Linux-Networking Digest #49, Volume #10 Fri, 29 Jan 99 23:13:52 EST
Contents:
Win95 Internet Connection ---> Linux Box ("Jeff Appler")
Re: sun <--> linux box ("Christopher G. Petty")
Windows login to corporate domain thru Linux server ("Christopher G. Petty")
Help, ISP setup! (William Gross)
Re: configuration of eth0 & ifconfig (Man-wai Chang)
Re: Which 'flavor' of Linux best for a M$ Separatist (Eoin)
Re: Request ipfwadm advice ("Mike Westman")
Re: Winchat protocol for linux... ("Christopher G. Petty")
Help, ISP setup! (William Gross)
linux help channel (lattin96)
Re: named: No response from Server (Wowix)
UUCP over TCP logins (Jim Seymour)
Re: PPP dial-up connection with RH5.2 (Mark Murray)
Re: PPP Setup for Uswest.net Dial in (J. Scott Berg)
X.25 point-to-multipoint routing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Nt & linux (David Magda)
Re: Load Balancing (Gyepi Sam)
bytes sent/recvd by network interface (Paul LeMahieu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Appler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Win95 Internet Connection ---> Linux Box
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:39:33 GMT
How would one go about sharing a connection from a win95 box to a linux
box...
Thanks,
Jeff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher G. Petty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sun <--> linux box
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:41:19 -0500
> BUT if you still want connection to the other machines, neither this cable
> nor a hub will help you , without much further ado. this depends on the setup
> of the rest of your network, better ask the network-operators or admins or
> whatever how to do it best.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Here I DISagree.
Plugging both machines in to a hub (or preferably a switch. Netgear makes a nice,
inexpensive 4 port switch that would do the trick here) and then from the hub
(switch) to a single wall port will allow both machines to talk to each other
without tasking the rest of the network. Granted the hub will still broadcast to the
rest of the net, and the switch won't once it finds the other machine (ergo that
suggestion). The other great benifit here would be that your sun and alpha boxes
could communicate with each other at 100Mb/s, while talking to the rest of the LAN
at 10Mb/s.
_CGP
------------------------------
From: "Christopher G. Petty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows login to corporate domain thru Linux server
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:49:33 -0500
Here's one for the thinkers out there. I'll admit I'm stumped on this
one.
I'm trying to allow remote windows users to login to my local LAN vial a
DoD Linux box. The problem is that the domain information refuses to
pass thru the PPP link. Services such as Micro$loth Exchange, Mail, etc
are not seen, nor are the machines on the other side of the PPP link.
I can ping both ways across the PPP link, so routing is not the issue.
The Linux server at the remote site is dialing into an NT 4 SP4 server.
When the link is up, I can ping the remote workstations, the remote
linux box, telnet to the remote linux box, and thru it, ping both remote
and local machines, but none of the NT domain information is being
passed.
Anyone got a clue on how I can get this to work?
Thanks in advance.
_CGP
------------------------------
From: William Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.protocols.ppp,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Help, ISP setup!
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:25:54 -0600
Hello,
I need some help, please. I am running RedHat 5.2 on a a clone pc,
and I am trying to connect to my ISP which is called Integrity Online.
The problem is that they have a firewall, and I have never set Linux up
to deal with a firewall before. I can successfully connect to my ISP,
it assigns me a dynamic ip address, as usual. The problem is I cannot
get out to the internet. Netscape tells me something like it cannot
find the proxy server that I have set up in it even though I know that
the proxy name is correct, it is the same info I use in NT 4.0 and Win95
and they connect and cruise fine. I have pinged the firewall from my NT
and Win95 connections and have put the corresponding ip number in my
hosts file in order for their to be a dns resolution on my end. If I
did not, Netscape complains that "proxy.iolusa.com is unknown" and will
not let me continue to configure it. If I try to ping the firewall or
any valid internet address from my Linux connection, I get the error
from ping that the network is unreachable. The protocol that I am using
is tcp-ip, of course. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have
banged my head against this for awhile and have not gotten anywhere.
Thanks in advance.
Leroy
------------------------------
From: Man-wai Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.linux,comp,linux.redhat,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: configuration of eth0 & ifconfig
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:13:43 +0800
You can use lisa for Openlinux. BUt there is a file in etc/boot/...
to set the IP, netmask... I couldn't recall its name at this moment...
> So If It can't ping its own IP, Linux is the problem. Any idea how to
> assign eth0 a IP?
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eoin)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Which 'flavor' of Linux best for a M$ Separatist
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 02:55:07 GMT
I agree with Mr. Greer's notion: Get SuSE. I found it FAR more
pleasant than RedHat for a first-time, and I still prefer it. I only
tried Caldera from a Linuxmall $1.50 CD (they have all the function,
just no the pay software of the official CD), but I preferred SuSE to
that, too. Debian is nice, but very intimidating to new people and can
seem extremely complex (flexible?).
HTH
--Eoin
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:18:04 -0500, "Paul R. Stoetzer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have used Caldera OpenLinux Lite 1.1 and Red Hat 5.1, I cannot get
>connected to my ISP on either, but on Caldera I couldn't get sound or my
>joystick(for fly8) working. I can on Red Hat though. I am ordering Debian,
>Slackware, and TurboLinux from CheapBytes though and plan to try them all.
>
>Paul R. Stoetzer
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <78q391$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Being a pre-newbie, looking to get involved with Linus. Which flavor would
>>be the best to get involved with.
>>
>>Current skillset M$ NT/98/95 using a NT4 network, DHCP, TCP/IP.....
>>
>>
>>Need to make a stable internal email server of which the 25 windows 95/98
>>outlook97 client users can access internal email as well as external 'isp'
>>email.
>>
>>Right now I am using a Windows 95 machine
>> internal email : microsoft mail (25 users)
>> external email access: 602 internet server
>>(unstable and has to reboot frequently....as usual with MS)
>>
>>
>>Was thinking Caldera or Redhat....not sure though.
>>
>>Thank you for your time
>>Jason
>>
>>please email me at:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Mike Westman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Request ipfwadm advice
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:00:02 -0600
I'm new to this but as I understand it the data can only return along the
same link that is created by the client inside the Ip Masq firewall. No
mater what you set the rules to be (unless you can do a port map) the remote
computers can't create a route to you.
Michael Westman
------------------------------
From: "Christopher G. Petty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Winchat protocol for linux...
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:17:14 -0500
Torsten:
smbclient already does this... granted, it's command line, but it does it.
_CGP
Torsten Kurbad wrote:
> Hi Folks!
>
> Is there anyone willing and able to program some stuff to communicate with
> the winchat program of MS Windows 95/98/NT through linux???
>
> Tnx!
>
> Torsten :o)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> Linux - Where do you want to go tomorrow?
------------------------------
From: William Gross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.protocols.ppp,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Help, ISP setup!
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:50:32 -0600
Hello,
Correction to my post listed below, i.e. my last post. I am using
the ppp protocol. Sorry.
Leroy
_______________________________________________________________
Hello,
I need some help, please. I am running RedHat 5.2 on a a clone pc,
and I am trying to connect to my ISP which is called Integrity Online.
The problem is that they have a firewall, and I have never set Linux up
to deal with a firewall before. I can successfully connect to my ISP,
it assigns me a dynamic ip address, as usual. The problem is I cannot
get out to the internet. Netscape tells me something like it cannot
find the proxy server that I have set up in it even though I know that
the proxy name is correct, it is the same info I use in NT 4.0 and Win95
and they connect and cruise fine. I have pinged the firewall from my NT
and Win95 connections and have put the corresponding ip number in my
hosts file in order for their to be a dns resolution on my end. If I
did not, Netscape complains that "proxy.iolusa.com is unknown" and will
not let me continue to configure it. If I try to ping the firewall or
any valid internet address from my Linux connection, I get the error
from ping that the network is unreachable. The protocol that I am using
is tcp-ip, of course. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have
banged my head against this for awhile and have not gotten anywhere.
Thanks in advance.
Leroy
------------------------------
From: lattin96 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux help channel
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:03:30 +0000
I have made a new linux help channel on dal net the channel is
#linuxhelpers it is for people wanting to help or people in need of
help.with redhat,suse,slackware or other dist.and hardware answers
Thomas W
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:00:45 +0800
From: Wowix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: named: No response from Server
Stef wrote:
> Few days ago I setup a machine withe Debian 2.0 r3. I have named
> running on that machine, since it will be connected to the internet
> later. Right now its just part of my private network
> 192.168.1.0. After installation, named ran fine, and could resolve the
> two hosts I put into /etc/hosts. After I rebooted the machine, named
> does not work properly anymore:
>
> two:~> nslookup
> Default Server: localhost
> Address: 127.0.0.1
>
> > set debug
> > tod
> Server: localhost
> Address: 127.0.0.1
>
try ping tod ........if it works then nothings wrong......
>
> ;; res_mkquery(0, tod.hoes.li, 1, 1)
> timeout
> timeout
> timeout
> timeout
> *** localhost can't find tod: No response from server
> >
>
> Any idea, what could be the problem?
>
> Stef
> --
> WebMaster D-WERK
> UNIX and Windows NT administration, SOS-ETH
> ETH Zurich
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hoes.li
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Seymour)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: UUCP over TCP logins
Date: 30 Jan 1999 03:01:51 GMT
Help!
I've been trying all night to get UUCP-over-TCP login to work
on my RH5.0 Linux box.
The problem seems to be in uucico - I can't seem to get it to
accept a valid login. I've been through every FAQ and HOWTO
I can find.
I created an account for the calling machine. Then did a
grep <host> /etc/passwd >/usr/lib/uucp/passwd. And edited
the resulting file to make it "host password". According to
everything I've been able to find, this *should* work.
Tried ":" in place of the space. Terminated the line with a
":". Ran strings against uucico and observed "/passwd", so
tried putting the file at "/passwd". Tried different
ownerships and permissions settings. Everything I could think
of. No go. /var/log/uucp/Log says "ERROR: Bad login".
<rant>
Why in the blue blazes can't that @#$!#@$!! implementation use
the normal !@#%$!!! /etc/passwd file like every other !@#$%#$!!
Unix system in the world???
</rant>
Sorry... I know it's bad form to rant when you're asking for
help, but fer cryin' out loud.
Thanks,
Jim
--
Jim Seymour
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.msen.com/~jimsun
------------------------------
From: Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: PPP dial-up connection with RH5.2
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:08:12 -0500
"Michael 'BeLFrY' S. E. Kraus" wrote:
I haven't had the chance to verify that this is why the
> > modem was hanging up but my theory is that the misconfigured IRQ was
> > causing the modem buffer to fill up and then the thing simply gave up
> > and dropped the link. Why it worked *at all* on the wrong IRQ is still
> > puzzling. Hope this helps even though the original message I posted
> > seems to have been aged out. - Greg
>
> This is because (when the interrupt is set incorrectly or without one) the
> kernel will poll the device rather than use interrupt lines. Polling occurs
> at regular intervals - you have to wait for these intervals rather than the
> serial port being able to interrupt the kernel directly - hence the delay.
>
> > BTW - the command to change IRQ
> > "setserial /dev/your.modem.device irq arg" - as root.
>
> Better yet, set them up correctly in the configuration file. (Ack... its
> aftert pumpkin hour, sorry I cannot remember which one it is)
>
I think I'm having a similar problem. I'm connecting (to my ISP) ok and
I can surf the web, but SLOW. Throughput never seems to get above 600 -
900 Bps (that sux considering it works just fine in windoze).
Anyway it's a PCMCIA modem on COM2 and setserial -a /dev/ttS1 tells me
it has been assigned irq 0. I tried to set it to IRQ=3 (like I think
it's supposed to be) with setserial /dev/ttyS1 irq 3 and it appeared to
have done it, only then I couldn't communicate with the modem at all (in
minicom).
What configuration file are you talking about that initially sets the
irq - I was under the impression that it was set automatically at boot
up (when the PCMCIA module loads). Any pointers here would be greatly
appreciated my head is bruising badly from the constant banging against
the wall.
Thanks
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J. Scott Berg)
Crossposted-To: mn.online-service
Subject: Re: PPP Setup for Uswest.net Dial in
Date: 29 Jan 1999 04:53:28 GMT
In article <d1Sr2.1594$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Horwath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In mn.online-service J. Scott Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: I'll give you the whole story and you can see what you think.
>
>Excellent.
Whoah! I just noticed this was cross-posted to mn.online-service!
How bizarre. I'm in Indiana!
>: I couldn't send out a mail message (I had sent one before). I gave
>: their mail server a ping, no response. This went on for a while, so I
>: gave them a call. "Mail servers working fine. Why can't I ping them?
>: We don't support Linux."
>
>Did you make sure you had van-jacobson header compression on?
Yup, it certainly appears to be on (I haven't turned it off in a
config file, and in the IPCP negotiation logs that I get with debug
on, I appear to request and get Van-Jacobson compression (I assume
this is what the following is):
pppd[689]: sent [IPCP ConfReq id=0x2 <addr xxx.xx.xxx.xxx> <compress VJ 0f 01>]
pppd[689]: rcvd [IPCP ConfAck id=0x2 <addr xxx.xx.xxx.xxx> <compress VJ 0f 01>]
>: The guy then repeated this latter mantra
>: 'til I gave up on him. A bit of playing around on my part found that
>: I could send short emails. Never could ping the mail servers--it
>: would be nice if the guy would have just told me that their servers
>: don't respond to pings. Even Win98 has ping.
>
>Just because their servers won't respond doesn't mean their servers
>don't have ping.
>
>It could be blocked at the router (many places do this).
Sorry, didn't make myself clear. All I'm saying is that it would have
been nice if they fellow had informed me that I wouldn't see a
response to pinging their mail servers. I expected him to know what
I meant by "ping" since "Even Win98 has [a] ping [command]." Instead
he heard "Linux" and didn't even want to try. I can ping other
places, just very little that is owned by Earthlink.
>: The solution? Their system indicates in the LCP negotiation it can
>: handle an mru of 1524. Since I hadn't indicated an mtu, pppd set it
>: to 1524. Well, the fact is that a packet that size doesn't make it.
>: The real mtu seems to be 1500. Guessed this by looking at tcpdump
>: output. Sending a large enough message caused a sufficiently large
>: packet to be sent. If someone knows what's going on, I'd love to hear
>: it (and why does it work on Win98?).
>
>Could it be the implementation of the TCP stack under Linux?
>
>Would not be the first bug found...won't be the last.
This would not entirely surprise me. On the other hand the loopback
(is this even relevant?) has a much larger mtu, and doesn't fail.
Also, the packets are going out, at least according to tcpdump (see
later on in this message).
>MRU of 1524 should be fine, works all over the place, and is quite
>standard for PPP negotiation.
>
>MRU - Maximum Receive Unit
>MTU - Maximum Transmit Unit
Here's what I get in my log file:
pppd[689]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x2 <mru 1524> <asyncmap 0xa0000> <auth chap 05>
<pcomp> <accomp>]
pppd[689]: sent [LCP ConfAck id=0x2 <mru 1524> <asyncmap 0xa0000> <auth chap 05>
<pcomp> <accomp>]
My understanding is that that when I set the mtu on my end, I am
setting the maximum sized packet that I will send to them. When they
sent the above LCP stuff, they were saying that the maximum sized
packet I could send them would be 1524. And, since originally I
didn't set the mtu in my config files, that's what my mtu got set to.
(I assume if I set an mru in my config files, I would be simply
telling pppd what to send to them in the LCP negotiation, and not
really changing anything about how I send/receive packets).
Even though 1524 "should be fine," it clearly isn't. I cannot send
mail or news beyond a certain length if the mtu is not set (and
therefore takes the negotiated value of 1524, and I checked that this
is what it does with ifconfig), and if I set it to 1500, everything
works like a champ (inasmuch as it ever does).
> Don't forget the overhead in the packets! :)
That's included in the mtu, isn't it? If it isn't, then is pppd wrong
in setting the mtu to the mru that it gets in the LCP negotiation
(assuming that I don't set it in the config file)?
In case you're curious, the end of this message contains 2 tcpdump
transcripts: the first is what I generally see (>95%) when the mtu is
at 1524 and I try to send a message of sufficient length. The second
was an oddball that got through, and happened to give me the hint
about setting my mtu (the "need to frag" stuff). I've always assumed
that the big sequence numbers near the end of the failed one were
intentional: are they? In any case they don't seem to have anything
to do with the lack of response I'm getting.
By the way, I do have a guess as to why things work under Win98:
I searched around after I sent that last note, and apparently Win98
has some new feature where they set the MTU on dialups to 576, and
thus don't bother with the negotiated values. Not sure if this is
accurate or not, though.
So, does all this indicate whether the culprit is Linux or Earthlink
(or UUNet) (or me!)?
And I haven't even gotten to the part about having to firewall myself
in to prevent random hangups (no, not from timing out, although again
I only know the cure and only have vague notions of the cause)!
I would love to hear from anyone with any enlightenment on what the
real deal is here! Thanks
-Scott Berg
11:17:28.159353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1060 > rns2.earthlink.net.domain:
15896+ A? mail.earthlink.net. (36) (ttl 64, id 547)
11:17:28.389353 ip: rns2.earthlink.net.domain > 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1060:
15896* q: mail.earthlink.net. 2/3/3 mail.earthlink.net. (195) (ttl 245, id 61107)
11:17:28.389353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: S 4021288162:4021288162(0) win 512 <mss 1484> (ttl
64, id 548)
11:17:28.569353 ip: hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054: S 1778693449:1778693449(0) ack 4021288163 win
17808 <mss 1484> (ttl 245, id 21749)
11:17:28.569353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: . ack 1 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id 549)
11:17:28.799353 ip: hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054: P 1:99(98) ack 1 win 17808 (ttl 245, id 21750)
11:17:28.809353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1:21(20) ack 99 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id 550)
11:17:29.019353 ip: hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054: P 99:279(180) ack 21 win 17808 (ttl 245, id 21751)
11:17:29.039353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: . ack 279 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id 551)
11:17:29.079353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 21:55(34) ack 279 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id 552)
11:17:29.289353 ip: hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054: . ack 55 win 17808 (ttl 245, id 21752)
11:17:29.329353 ip: hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054: P 279:320(41) ack 55 win 17808 (ttl 245, id 21753)
11:17:29.339353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 55:85(30) ack 320 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id 553)
11:17:29.529353 ip: hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054: P 320:362(42) ack 85 win 17808 (ttl 245, id 21754)
11:17:29.539353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 85:91(6) ack 362 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id 554)
11:17:29.749353 ip: hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054: P 362:412(50) ack 91 win 17808 (ttl 245, id 21755)
11:17:29.749353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 91:1115(1024) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
555)
11:17:29.759353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
556)
11:17:30.199353 ip: hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054: . ack 1115 win 17808 (ttl 245, id 21756)
11:17:30.579353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
557)
11:17:32.219353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
558)
11:17:35.499353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
559)
11:17:42.059353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
560)
11:17:55.179353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
561)
11:18:21.419353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
562)
11:18:29.299353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1053 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 526663240:526664724(1484) ack 821358432 win 32648
(DF) (ttl 64, id 563)
11:19:13.899353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
564)
11:20:29.299353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1053 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 0:1484(1484) ack 1 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id 565)
11:20:58.859353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1054 >
hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 412 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64, id
566)
The oddball (only the interesting part shown):
11:10:48.149353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1052 >
snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 414 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64,
id 508)
11:10:48.649353 ip: snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1052: . ack 1115 win 65296 (ttl 245, id 53338)
11:10:49.039353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1052 >
snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 414 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64,
id 509)
11:10:50.819353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1052 >
snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 414 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64,
id 510)
11:10:54.379353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1052 >
snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 414 win 32648 (DF) (ttl 64,
id 511)
11:10:54.709353 ip: tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net > 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net: icmp:
snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net unreachable - need to frag (mtu 1500) (ttl 64, id 62300)
11:11:01.499353 ip: 1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1052 >
snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp: P 1115:2599(1484) ack 414 win 32648 (ttl 64, id 512)
11:11:01.859353 ip: snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net.smtp >
1Cust115.tnt20.chi5.da.uu.net.1052: . ack 2599 win 65296 (ttl 245, id 53339)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: X.25 point-to-multipoint routing
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:40:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I need to provide point-to-multipoint ip routing via a packet switched X.25
network.
I understand that this is fairly standard on something like a Cisco 2501
router (basically mapping X.121 addresses to IP addresses???)
I would prefer to do something with Linux. Does anyone have any sugguestions
or experience in this area???
Appreciated...
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Magda)
Subject: Re: Nt & linux
Date: 30 Jan 1999 03:11:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"FireDragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I have a question...
>We run a little NT LAN at home, and have recently aquired another machine,
>which is running Linux, which we would love to have on the LAN, but somehow,
>it just doesn't want to co-operate. I can telnet into the Linux machine from
>one of the NT machines, but that is about it. Is it possible for us to get
>the Linux machine to actively participate in the rest of our domain, or will
>it remain an outcast for ever?
This is all very vague. What distribution, what kernel version, can we
assume you are runnign samba, can you post your /etc/smb.conf, do you want
simple printer sharing, or file sharing, both. Specifics please.
--
David Magda <dmagda at acs.ryerson.ca>, 2nd Year Electrical Eng.
"Well," said Pooh, "what I like best--" and then he had to stop and
think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do,
there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better
than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called.
- A. A. Milne, _The_House_at_Pooh_Corner_
--
David Magda <dmagda at acs.ryerson.ca>, 2nd Year Electrical Eng.
"Well," said Pooh, "what I like best--" and then he had to stop and
think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do,
there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:34:17 -0500
From: Gyepi Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Load Balancing
James Youngman wrote:
> David Ison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Load balancing may not be the precise term for this, but the biggest
> > weakness in using a Linux box as a network gateway with low-bandwith PPP
> > connect (like 64 K ISDN or a modem) is how it allocates everything over
> > to one user doing a d/l, and all the others go r e a l slow. What
> > is needed is a way to be able to kick off a 'background' download at,
> > say 5-10 bps, and save the rest of the bandwidth for others.
>
> Reduce your MTU and MRU values for the PPP connection.
>
Note that the the PPP rfc's (forget which one) specifies a minimum MTU of 1500
which the more recent implementations of pppd actually comply with. It will
disregard any lower values. Of course, you can always change the source and
recompile...
-gsam
> --
> ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
------------------------------
From: Paul LeMahieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.solaris
Subject: bytes sent/recvd by network interface
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:50:48 -0800
Reply-To: Paul LeMahieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
I was wondering if it is possible to find out the
number of bytes sent/recvd by a particular network interface?
I'd also be interested in knowing how to check
the number of packets sent/recvd by a network interface,
but I can always look at the ifconfig source to get that.
I'm writing a tool to to graphically monitor bandwidth
via a network interface. Any helps/suggestions on getting
a reasonable estimate of current bandwidth for particular
interface would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Paul
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
