Linux-Networking Digest #214, Volume #10 Mon, 15 Feb 99 14:13:37 EST
Contents:
Re: modprobe: can't locate module net-pf-4 (Malware)
Re: Redhat 5.1 as a router ("Rigel Kent")
Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange. ("Ian Payne")
Re: Is DNS possible with this network config? (Luca Filipozzi)
Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange. ("Keith G. Murphy")
It (almost) sounds silly but - ("K.A. Steensma")
Re: VPN through masquerade ("Brent")
Re: Problem: Linksys Fast 10/100 with tulip.c v90 driver ("Bob Glover")
Re: plip and forwarding (John Girash)
Re: Minicom: Slow Behavior ("Bob Glover")
Re: Masquerade Problems: Simple Question ("Bob Glover")
Re: modprobe: can't locate module net-pf-4 (Izak Burger)
Have simple network problems? Check your IP! (Robert Montgomery)
Re: PPP Stalling ("Bob Glover")
Re: DNS Questions? (Malware)
Re: Linux as a small LAN router (Brian McCauley)
DNS questions (Brian D. May)
Re: PPP connection keeps dropping intermittently - how do I determine why? (".")
Ypinit doesn't work in RH5.2?? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
pppd not setting up default route in routing table ("Ray Benjamin")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Malware <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: modprobe: can't locate module net-pf-4
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:55:08 +0100
Hi David,
you wrote:
> Jesus M. Salvo, Jr. posted a solution for this message, but the article has expired.
> Jesus, how did you solve it??
On www.dejanews.com articles do never expire!
Add one of following lines to your /etc/conf.modules (depends on wether
you want to use IPX or not):
alias net-pf-4 ipx
alias net-pf-4 off
Malware
------------------------------
From: "Rigel Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Redhat 5.1 as a router
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 06:14:26 -0800
255.255.255.0. Actually, I fingured out the problem. The 98 workstation on
the problem subnet requires a static route. Any other NT or 98 workstation
on the same or another subnet does not. I was working under the assumption
that my workstation was config'd properly. Apparently, some app I've
installed post OS install has stepped on a TCP/IP component. But this is a
Win98 problem. Thanx for the help.
David Gardner wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>What subnet mask are you using?
>
>advpcsol wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to configure a Redhat box as a simple router in a two subnet
>> network. I have two 3C509's on eth0 and eth1 respectively. Both cards are
>> loading and active. I checked 'Network Packet Forwarding (IPV4)' in the
>> Network config. Eth0's address is 192.168.1.1 and eth1's is 192.168.2.1.
>> Form a workstation on the 192.168.2 network, I can ping both interfaces,
but
>> on a workstation on the 192.168.1 network I can only ping the default
>> gateway (192.168.1.1). In both cases, I can't ping past the router, i.e.,
I
>> can't ping a workstation on 192.168.1.x from 192.168.2.x. Adding static
>> routes at the workstation allows me to ping everything, but I don't think
it
>> should work like this. Also why was I able to ping both interfaces on the
>> router from one subnet and only the nearest interface from the other?
>> Any insight would be appreciated.
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
From: "Ian Payne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange.
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:29:10 GMT
>If I rememebr right, congress got their exchange server swamped and it had
to
>be shut down upon advent of the whole impeachment crap. Check on
slashdot.org
>for info on it.
To be fair, Congress was running an older version that had a limit of 16GB
on the data store. This "bug" was well documented from day one and anyone
who read the manual would have known it was there. The upgrade that
eliminated that limit had been available for over a year and a half.
I think the Admins in this case have to take half the responsibility for the
lock up due to piss poor management of the server.
>Also point out that NT just cannot handle the work load. There is a
comparison
>out there of Apache with linux and NT with IIS and Apache crumples IIS
Errrrr......
How does HTTP server performance relate to e-mail?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luca Filipozzi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.limux.questions
Subject: Re: Is DNS possible with this network config?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:36:46 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Hi,
>
> Please give comment/advise if DNS is possible in the following network
> setting
>
> Situation:
> (1) 50 computers connected together through the hub
> (2) Each of these 50 computer has 2 NICs.
> The first NIC is assigned with a unique corporate ip number. 19.39.35.x
> The second NIC is assigned to an arbitrary number like 192.168.0.1.
> The 2nd NIC is used to connect to a few 'local' network devices in the
> form of 192.168.0.x.
> (3) The deployment of the arbitrary ip number in the 2nd NIC network is
> used purely for maintenance purpose. In case if any of those 'local'
> devices fails. One could put in a replacement unit with the arbitrary ip
> number pre-set. Obviously, they want to maintain these arbitrary ip
> number.
> (4) Currently, a big /etc/hosts files are used in each machine.
>
> Questions
> (1) Is DNS possible to deploy in these situation ?
> (2) If yes, could anyone of these 5 machines act like a DNS server ?
> (3) How could the local network policy associated with the 2nd NIC be
> maintained ?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
> Benjamin
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Yes, you can use DNS. Let's examine a single machine:
corporate LAN ------ machine 1 of 50 ------ private LAN
eth0: 19.39.35.1 eth1: 192.168.0.1
www1.company.com www1.private.lan
You could run a DNS on machine 1 that is primary for zone
"private.lan" and secondary DNS' on machines 2 through 50. The DNS will
resolve all the stuff you currently have in the /etc/hosts file and could
forward requests to the corporate LAN for other unknown lookups.
You could put a resolv.conf file in each of the 50 machines that looks
like this:
search private.lan
nameserver 192.168.0.1
...
nameserver 192.168.0.50
giving you a **very** redundant DNS set up. (You don't have to have 49
secondary DNS servers... it's just an idea.)
All of the DNS traffic for local name resolution would be on the private
LAN (a function of routing).
You can swap out the test machines on the private LAN without impacting
the 50 machines. As long as they have the same IP address, then the name
will get resolved correctly.
You can take away any of the 50 machines without much problem. (The
primary DNS should be restored quickly, mind you.)
How does that sound? (Or have I misunderstood your question?)
Luca
--
Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Keith G. Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange.
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:20:45 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Russo wrote:
[cut]
> You could set up Web servers to handle
> collabarative things like calenders and such.
>
What are the options here? Haven't seen them, except with Netscape
Calendar Server, which isn't exactly free and doesn't run on Linux
anyway.
Or are you talking about "roll your own"?
Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
From: "K.A. Steensma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: It (almost) sounds silly but -
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:22:54 GMT
I have been working on getting a ppp connection into Alltel. Since that
(apparently) use PAP, I have been following the NAG on setting it up.
The paper says to create 2 scripts and put them in the /etc/ppp/
directory (which I did). I changed their ownership to root.root and the
permissions to 744. But even though I am logged in as root, when I try
to execute the 'ppp-on' script file, I get an error message (put in the
connect-errors file) that ppp-on-dialer; 'No such file or directory'.
But it is there and ls -l shows it. Even typing
'/etc/ppp/ppp-on-dialer' says the same thing. But typing 'ls -l
/etc/ppp/ppp-on-dialer' shows the file.
What is going on? I have enven rebooted and nothing has changed. I
have even 'cp /etc/ppp/ppp-on-dialer /tmp' and then copied it back
again. Same thing.
TIA KAS
------------------------------
From: "Brent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VPN through masquerade
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:13:18 -0800
I don't think there's anything you can do short of optaining another IP from
your cable modem provider. From my understanding of VPN software it
encapsulates the originating IP inside each packet destined for the firewall
VPN server. In this way even though your linux box masq's the outgoing
packet to be coming from a routable IP, the encapsulated VPN packet inside
still has the origin address set to the address of your internal machine
which I assume has a private address like 192.168.0.0 or something. So when
the firewall side tries to send something back via encapsulated VPN packets
it can't get to your private IP, make sense? I've tried this from work too.
The only thing I can do is have a direct routable IP on my windows box
(perhaps via IPinIP tunnel?) or they need to make a VPN client for my linux
box so I can connect directly from the firewall. The tunnel is completely
workable, just takes quite a bit of networking know how that I haven't quite
obtained yet. as for getting other client software I doubt that will ever
happen :)
Good luck!
-Brent
Nick Short wrote in message ...
>I have a bit of a problem that I'm hoping someone else has already fixed,
or
>had some experience with...
>
>I'm using a VPN application to connect through our firewall at work from
>home. I'm connecting to the internet via cable modem and my home network
is
>masqueraded via ipfwadm.
>
>We have a Raptor firewall (Solaris) and using gateway authentication via
>RaptorMobile for Win95.
>
>I've used tcpdump to monitor the traffic from each port and the
RaptorMobile
>traffic never gets forwarded to the Internet port.
>
>If I isolate the Win95 to the cable modem connection, I am able to connect
>to the firewall. This indicates that the problem is in the masquerade setup
>( or my local network setup).
>
>Anyone have any experience with this?
>
------------------------------
From: "Bob Glover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Problem: Linksys Fast 10/100 with tulip.c v90 driver
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:34:06 -0000
I fiddled with almost every setting possible all at once :-o Bad idea
right? Well, mostly Windows 95 settings.
It seems to work now though. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that this
isn't a temporary condition.
I thought that a summary of my resolution might help out someone else, so
right or wrong, here are some things I did/learned.
On Windoze 95:
1. Removed and re-installed the card's driver ACCORDING TO THE
INSTRUCTIONS THAT CAME WITH
THE CARD, using the drivers that came with the card. You may need other
drivers check the LinkSys web
site to ID your card.
2. Removed and re-installed all components in the Network Neighborhood.
It's not that bad, unless you hate rebooting.
3. Changed the "Advanced" setting for connect speed (or whatever) from
"Auto" to "100 TX".
This didn't seem to change anything, because it was already using 100 TX
according to the LED's.
It made me feel better though. Maybe you'll feel better too!
4. Now, I always make sure that the Windoze box is hooked up to the
network, before I turn it on.
Since I was testing it with a temporary setup, I had been overlooking this
little rule of thumb.
I heard that Windoze will not initialize the card unless there is activity
on the link. This is "voodoo"
programming and seems silly, but hey, it works now and I've had enough of
step 5!
5. Reboot, reboot, reboot, reboot! Over a dozen times total for me. You
may get by with 2 or 3.
And seriously, never pass up a chance to reboot if it prompts you -- it can
affect the recognition of
network componenets that other changes will rely upon (I think). Oh and
one more thing, would
you like to reboot now?
For the Linux box. (I only >had< to reboot once, when I recompiled my
colonel :)
1. I'm using tulipc.c version 0.90. Someone was kind enough to send me
ver 0.89 just after things
started working for me (thanks!). He said it helped him, but since things
were working for me at that
point, I didn't change anything. There is also a version 0.90k beta out
there, but I didn't try it either.
2. The message about "transmitter stopped..." seems to be more
informational than anything else.
It's actually complaining about not being able to use full duplex. Duh!
I'm using a hub, not a switch, so
I can't use full duplex! When I'm fully motivated, I'll look through the
source and see if there are any boot parameters I can give it to make it
behave and use half duplex at boot time.
The Linux box is now the gateway & firewall for the Windows box. One
remaining problem is that the Win95
box "hangs" on shutdown/reboot. I am going to try setting LMANNOUNCE to
"No" to see if that is the
problem.
Thanks to everyone who responded :)
<snip, snip, snip>
------------------------------
From: John Girash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: plip and forwarding
Date: 15 Feb 99 15:12:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc delegado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I know. But the question is how can I do proxyarp with plip. With ppp is easy
: because 'proxyarp' is just an option of the daemon but with plip there is not
: daemon and there is not options (I think). I would like do something like
: 'proxyarp' but manually. I don't know how but I want to.
Here's my "rc.plip" on the machine that does the forwarding to the laptopt:
#! /bin/sh
# rc.plip This shell script installs PLIP.
/sbin/insmod -f /lib/modules/2.0.35/net/plip.o
/sbin/ifconfig plip1 <desktop IP> pointopoint <laptop IP> up arp
/sbin/route add <laptop IP>
/usr/sbin/arp -s <laptop IP> <laptop HW address> pub
# End of rc.plip
Yeah, I know the HW address of a parallel port seems like an odd entry,
but it works. (It'll show up in ifconfig when you have plip.o loaded and
your PLIP device activated on the laptop). My laptop isn't here so I can't
share its rc.plip with you, but hopefully this'll get you going a bit.
cheers
jg
--
"don't listen when you're told about the best days in your life Spirit of
a useless old expression, it means passing time until you die." the West
/\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\/
-- John Girash -- girash @ cfa.harvard.edu - http://skyron.harvard.edu/ --
------------------------------
From: "Bob Glover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Minicom: Slow Behavior
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:19:19 -0000
Yes, that's the same behavior I encountered with an interrupt conflict.
Check your interrupts.
I had a "third", BIOS configurable serial port. I had to disable it because
it could only be configured eight ways (ala DOS COM1 - COM8). I couldn't
find a free interrupt and Linux doesn't like interrupt sharing, or so I
understand. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to use it as a secure tty,
but I can't.
Good luck!
Clifford Kite wrote in message <7a6uef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Guillermo Maduro-Vazquez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: In my attempts to connect to my ISP via PPP, I am currently trying to use
>: minicom to see the appropriate send/receive entries. So far, I noticed it
is
>: not "login:" but "Username:" ....
>
>
>: Minicom, however, is behaving strangely. It takes very long to complete
the
>: modem's initialization string (it sort of pauses-goes-pauses-goes...,
with
>: the "pauses" lasting 10-15 seconds). The behavior can be observed as soon
as
>: minicom is executed and as the init string runs (or rather, strolls!);
even
>: when I type, the delays hold up the screen output.
>
>Check the IRQ configured for the device file /dev/ttySx, x=integer
>appropriate for your modem. It must be the same IRQ as the modem
>actually uses. Minicom likely uses a symbolic link, /dev/modem, that
>points to the actual device file.
>
>"setserial /dev/ttySx" will show the IRQ configured for ttySx, and
>setserial configures the IRQ in one of the /etc/rc.* boot-up files -
>/etc/rc.d/rc.serial here.
>
>
>--
>Clifford Kite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not a guru. (tm)
>/* Editing with vi is a lot better than using a huge swiss army knife. */
------------------------------
From: "Bob Glover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Masquerade Problems: Simple Question
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:22:20 -0000
I had the same problem. I think I forgot to do a make modules_install
and...
Also check out /etc/sysconfig/network and enable IP forwarding. Then
run /etc/rc.d/init.d/network restart (on RedHat anyway)
nonet@chain wrote in message <7a5vo5$844$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Friends,
>
> I'm stuck on a portion of the IP-Masquerade HOWTO.
> I've compiled a kernel will all that is needed, and set up
>all the other machines.
>
> Now, when I attempt to configure forwarding policies, I
>receive mysterious errors:
>
> chain# ipfwadm -F -p deny
> ipfwadm: setsockopt failed: Invalid argument
>
>This is the exact command from the HOWTO; however, it fails. I
>also tried:
>
> ipfwadm -F -p deny
>
>and was given the same error message.
>
>Where have I gone wrong?
>
>TIA,
>
>--
------------------------------
From: Izak Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: modprobe: can't locate module net-pf-4
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:16:00 +0200
Insert this into your /etc/conf.modules
alias net-pf-4 off
Or you can just ignore it, it doesnt do anything, although I do admit it is
anoying. Basically it is the ipx and appletalk(net-pf-5) stuff. On my PC I
even have the ipx module compiled, but I turn it off in conf.modules so it
never gets loaded, cause I don't use it atm, and RH Linux usually loads it at
bootup whether you need it or not. kerneld will unload it after a minute, but
why load it in the first place?
regards
Izak
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
----==-- _
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __
Microsoft is not the answer. --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /
Microsoft is the question. -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
Linux is the answer: Because a PC is a terrible thing to waste.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, david woodworth wrote:
> Jesus M. Salvo, Jr. posted a solution for this message, but the article has expired.
> Jesus, how did you solve it??
>
>
------------------------------
From: Robert Montgomery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Have simple network problems? Check your IP!
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:19:09 GMT
Hello all,
I had been battling my Linux network set-up for a few weeks, and
eventually
came to the conclusion that I was doing everything right, even though it
would still not work! After a tip from this list (thanks John Hardin!),
I
stumbled on the answer to my problems. MY ISP GAVE ME THE WRONG
NETWORK INFO!!!!
Double check what WINDOWS thinks your network info is, dont rely on
your ISP to tell you!!! If your ISP uses DHCP, you wont find your
network info under the "control panel", but you can still find out all
the
network info using "winipcfg.exe" under Win95, or "ipconfig.exe" under
WinNT. These programs should be on your system! I'm not sure about
Win98, but I'd bet one of these programs will be there too.
It took 3 phone calls to my ISP (@Home thru Shaw Cable) until I talked
to someone who knew what he was talking about and confirmed that the
IP addresses they had given me were not correct! Boy was I pissed off!
Anyways, I just wanted to suggest that if you are having a simple
network
problem, dont take anything for granted and double check your addresses
with Windows!
Thanks to everyone who tried to help me! It was much appreciated.
Rob
------------------------------
From: "Bob Glover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PPP Stalling
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:05:18 -0000
When it "stalls" are you on the firewall PC or the other PC's? Are they
Windoze PC's? If so, I have a similar problem that I'm looking at.
I have an annoying problem where my connection to a Windoze 95 box stops
during a file copy to/from a Windoze share (using smbmount). I think it's
netbios keep-alives. If I ping the Windoze PC, the link activates again.
My point? Could it be a problem with the firewall box not sending out
netbios keep-alives?
Henry wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi,
>
>I am using a Linux box (66 Mhz 486) based on Slakware 3.2, kernel
>2.0.36, with PPP-2.3.5. In addition I am using ipautofw. This box is
>used as a firewall/router for interfacing my other machines to my ISP.
>The problem I am having is that sometimes the PPP stops receiving data
>for a prolonged period of time (a couple of minutes).
>
>When this happens I usually see 2 receive errors reported by ifconfig
>for the ppp connection. Also I won't be able to see the routing table
>(using route or netstat -r). Then when the data starts flowing again I
>will be able to list the routing table. If I ping someone else I will
>see the transmit packet count for pppd increase but the receive count is
>static.
>
>My questions are:
> Has anyone else seen this type of problem?
> What can I try, to prove that it is my problem or my ISP's problem?
> (my ISP doesn't support Linux and I haven't asked them for help)
>
>Henry
------------------------------
From: Malware <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DNS Questions?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:19:47 +0100
Hi Brian,
you wrote:
> on it, it will return the pacbell name. I am planning to run a primary
> DNS on my machine and reconfigure brie.com to point to it. The dns on
> my machine will "resolve" www, ftp and so forth. When someone does a
> reverse dns lookup on 207.212.133.10 will they get
> adsl-207-212-133-10.dsl.pacbell.net or brie.com or both? Will this
> create problems?
If you do not get a deligation from your ISP for the reverse lookup it
will still reverse to adsl-207-212-133-10.dsl.pacbell.net. It should not
make you big troubles as adsl... does still resolve back to your IP.
However one can construct problems, e.g: A friend of yours is willing to
give you access to the telnet-daemon on his box via tcpd and for this
purpose does enable access from "*.brie.com" (even thought this method
is insecure in itself). In this case you will still not be able to
connect since your IP will not be associated with this domain.
Malware
------------------------------
From: Brian McCauley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as a small LAN router
Date: 15 Feb 1999 18:23:56 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I plan to use my existing RH52 installation, with a PPP modem connection to
> my ISP as my default gateway. I want to masquerade my local ip adresses
> (192.168.1.1, 192.168.1.2) through the dhcp issued address from the ISP, with
> NAT.
>
> Is there any good place to start looking for info about this?
The Masquerading HOWTO is probably a good start.
I can't see why you think you may need full-blown NAT, I'd have
thought plain masquerading should suffice.
--
\\ ( ) 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] (Brian D. May)
Subject: DNS questions
Date: 15 Feb 1999 16:18:59 GMT
I'm having a problem with domain name resolution and hoping someone
can help.
I'm using RH 5.1 with kernel 2.0.34. I've followed instructions in
the PPP-HOWTO to set up ppp. I can dial in, establish ppp link,
default route.
I can ping, telnet, ftp, netscape using IP numbers:
$ ping 129.173.3.50
but I can't ping, telnet, ftp, netscape using IP addresses:
$ ping skye.phys.ocean.dal.ca
When I use IP addresses, these programs all hang up on a name
resolution call (i.e., Resolving ...).
The funny thing is, I can use nslookup, without a problem:
$ nslookup skye.phys.ocean.dal.ca
It heads off to the first nameserver and returns the appropriate IP
address.
I believe I have set up my /etc/host.conf and /etc/resolv.conf files
correctly:
/etc/host.conf:
order hosts,bind
multi on
/etc/resolv.conf
nameserver 24.222.28.21
nameserver 129.173.1.10
I'm really lost as to what is gone wrong and would appreciate any
help that can be offered.
Thanks,
Brian
--
--
Brian May
Department of Oceanography email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dalhousie University phone: (902) 494-7007 (work)
Halifax, Nova Scotia phone: (902) 462-3364 (home)
B3H 4J1 Canada fax: (902) 494-2885
------------------------------
From: "." <@>
Subject: Re: PPP connection keeps dropping intermittently - how do I determine why?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:58:14 -0500
I fixed this on my own, but if anyone is interested in the solution. I
ended up flashing the BIOS on my Bitsurfer was rev K, now it's rev M i
believe. This seems to have fixed the problem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Ypinit doesn't work in RH5.2??
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:04:13 GMT
I've set up NIS on Suns okay, and had Linux clients working okay, but now
I'm trying to set up a RH5.2 server as master, and get a bunch of error
messages starting after "Updating passwd.byname" and continuing thru all of
them: "failed to send 'clear' to local ypserv: RPC: Program not registered"
and then "No rule to make target '/etc/publickey', blah, blah
and then make: *** [target] Error 2, Error running Makefile, Please try it by
hand"
But then I do the ypserv, ypbind, ypxfrd and they seem to running okay, and
my slave servers seem to be getting the maps --- and after doing ypbind on a
client I can get the maps with ypcat passwd.byname, etc -- but it doesn't
really work. That is, nobody can log in (except those in the passwd file on
the client, of course). So what's wrong here? Is it because the passwds are
shadowed on the master?
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Ray Benjamin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: pppd not setting up default route in routing table
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:57:59 -0500
Hi,
I'm trying to get my Redhat Linux 5.2 machine to talk to the internet.
Eventually, I want to use it as a gateway for my home network which will
have a couple of Win98 machines.
I used the Linux tools to set up the modem and network stuff. When I
activate the ppp0 interface, I get a good connection to my ISP. I can ping
the remote host that is listed in /var/log/messages, but I can't get beyond
that machine.
When I look at the routing table using 'route -nr', I see that a default
route hasn't been set up. If I check the pppd process, I see that pppd was
started with the defaultroute argument. My assumption is that the lack of a
default route is causing my problem, but I don't know how to fix it. I've
tried adding the route manually with 'route add ipaddress default', but that
doesn't work.
I'm at a loss as to what to try next.
You can reply directly to me using email by deleting the .nospam from my
email address.
Thanks,
Ray
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
