Linux-Networking Digest #956, Volume #9 Thu, 21 Jan 99 03:14:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Real Audio Proxy though Linux; How? (Matt Kressel)
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux server on small network ("Andrew Taylor")
Re: 3C905B-TX (David Crooke)
Re: forwarding, masquerading, firewalling?????? (Luca Filipozzi)
Re: Connect without hub (Robert Yoder)
Re: Login as root with telnet (Sam Clayton)
Re: Linux/Win98 Network Problem (Andy Repton)
Re: Linux server on small network (Steve Lamb)
Re: Linux server on small network (David Damerell)
Re: Real Audio Proxy though Linux; How? (Crewden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matt Kressel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Real Audio Proxy though Linux; How?
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:24:01 GMT
Crewden wrote:
>
> HTTP transport works just fine. Those realaudio sites whose .ram file
> contains a reference to a pnm:// URL don't.
>
> Is there a real audio PNA proxy for linux similar to what the wingate
> Real Audio proxy service provides?
>
> Or can masquerading accomplish this?
>
> Provided there is enough information availabl,e I am prepared to write
> my own.
No need to. The Real Audio Proxy is ususally located in the kernel
source in /usr/src/linux/net/ipv4/. It is called ip_masq_raudio and if
you have the module precompiled, can insert it with insmod. Note that
you need to have IP masquerading enabled to do this.
-Matt
--
Matthew O. Kressel | INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+--------- Northrop Grumman Corporation, Bethpage, NY ---------+
+--------- TEL: (516) 346-9101 FAX: (516) 346-9740 ------------+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:33:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>first, you babble and say i dont understand what i am talking about.
>then, in the same breath, you utter the words "no cpmputer has this
>capability".
>this is exactly my point!!!!! which is the system we have now is
>broke and can be much much more intellgeint. just becuase this system
>does not yet exist, does not mean it can't be written.
>with software one can do anything.
Then, dear Bobby, may I kindly suggest that you be the "one" in that sentence?
You'd very quickly turn unimaginably rich, meaning you no longer have to
wait for that pay raise, and in fact could quit that job as manager assistance
and fully devote yourself to skydiving and the Toastmasters (BTW, when you
claim to have joined a club, it would help your credibility no end if you could
bring yourself to remember that club's name).
Feel free to implement this on any of the broken systems out there --- be
it linux, Windows, MacOS, Be or AmigaOS.
Remember, you code "circles" around me (without me even knowing it, too ;-),
and you have used CodeWarrior on various platforms. You also programmed
UNIX before most of the othe cola participants were born. So surely you must
be able to code something as simple as this?
>>You prove me wrong by writing the software that does EXACTLY what
>>you have described above. I will install your software and say "I
>>want the current version of XEmacs installed with sound enabled and
>>only the GUI interface. Oh BTW I forgot, install it on my Alpha and
>>also on my Pentium" to my computer.
>
>this is not hard. what is so hard about it???? what are the technical
>problems that will prevent good programmers to be not able to design such
>a system???
Well, for one thing, there is the inherent ambiguity of human languages.
>it is a matter of will. if programmers realy want to do such a system,
>they will do it. but programmers are lazy as a rule. if someothing works,
>then no they dont want to improve it. and they want to go do something else
>new.
You remind me again of why I hate people who use phrases like
"Someone should write it", "It can be written", "Writing it should not be hard"
and similar nonsense, without substantiating any of it.
Bernie
--
============================================================================
"It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy...
...let's go exploring"
Calvin's final words, on December 31st, 1995
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: DOES LINUX SUCK
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:33:47 GMT
"Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>For my test I give you this.
>It is so easy I never remember installing a Windows program after having
>done so.
Well, you are the lucky one, then. About half of the things I download and
try to install on the Windows side of my university machine never work, or
don't do what they were supposed to do. Getting rid of them is such a major
pain that I certainly remember installations.
Conversely, I recently installed nethack on that very same machine's linux
side. I was sitting at home at the time, using a telnet client. All I did
was "rpmfind nethack", then confirmed the download, and then used
"rpm -i /down/nethack*". That was it.
Now, just for fun, between typing the previous sentence and this sentence,
I uninstalled nethack again from that machine. I did this by typing
"rpm -e nethack".
Next, I tried uninstalling the qt libraries, with "rpm -e qt". But rpm told
me in no uncertain terms that I shouldn't do that, because a lot of things
would break if I did. It listed the things.
>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.
Let me guess --- you try installing something pre-Alpha from the sources?
Try doing that on Windows....
Bernie
--
============================================================================
"It's a magical world, Hobbes ol' buddy...
...let's go exploring"
Calvin's final words, on December 31st, 1995
------------------------------
From: "Andrew Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Linux server on small network
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:52:56 -0000
Hi,
I've just put a new network together at home it's only 3PC's but it does
what I need. I have two windows machines sharing a monitor and the linux
machine sits across the other side of the room without a keyboard or
monitor. The linux machine is all set up but I find that the windows telnet
program is no good for dealing with PICO etc if I have to change a
configuration. Can anyone suggest a Windows program which can do full screen
colour terminal logins ? I really want to use BitchX under linux as well.
Also there aren't any telnet programs which support virtual terminals are
there ? I've got some system monitoring setup for tty8 but I've got no way
of looking at it when I'm telnetting in.
Best Regards
Andy
------------------------------
From: David Crooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 3C905B-TX
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:05:55 +0000
Paul Hardiman wrote:
>
> This card seems to run faster in win98 mode and linux.
> Any suggestions??
>
I think it unlikely.
My desktop at work is a Dell P200 with RH5.2 and I get >7M*bytes* per
second NFS access over a 100-BaseT link to a fast NFS server. Windows
(3.11, 95, NT) does not come close to this performance.
Dave
--
David Crooke, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh
JCMB Rm 1408, King's Bldgs, W. Mains Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JZ.
Edinburgh University Motor Sport Club - http://www.ed.ac.uk/~eumsc/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luca Filipozzi)
Subject: Re: forwarding, masquerading, firewalling??????
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:33:38 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> 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?
This is the sequence.
The machine on LAN (inside the firewall) emits a ECHO_REQUEST packet
destined for some host on the Internet. The default route of the packet
is to the firewall's eth0 interface (I'm assuming it's your eth0). In
order to receive the packet, the firewall must allow incoming packets (of
this type) on eth0. The firewall looks at the packet, sees that it's
destined for the Internet and forwards the packet to your ISP via the
ppp0 interface (assuming the routing table is right). In the process of
forwarding the packet, the firewall masquerades it by rewriting the
packet's IP header, making it look like the packet originated from the
firewall.
(The firewall keeps track of how it has rewritten the packet's IP header
so that it knows how to rewrite the header of packets that come back from
internet. I won't go into this.)
You say that when you do a tcpdjmp -i ppp0 you see ECHO_REQUEST packets
but you don't seen any ECHO_REPLY packets. So you know two things (again,
assuming your routing tables are correct):
1) The firewall is forwarding packets.
2) The firewall may not be masquerading packets.
If the firewall is only forwarding, then the ECHO_REQUEST packet has the
same IP header as when it came out of the machine on the LAN. This means
that the packet looks like it came from 192.168.1.? (if you're using my
numbers) which is a Class C test network number allocated by IANA.
Packets whose source or destination IP address from the test network
numbers are not routed on the Internet. So the packet never gets to its
destination and an ECHO_REPLY is never generated!
Make sure that you are using masquerading
ipfwadm -F -a masq
and not only forwarding
ipfwadm -F -a allow
If this hasn't solved your problem, then post (or, better, email me, so
you don't tell the whole world how you're set up) the output from the
following:
>From the firewall:
netstat -nr
ifconfig
ipfwadm -I -l
ipfwadm -O -l
ipfwadm -F -l
tracert www.yahoo.com
and, while your pinging from the workstation, the following:
tcpdump -i eth0 ip proto 1
tcpdump -i ppp0 ip proto 1
>From the workstation (assuming 95/NT):
route print
ipconfig /all
tracert www.yahoo.com
That ought to do it.
>
> TIA
>
> Andy
>
> PS. shouldn't the addresses given previously for the lan be
> 192.168.1.0/16 not 192.168.1.0/24 ?
No. IANA has allocated 256 class C test networks whose numbers are
192.168.0.0/24 through 192.168.255.0/24. RFC 1918, which talks about
these test network numbers, says:
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
following three blocks of the IP address space for private internets:
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix)
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix)
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)
We will refer to the first block as "24-bit block", the second as
"20-bit block", and to the third as "16-bit" block. Note that (in
pre-CIDR notation) the first block is nothing but a single class A
network number, while the second block is a set of 16 contiguous
class B network numbers, and third block is a set of 256 contiguous
class C network numbers.
A class C network has a netmask of 255.255.255.0 or /24. When they write
"192.168/16 prefix", they are talking about anything that starts with
192.168, not the netmask.
>
>
--
Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
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: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:29:29 -0700
"Guy A. Wadsworth" wrote:
>
> Robert Yoder wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Not quite true, although we may just be talking semantics.
> A hub (multi-port repeater) will enforce collisions when
> detected. See my previous post for how a hub handles and
> enforces collisions.
OK, I hadn't seen the post with your long explanation.
I just now read it. It makes sense to me.
ry
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Unix: The solution to the W2K Problem."
.
.
------------------------------
From: Sam Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Login as root with telnet
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:49:26 +0000
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Steve Ledford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I received a tip from a guy at work and it worked. Here is is:
>
> edit the file /etc/securetty and add a line, in my case, ttyp0. Lo, I
> can now login over telnet as root.
>
> One final nagging detail. When I logon at the console I can type "top"
> and see all processes. However, when I login over telnet and type "top"
> I only see the summary at the top but no items listed. What's up with
> this? Are there other files that I need to change to get everything
> setup beyond just login? A final note. I am launching telnet on my
> Windoze PC by going to the run menu item and typing "telnet sloth". Is
> this perhaps a display limitation of incomplete vt100 emulation on the
> part of Windoze?
>
> Steve Ledford wrote:
> >
> > I have a very annoying problem with my Linux (RH 5.1) setup at home. I
> > have setup an old PC as a print server/internet gateway. It is headless
> > (ie. no monitor) and I was planning on managing it across my LAN by
> > simply telnet'ing into the thing. Well, telnet works just fine but my
> > login as root is rejected every time. I can log in as one of the user
> > accounts I set up and I can then 'su' to root but this is flat out
> > annoying. What do I need to change on the box in order to enable root
> > login over telnet?
Don't know about red-hat but one of the settings available in the SuSE
configuration/installation tools is 'allow remote root login? yes/no'
This sets a field in a .conf file IIRC ( Can't remeber which one.)
Cheers,
Sam
(If your can't find the setting mail me and I'll hunt it out for you)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Repton)
Subject: Re: Linux/Win98 Network Problem
Date: 20 Jan 1999 16:45:07 GMT
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:25:05 -0600, autodata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm pulling my hair out over a little networking problem.
>
Have you switched off encrypted passwords in Win98? There is
documentation with samba that tells you how, basically you
change a registry setting.
--
Andy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Lamb)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux server on small network
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Jan 1999 11:00:51 +0800
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:41:01 +0000, Matthew Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Best windows telnet package? Tera-Term is quite nice, as it's pretty
>robust and there's an ssh add-on for it, but I much prefer Ewan as it's
>fast and has a decent xterm-like font.
Best of all, Tera-Term is free. ;)
>Alternatively, grab a free X server for Windows and run that. There's one
>called MiX which works OK. I like eXceed, but it's expensive - you'd be
>better off spending the money on another hd and dual-booting :)
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.
;)
--
Steve C. Lamb | Opinions expressed by me are not my
http://www.calweb.com/~morpheus | employer's. They hired me for my
ICQ: 5107343 | skills and labor, not my opinions!
=======================================+=====================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Damerell)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux server on small network
Date: 20 Jan 1999 18:33:24 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've just put a new network together at home it's only 3PC's but it does
>what I need. I have two windows machines sharing a monitor and the linux
>machine sits across the other side of the room without a keyboard or
>monitor. The linux machine is all set up but I find that the windows telnet
>program is no good for dealing with PICO etc if I have to change a
>configuration. Can anyone suggest a Windows program which can do full screen
>colour terminal logins ? I really want to use BitchX under linux as well.
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty.html
Putty is jolly good, and as an added bonus it's an ssh client, too.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] T000B320O500T000N230O500T000L000D510G653I500
T000V430H600T000T000V453S530A530T000D625T000B453T000E200T300S500A530T000V220
A530T000S525A530T000L500O500L500T200I200T000F462T000C415H532A554F400F650T000
A554G453I500T000V430H600T000T000V453S530G520R530A530A653A530A653A530A653A530
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Crewden)
Subject: Re: Real Audio Proxy though Linux; How?
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:52:29 GMT
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:24:01 GMT, Matt Kressel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+Crewden wrote:
+> HTTP transport works just fine. Those realaudio sites whose .ram
file
+> contains a reference to a pnm:// URL don't.
+> Is there a real audio PNA proxy for linux similar to what the
wingate
+> Real Audio proxy service provides?
+> Or can masquerading accomplish this?
+> Provided there is enough information availabl,e I am prepared to
write
+> my own.
+
+No need to. The Real Audio Proxy is ususally located in the kernel
+source in /usr/src/linux/net/ipv4/. It is called ip_masq_raudio and
if
+you have the module precompiled, can insert it with insmod. Note
that
+you need to have IP masquerading enabled to do this.
+
+-Matt
Thanks. I appreciate the your response. I had no idea masquerading
supported it explicitly.
I'll check into it. Thanks again.
Crewden.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
