Linux-Networking Digest #952, Volume #9 Wed, 20 Jan 99 18:13:44 EST
Contents:
Re: Connect without hub (Robert Yoder)
Re: Linux, Cablemodems and static ips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Todd Knarr)
Re: smaba & win98 (Raymond Doetjes)
Re: What is pppd doing to my poor modem? ("Stu")
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (Bernd Eckenfels)
Re: Linux server on small network ("Robin Malton")
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Crystal CS8920 driver needed. (Terrelle Shaw)
Re: DHCP Client not working with ADSL and Bellsouth.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Transmit time out ("Daren Jacobs")
Re: Disk size req'd for Linux cable modem server (Nikhil Sharma)
Re: forwarding, masquerading, firewalling?????? (Andrew Pickin)
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Satch)
Long UsersIds (Francisco Ruiz)
Reading from serial port --- PLEASE HELP! (Jussi Kuikka)
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Reinder)
Minimum call timer on diald? (Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Yoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.sys.sun.admin,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.win95
Subject: Re: Connect without hub
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:34:58 -0700
Paul Gress wrote:
>
> If the machines are connected direct, there cannot be any collisions. Two wires
> are for transmit and two wires are for receive. This is why you need a crossover
> in the wires. So the computers can be connected:
>
> Computer "A" Computer "B"
>
> Xmit --------------->Rec
> Rec--------------->Xmit
>
> There cannot be a collision. One computer the Xmit is connected directly to the
> Rec and the Rec is connected directly to the Xmit.
>
> With a Hub, all the Xmit's are connected on the same side, and all the Rec's are
> connected on the same side. It's up to the Hub to allow only one Xmit or Rec at
> a time between one set of computers. If two sets of computers try to communicate
> to the same computer at the same time, there is a possibility of a collision.
From: http://www.lantronix.com/htmfiles/mrktg/catalog/et.htm
"A hub takes any incoming signal and repeats it out all ports."
That is, a hub is just a multi-port repeater.
It makes _NO_ decisions about the communication going on between
machines.
> Chris Cappuccio wrote:
>
> > What about the situation where you are connecting together two machines
> > via RJ45 ? Don't ethernet cards with 10bT interfaces rely on the hub
> > for collision detection? If a hub detects a collision, it sends out a signal
> > which causes the cards to retransmit...Otherwise packets are lost?
> >
> > In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Rob Wiltbank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> No, a hub is designed to to take packets and distribute them as best as
> > >> is can to their destination. You're more likely to have packets collide
> > >> on a peer to peer than through a hub.
> >
> > > Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought a hub simply made the appropriate
> > > electrical connections. That is, to my knowledge, a hub does not
> > > deal with packets, only with electronics. (If it deals with packets
> > > and distributes them to their destinations appropriately, then it
> > > is probably a switch. Granted, one could say "hub" and mean
> > > "switching hub", but in those context (microhubs) that's probably
> > > not the idea.)
> >
> > > So, in my understanding, you're *just* as likely to have packets
> > > collide on a two host network whether or not you have a hub.
> >
> > > - Logan
> >
> > > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
> > --
> > --
> > More people have died in the last five minutes from alcohol and tobacco use
> > than have died from LSD and MDMA use in the history of the world.
Robert Yoder
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Unix: The Solution to the W2K Problem."
.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux, Cablemodems and static ips
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:33:39 GMT
Well, I'm having a problem getting DHCP to work. I have Red Hat 5.2 and I've
read both HOWTO's on dhcpcd and cablemodems. I've gone as far as rewriting the
scripts and still nothing works...if I set the modem as a static IP (which I'm
really stealing use of an IP) it works just fine. And I can get dhcpcd to work
if I manually set -h switch to my host name.
If any one has any answers than send me an e-mail.
Thanks
Jake
In article <75mtev$779$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But it works when I enable DHCP, and doesn't work when I change it to manual.
> Any other ideas?
>
> Jay
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> > > I'm having problems running Linux on my cablemodem with my static ip. Does
> > > someone have any information on this? Thanks.
> >
> > Check out comp.dcom.modems.cable.
> > And be aware that many cable ISP's program their equipment
> > with your NIC's MAC address, so you can't use your cable
> > modem with a different Ethernet card than the one you
> > were using when they installed the modem.
> > (Mine will let me switch MAC addresses if I call them.)
> > - Dan
> >
> > --
> > Speaking only for myself, not for my employer
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ?
Date: 20 Jan 1999 06:49:55 GMT
j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now you can take your Winders, add in file-sharing in just a
> couple of minutes, bring up your Winders workstations and
> locate and link in within just another few minutes. Easy.
> Quick. Relatively painless. Not the Linux way ...
Let me ask you this, though: are you aware of just _how_ much
access you're giving out? Check on the security newsgroups about
Windows shares and people with cable modems. Yes, Windows networking
is easy. Shooting yourself in the foot is also easy. "Easy" does
not neccesarily mean "good" or "recommended".
Windows often lets you do things without understanding _what_ it
is you're doing. Linux has one big advantage here: by the time
you figure out how to do something, you're usually knowledgeable
enough to know when and why you shouldn't.
> Now Linux IS relatively compact and fast and DOES get past
> some of the old buggaboos inherent to DOS-derived systems,
> but Linux just isn't "ripe" yet. It needs DUN boxes and
> "Network" panels which HELP you with things and show all
> the pertinent options and conflicts right there.
Actually it doesn't. I put together a shell script that, assuming
you're looking to hook up to the same ISP I am, asks you a few
questions and configures a PPP interface for you. You actually
need to know _less_ than you would to get Windows configured for
the same thing. Of course it's going to need modification for any
other ISP, but that's about a 15-minute job for someone familiar
with that ISP. It's not perfect, and it makes a lot of assumptions
about what you're doing, but it should work for 90% of dial-up
users ( and the other 10% already know what they're doing and
don't need my help ).
--
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be
very selective about who its friends are.
-- Kyle Hearn
------------------------------
From: Raymond Doetjes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: smaba & win98
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:12:15 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============4ED72C23CD13E520D49FA4D8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Are the samba workgroup and the Win98 workgroup the same???
Do you also have user accounts in Win 98??
Raymond
rbrewer wrote:
> My win98 machine sees the samba drive on my linux machine but always asks
> for a password which never works. I log onto the win machine with the same
> login and password as my linux machine (i.e.-root, "pwd"). I feel that there
> is something wrong on the win machine with tcp/ip setup but have gone
> through every setting with no luck. I have tried deleting the pwl files and
> restarting, etc. Any help would be appreciated. I recently changed from
> slackware to redhat 5.0 to avoid all the hassles of setting up ppp, network
> card and graphics. This seems like deja vue but that's what newsgroups are
> for.
> Thanks
==============4ED72C23CD13E520D49FA4D8
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Raymond Doetjes
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Raymond Doetjes
n: Doetjes;Raymond
org: SYNAPSES IT
adr: Overijsselhaven 47;;;Nieuwegein;Utrecht;3433 PH;The Netherlands
email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
title: programmeur VAB
tel;work: 030 6066411
tel;fax: 030 6067871
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
==============4ED72C23CD13E520D49FA4D8==
------------------------------
From: "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is pppd doing to my poor modem?
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:15:44 -0500
>Try adding &K3 to the modem initialization string unless you are sure that
>it's in the factory profile for the modem with fcs errors. This enables
>RTS/CTS flow control. AT&V in minicom will show the profiles.
It doesn't accept &K3. Unfortunately, I don't have the user manual that came
with the modem, and since compaq bought microcom, I can't find any online
documenatation. So I don't even know what the AT command set for the modem
is.
>It means that the UART your modem uses needs to be at capabable of keeping
>up with the modem speed. For a 28.8+ modem you need a 16550A UART and
Yea, it's got a 16550A. Thought of that. It's an external modem, the serial
port doesn't change between the modems, so the problem is confined to the
modem.
>The other things I know about that might contribute to fcs error are the
>absence of the pppd crtscts option, the absence of the asycnmap option
It's got all that. I appreicate your time with this. But I've tried
everything. Nobody's got a manual for this modem, but there's zillions of
sites with recommended AT init strings, so I've tried a bunch of them not
knowing at all what they're trying to do, and either they don't work at all,
or I get the same results. I've looked in the source for pppd and haven't
found anything suspicious.
I don't know the ppp protocol at all. Is there maybe some command sequence
that get's escaped that only happens during an error?
------------------------------
From: Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Date: 20 Jan 1999 06:58:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.networking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> offcourse a real user friendly system would not put the purdon on the user
> to figure the order of those 6 or 7 rpms to install.
Both RPM and DEB support Dependecies.
Greetings
Bernd
------------------------------
From: "Robin Malton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux server on small network
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:05:57 -0000
Steve Lamb wrote in message ...
> Call me sick, but I use VNC on my Windows machine to access my Linux
>box. I could run an X server but prefer this since most X servers for
>Windows are *REALLY* odd in how they do things. Here at least everything
is
>still on the Linux box and I know it will work since the Windows portion is
>only a client. Besides, VNC is kind of like screen. When I decide I'm
done
>with the X desktop I just shut down VNC but all my sessions are still
there.
>;)
>
VNC is at http://www.orl.co.uk/vnc/index.html take a look
Robin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ?
Date: 20 Jan 1999 01:49:35 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The sheer number of messages posted here - usually half going
>unanswered - tells the tale ... Linux networking sucks.
>
>Now you can take your Winders, add in file-sharing in just a
>couple of minutes, bring up your Winders workstations and
>locate and link in within just another few minutes. Easy.
>Quick. Relatively painless. Not the Linux way ...
Really? For some reason I'm always sitting at the machine that
*needs* the files, not the one that has them. How do I get that
remote windows machine to share it's files without hiking over
there to click it's mouse?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Terrelle Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Crystal CS8920 driver needed.
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:49:51 -0800
Hmm i just saw this, but in my Kernel sources, it was provided. I also have
this "ch ip" in my Dell Latitude CP
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:
>"Happyguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I have an IBM GL300, the onboard net adator is Crystal CS8920.
>> Which driver should I use or what driver should I get(if there
>> is no appropriate one in this version of Linux).
>> I'm using REDHAT 5.1,and any suggestion is appreciated.
>
>http://www.cirrus.com/drivers/ethernet/
>
>--
>-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
>Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
>521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
>Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: DHCP Client not working with ADSL and Bellsouth.net
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:56:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may depend on what kernel version you are using. After kernel
v2.1.something
> the DHCPCD v0.70 will not work. I use a roadrunner cable modem, and I
downloaded
> a newer daemon "rrdhcpcd" and it worked.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have seen a ton of messages concerning setting up Linux for ADSL in
> > combination with having to use DHCP but none of them have helped me to solve
> > my problem. So, I am posting in hopes that someone out there has done the
> > same thing as I'm trying to do in a very very similar situation.
> >
> > I am using ADSL through Bellsouth.net in the Birmingham, AL area. Under
> > Win95 everything is going great and working fine. When I tried setting up
> > Linux, I installed the dhcpcd (client, not dhcpd) but it's failing every
time
> > I try to use it. I've followed the following suggestions with no luck yet:
My apologies for not posting some more information on that track. I'm using
kernel version 2.0.36 and I've tried using both 0.70 and 1.3.17. I'm not
using that rrdhcpcd I would imagine that's a fix for something that
roadrunner is doing? I'm not familiar with it...
Thank you for your post.
- Darricke
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Daren Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Transmit time out
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:37:01 -0500
I have just set up my Linux 5.2 server and I am getting the following error
message:
"
eth0: transmit timed out status 0050 command 0000
eth0: Trying to restart the transmitter"
Can anyone assist with this as I have never seen this error message before.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:01:54 +0100
From: Nikhil Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disk size req'd for Linux cable modem server
If you use RedHat along with the software you listed you may all need to get 1 GB
of harddisk space. This given the fact that you do not use this box for archival
or user space purposes, in which case you might as well consider upgrading your
box altogether.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am a newbie that want to setup a Linux box. It will serve mainly as cable
> modem server/firewall but I would also like to tinker with Linux apps.
> I want X, and be able to play with Star Office and compiling tools. I may also
> want to have this linux box serve as print server for two other windoze pc.
>
> What size of hard drive would I need / would you recommend?
> The machine is a P200MMX with 32MB RAM
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rudy
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Andrew Pickin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: forwarding, masquerading, firewalling??????
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:01:03 +0000
Luca Filipozzi wrote:
.............
>
> Procedure to debug:
> From the firewall:
> 1 - you should be able to ping the localhost
> 2 - you should be able to ping a host on the internet
> 3 - you should be able to ping a host on your LAN
>
> From a host on your LAN:
> 4 - you should be able to ping the firewall
> 5 - you should be able to ping a host on the internet
>
> If you can't get one of the steps to work, then you need to see where the
> packets are getting blocked. To figure this out, you can use tcpdump as
> follows:
>
> Let's say that step 5 doesn't work and that the "host on your LAN" has IP
> address 192.l68.1.2. On the firewall, run this command:
>
> tcpdump -i eth1 ip proto icmp
> or
> tcpdump -i eth1 ip proto 1
>
....on the other side........
> tcpdump -i eth0 ip proto icmp
> or
> tcpdump -i eth0 ip proto 1
>
Ok, my masquerade fails at step 5,
using my outgoing interface ppp0, on a tcpdump -i ppp0 ip proto 1
I see lost of requests for the ping, but nothing comes back
now what do I do? This is with all incoming accepted.
Is the ping's echo a function of the forwarding or the incoming?
TIA
Andy
PS. shouldn't the addresses given previously for the lan be
192.168.1.0/16 not 192.168.1.0/24 ?
--
===================================================================
'Bother!', said Pooh, re-installing Windows yet again.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Satch)
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ?
Date: 20 Jan 1999 14:05:33 PST
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (j) wrote:
> The sheer number of messages posted here - usually half going
> unanswered - tells the tale ... Linux networking sucks.
>
> ...
>
> Now you may try to defend Linux by saying that it has more
> "flexibility" - but quite frankly we could do with a lot
> less "flexibility" and a lot more simplicity. I'll bet
> that 95% of users just want to tie into a local NT server
> or use Linux AS a file/print server for Winders PCs.
> I think that "flexibility" is just an excuse - a euphamism
> for "a bunch of really unsophisticated little utilities
> written with no real plan in mind by people with a fetish
> for cryptic poorly-documented command-line parameters and
> well-hidden config files". As is, Linux is a user-UNfriendly
> mirror of MSDOS - and that goes double for "connectivity" issues.
I would contend you have this backwards: MS-DOS is a user-UNfriendly
mirror of Unix (not just Linux) with all the nasties of Unix without any of
the features that makes Unix a powerful tool.
You have a good point about the lack of a user interface to the networking
system. I've seen some home-brew script generators, written in C, that
work with the standard console to provide a more user-friendly interface.
Haven't seen them offered on the market or even as OSS contributions yet.
The "people with a fetish for cryptic poorly-documented command-line
parameters and well hidden config files" have been graduate students at the
major computer universities such as UC Berkeley, MIT, and UIUC. They
weren't trained in software engineering, and in most cases their efforts
were part of research projects.
What makes the Unix platform so much more interesting than the Windows
platform is that Unix networking was *designed* for research work. Every
new protocol on the planet, it seems, sees its first implementation on a
Unix system.
For the real deal about Microsoft versus connectivity, I suggest you find
and read the so-called "Halloween document" and see what MICROSOFT thinks
about Linux and its connectivity.
--
Satch, guy, testing modems since 1984, working ARPAnet/Internet since 1972.
"Shoulder to Shoulder...Heart to Heart...Satchell to Paige!"
-- Firesign Theatre
------------------------------
From: Francisco Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Long UsersIds
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:15:14 +0100
Hi,
Is there any way to get UserId's longer than 8 characters?
Thanks in advance.
--
Francisco Ruiz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jussi Kuikka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Reading from serial port --- PLEASE HELP!
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:50:24 +0200
Hi,
I got a little "black box" (measuring some things, f.ex.
temperature and humnidity) which sends information
to the serial port (COM2, baud rate 9600, 8 databits,
no parity, no CTS/RTS). It send the data in usual
ascii-formatted and in irregular interval.
How I read that data from the serial port, and
how I tell the right baudrates and so on???
cat /dev/ttyS1 ???
setserial ???
I hope I can see the data both in screen and also
logged to the file...
Thanks in advance, I hope somebody could help !!!
Yours Jusu
------------------------------
From: Reinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ?
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:44:54 +0100
What I would like to know is what people who obviously seem
to dislike Linux do here. If you don't like Linux or it's networking
options
then that's fine with me, but don't bother me with it.
Just go back to your little screens and icons and click your way away.
Richard Steiner wrote:
> Here in comp.os.linux.networking, Darren Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >You know....I dont see what the point of these anti-Linux posts are.
>
> I suspect some of it is because some people are insecure about Linux
> starting to show some serious potential.
>
> --
> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris +
> WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
> To quote the well-known bowl of petunias: "Oh! No! Not again."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin )
Subject: Minimum call timer on diald?
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 99 09:52:51 GMT
Does anyone know if it is possible to define a MINIMUM call timeout for diald?
At least here in England, our main telecomms provider (BT) sets a minimum call
charge which applies even if the call is only a few seconds long. The call
setup time and speed of a modem is such that this usually does not matter but,
with ISDN the situation is different. I would ideally like to have quite a
short idle timeout but only have this come into force after the call has been
up for two or three minutes. If I simply set an idle timeout of, say, 30
seconds I could easily end up making a series of short calls in quick
succession which would cost much more than a single long call...
Thanks in advance...
Martin Bradford
P.S. this would be a major improvement over NT!!!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
