.0.0/0 25
-Peter
------------------------------
From: "Michael Lee Yohe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: to get SATAN...
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 02:59:32 -0600
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux,comp.security.unix,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.security,comp.security.firewalls,comp.security.misc
>>you may want to take a look at SATAN: System Administrator Tool for
>>Analyzing Network
>
>Where can this program be found ?? I am very interested in it too !
http://www.fish.com/satan/
***************************************************************************
* Michael Lee Yohe Office: TH N318 *
* UAH ASPIRE System Administrator Office: 256-890-6904 *
* UAH CS Assistant Administrator Home: 256-828-2667 *
* Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.aspire.cs.uah.edu/mlyohe *
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Douglas S. Huneycutt, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Telnet, 2 minutes for conect..
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:23:46 -0500
Make sure your addresses are addressable -- either in your hosts files (on
both
boxes) or in your local DNS (on you Linux box, hopefully). Otherwise the
reverse
lookups will have to time out before the connection attempt continues. (I
think
I said that right......)
Doug
TeoeT wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>well,
> i have the same dang problem..
> TeoeT
>
>J Davi Evora H�nggi wrote:
>
>> I have instaled one Red Had 5.1 in one litle intranet, al works
>> fine.
>>
>> When I telnet to the Linux machine from my Win95 machine I must wait
>> more that 2 minutes for the login message (al pings are < 1 ms)
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> More thanks
>>
>> J Davi
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disappearing Default IP Route
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:43:51 -0500
August Johnson wrote:
> I've got a problem that's plagued several Redhat 5.0 systems I've made.
> I've used the network setup to set up the default IP route. This route
> works for 5-10 minutes and then disappears from the routing table. If I
> then manually type it in "route add -net 0.0.0.0 gw 209.63.xxx.xxx eth0"
> everything works fine from then on, as long as I don't restart the system.
>
> I tried putting this statement in rc.local, but it acts no different.
> Until the route vanishes on it's own, typing it manually won't make it stay
> around. Can anyone tell me if I'm missing something? The Redhat
> installation is just as it comes when it's installed from the CD. Yeah, I
> know I should be using 5.2, that'll happen soon.
>
> Thanks!
>
> August
#! /bin/sh
PATH="/bin:/sbin:/usr/bin:/usr/sbin"
ISP_USER_ID=user_id
ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
route add -net 127.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 lo
IPADDR=209.63.xxx.yyy
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
NETWORK=209.63.xxx.0
BROADCAST=209.63.xxx.255
GATEWAY=209.63.xxx.xxx
ifconfig eth0 ${IPADDR} netmask ${NETMASK} broadcast ${BROADCAST}
route add ${NETWORK} yourlan
[ "${GATEWAY}" ] && route add default gw ${GATEWAY} metric 1
-Bob
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Kexel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Diald make on RH 5.1
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 08:11:32 -0600
I have been having a great deal of trouble getting diald to to compile on my
RH 5.1 systems (I have 2, one full and one partial install). Generally, I
get many errors in reference to in.h which finally ends in an ERROR1,
terminating the make process. I have been unable to get any object files
successfully created. I have checked and I have 2 instances of in.h on the
system. The warnings I receive refer to both files. I have tried renaming
each alternately and using the make -i to force a compile, but no luck.
Its seems strange that a full install of RH 5.1 and a fresh download of
diald would produce such errors. Any suggestions would be greatly
appreciated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Tsekhansky)
Subject: Re: IP Aliasing problem
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:54:27 GMT
Thanks very much for the reply. When I did the grep, I got
0013db48 register_net_alias_type_Ra5ef7bec
0013db94 unregister_net_alias_type_Re95ca4b9
which I guess, means that aliasing is installed.
Any other thing I can try? May be upgrading RedHat to 5.2?
Alex.
On 14 Jan 1999 18:42:20 +0000, Brian McCauley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Alex Tsekhansky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I have a problem configuring aliasing on RedHat 5.1.
>>
>> I compiled kernel with aliasing included and when I try to use something
>> like
>>
>> ifconfig eth0:0 192.168.0.1
>>
>> I get an error message
>>
>> SIOCSIFADDR: Invalid argument
>>
>> Also if I try to load ip_alias.o with insmod, I get
>>
>> ip_alias.o: unresolved symbol register_net_alias_type_R9eeab982
>> ip_alias.o: unresolved symbol ip_rt_dev_Rde10f949
>> ip_alias.o: unresolved symbol unregister_net_alias_type_R575fb95a
>>
>> I would appreciate any thoughts and/or comments.
>
>Looks like the version of ip_alais you are using is not from the same
>kernel build as your kernel.
>
>Try:
>
>grep register_net_alias_type </proc/ksyms
>
>Do you see anything?
>
>If you see nothing the you are running a kernel wihout network alias
>support. You can't load the IP alias support without the network
>alias support loaded.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clifford Kite)
Subject: Re: PPP/ISDN Problems. Help!
Date: 14 Jan 1999 17:24:30 -0600
Bill Shupp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I'm trying to connect my Linux machine, which has an external 3Com Impact
: IQ ISDN Terminal Adapter, to an Ascend Pipeline 50. Below is what appears
: in the log when dbug is on. It's hanging up as soon as I send my IP
: address.
: I can connect to another ISP (which has a Pipeline 75) just fine. Any
: Jan 13 22:40:28 bill pppd[6927]: pppd 2.3.3 started by root, uid 0
: Jan 13 22:40:28 bill ifup-ppp: pppd started for ppp1 on /dev/cua3 at 115200
: Jan 13 22:40:32 bill pppd[6927]: Serial connection established.
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: Using interface ppp0
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/cua3
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <magic
: 0xffff85d3> <pcomp> <accomp>]
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: rcvd [LCP ConfRej id=0x1 <pcomp> <accomp>]
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x2 <magic 0xffff85d3>]
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 < 00 04 00 00>
: <auth pap> <asyncmap 0x0>]
The thing I would try first is to set the pppd option <asyncmap 0>.
The ISP ppp is likely slightly broken and assumes you will accept this
asyncmap configuration for negotiations beyond the LCP stage. If you
don't set the asyncmap, then the default ffffffff is supposed to be used.
An additional benefit of the <asyncmap 0> is that the data transfer
speed is increased - by 15 to 20 percent I think.
I would get rid of any "escape FF" pppd option too.
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: sent [LCP ConfRej id=0x1 < 00 04 00 00>]
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x2 <magic 0xffff85d3>]
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x2 <auth pap>
: <asyncmap 0x0>]
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: sent [LCP ConfAck id=0x2 <auth pap>
: <asyncmap 0x0>]
: Jan 13 22:40:33 bill pppd[6927]: sent [PAP AuthReq id=0x1 user="bills"
: password="XXXXXXXX"]
: Jan 13 22:40:34 bill pppd[6927]: rcvd [PAP AuthAck id=0x1 ""]
: Jan 13 22:40:34 bill pppd[6927]: Remote message:
: Jan 13 22:40:34 bill pppd[6927]: sent [IPCP ConfReq id=0x1 <addr
: 207.55.129.64> <compress VJ 0f 01>]
Every think is OK until here where IPCP negotiation begins, a sign of
an asyncmap problem.
<snip>
--
Clifford Kite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not a guru. (tm)
/* The wealth of a nation is created by the productive labor of its
* citizens. */
------------------------------
From: "The News" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Newbie with Connection Problems
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:51:34 GMT
I have just installed RedHat 5.2 and can't seem to figure out how to get
connected through my ISP. If anyone knows where I can get some information
that I might understand that would be great. Thanks
------------------------------
From: "[D]�J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Questions about NAMED at STARTUP
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:04:10 -0700
When I check my /var/log/messages, I found the following lines. Is it
possible to fix this problem?? if so.. how??
Jan 13 22:14:55 djai named[344]: sysquery: sendto([192.203.230.10].53):
Network is unreacheable
Please Reply ASAP!! Thank You!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:59:04 -0800
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:18:25 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Brent Metzler wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <77tc5e$dks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>says...
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >With this kind of problems, on a stable release of the O/S, with a
>>supported
>>>> >product, it makes me really wonder
>>>> >"Does LINUX SUCK ?"
>>>>
>>>> YES.
>>>
>>>That is so you.
>>>
>>
>>After reading Bob's post after a long while, that becomes obviose. I would
>>kill-file him, except that his posts allow me to get a few laughs without
>>having to go over to rec.humor.funny.
>>
>>He seems to think that all that is needed for everyone to use Linux is for
>>Linux to be "just like Windows" As much as he hates Linux, I wonder why he
>>keeps trying to "give" "advice" to the linux crowd. I imagine that if
>Linux
>>were ever to be "just like Windows" he would be over here complaining about
>>how no one would use Linux. Why? Why would you switch just to end up with
>>what you had now?
>>
>>So keep it coming Bob, I need those chuckles.
>>
>>-Brent
>
>I think you miss the point in that there are things that suck when compared
>with their MS counterparts. Linux and Windows are a set of such a large
>number of technologies this Linux is better than Windows is almost
>meaningless.
>
>Installations could use improvement.
>Spoonfeeding is the goal of installation, not only that a program
>"installs".
>
>For my test I give you this.
>It is so easy I never remember installing a Windows program after having
>done so.
>In Linux, installing apps often leaves me with a memory of struggle.
>Sometimes it leaves me with a new strategy and plan for my next attempt, or
>sometimes I rm the file and look for another program that installs better/at
>all.
Funny, Applix ran fine from both the command line and mult-
window manager startmenu once installed as has most any other
application that I have rpm'ed or built from a tarball just
like any application I ever unarced for GEM or unzipped for
Windows.
It's really not the rocket science that it's made out to be.
Troubles occur in general and objectives have to be reassessed
accordingly regarless of platform.
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can't telnet to IMAP daemon's ports
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 21:49:04 -0500
Olly Segwick wrote:
> Oops, I forgot to mention the jist of it: I'm kicked out of the telnet
> session immediately w/o the chance to enter any input. I get this
> regardless of where I'm telnetting from (either client or locally on the
> server).
The default tcp_wrapper setup in /etc/hosts.allow and .deny might
mention portmap. If you can telnet at all, then get kicked out, this
sounds likely.
-Bob
------------------------------
From: TeoeT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Telnet, 2 minutes for conect..
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 02:06:18 GMT
well,
i have the same dang problem..
TeoeT
J Davi Evora H�nggi wrote:
> I have instaled one Red Had 5.1 in one litle intranet, al works
> fine.
>
> When I telnet to the Linux machine from my Win95 machine I must wait
> more that 2 minutes for the login message (al pings are < 1 ms)
>
> Why?
>
> More thanks
>
> J Davi
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "EC_IT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RedHat 5.2 and NE2000
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:43:04 +0100
I am a complete Linux novice.
During my installation of the RedHat 5.2 distribution I get asked about my
NIC. I have a genuine NE2000 in the machine. It claims that it cannot be
detected, even if I feed it the IO and IRQ manually.
What is the way to proceed?
How and where can I specify the NIC after completing the rest of the
installation?
I need the network to be up and running so I can test the networking
capabilities.
TIA
Rob Hofker
------------------------------
From: Brian McCauley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disappearing Default IP Route
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:42:33 +0000
"August Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've got a problem that's plagued several Redhat 5.0 systems I've made.
> I've used the network setup to set up the default IP route. This route
> works for 5-10 minutes and then disappears from the routing table.
Sounds like you are running an incorrectly configured "routed" or
"gated".
Configure it or don't run it.
This is a fairly common question. A Usenet (DejaNews) search on
"default route disappears" in comp.os.linux.* would have answered your
question in less time than it took you to post it. Or at least
allowed you to elimiate the most common causes of this problem.
Please - everyone, always, search before you post. Failure to do so is
sending an implied insult to all readers of usenet. In effect you are
saying that your time is much more valuable than theirs. (This may or
may not be true but it's not polite to say so).
--
\\ ( ) No male bovine | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. _\\__[oo faeces from | Phones: +44 121 471 3789 (home)
.__/ \\ /\@ /~) /~[ /\/[ | +44 121 627 2173 (voice) 2175 (fax)
. l___\\ /~~) /~~[ / [ | PGP-fp: D7 03 2A 4B D8 3A 05 37...
# ll l\\ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | http://www.wcl.bham.ac.uk/~bam/
###LL LL\\ (Brian McCauley) |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ip masq... client ping time out.
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 01:35:50 GMT
In article <7835fp$tfi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's wierd...
>
> I am using RH5 with Ip_masq. When I use Ip-masq the client machines can surf
> the net.. do the mail thing.. ftp... etc...
>
> But they can't ping anything in www land. Not even the IP address of my
> ISP's nameserver... the pings just timeout
>
> The linux machine has no problem pinging anything on the web.
>
> In TCP/IP properties I have my IP specified as 192.168.0.3
> The gateway as 192.168.0.1
> and my ISP's DNS and domain as what they should be.
>
> A sample route print from the win95 machine: Network Address Netmask
> Gateway Address Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.3
> 1 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0
> 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1 192.168.0.3 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1
> 1 192.168.0.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1 224.0.0.0
> 224.0.0.0 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255
> 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1
>
> Here's the Ip_masq rules that I use:
> # flush current settings:
> /sbin/ipfwadm -O -f
> /sbin/ipfwadm -I -f
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -f
> # default policy is "deny"
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -p deny
> # block Windows housekeeping traffic from triggering autodial etc:
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -a deny -P tcp -S 0.0.0.0/0 137:139
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -a deny -P udp -S 0.0.0.0/0 137:139
> # provide masquerade services for the local machines
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -a m -S 192.168.0.1 -D 0.0.0.0/0 -P all
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -a m -S 192.168.0.2 -D 0.0.0.0/0 -P all
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -a m -S 192.168.0.3 -D 0.0.0.0/0 -P all
> # install modules
> /sbin/insmod ip_masq_cuseeme
> /sbin/insmod ip_masq_ftp
> /sbin/insmod ip_masq_irc
> /sbin/insmod ip_masq_quake
> /sbin/insmod ip_masq_raudio
> /sbin/insmod ip_masq_vdolive
>
> hmmm.. anything else I should include/exclude???
>
> Another wierd thing that happens... I just disconnected form my ISP so I
> didn't tie up my phone line while I typed this message.. I type route print
> again:
>
> Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0
> 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.3 1 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
> 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1 192.168.0.3
> 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.0.255 255.255.255.255
> 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1 205.188.252.16 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.254
> 192.168.0.3 1 208.10.192.161 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.3 1
> 224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1 255.255.255.255
> 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1
>
> this happens quite a bit... I have no idea what those two mysterious IP
> addresses are. Also.. when I restart the win95 mahcine and the linux box is
> NOT connected at the time and I type route print I get my ISP's nameserver
> IP's in replacement of the mysterious IP's above. In either case I have to
> actually goto the dos prompt and remove them from the route table before
> IP_masq will work. As you may guess my wife does not like to check the route
> table everytime she wants to check her mail.
>
> Anyone have any ideas what might be causing either of these probs... ???
> any suggestions would be appretiated.
>
> Thanks
> Matt G
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Oops... looks like the route tables didn't come out properly.
Hmmm.. damn return characters.
lemme try and cut and paste it again... this time no matter how uneven it
looks I will not screw with it. maybe it will look good once uploaded to the
news server?
If not .. maybe just what I have said below will give you an idea what is
going on. Note: this is just the route table that works. If you want to see
the one with the wierd IP's in it.. just reply saying so.
Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Interface Metric
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.3 1
127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1
192.168.0.3 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1
192.168.0.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1
224.0.0.0 224.0.0.0 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1
255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.3 1
Thanks again..
Matt G
Hope this time it works better.
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Gereon Wenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux/Win98 Network Problem
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:57:09 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe Windoze 98 uses encrypted passwords, like NT does.
Doze 95 started doing so with OSR2 Release.
I can login from to my Samba box from 95 (Release 0 SP1) without
Problems. for NT i Had to chande the registry entries to allow
clear text passwords. For details read /doc/packages/samba/WinNT.txt
Gereon Wenzel (-8
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:04:47 +1300
From: Richard Hector <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help! Ethernet problem II (still no clue)
"Stuart R. Fuller" wrote:
>
> Kyle J. Lee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : TX packets: 1603 errors: 0 dropped:0 overruns:0
> ^^^^
>
> The non-zero error count on TX packets might have something to do with this.
I didn't see the original post, so I don't know the context, but ...
That's not the error count, that's the packet count. The error count is
zero.
Richard Hector
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.networking) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Networking Digest
******************************
