Linux-Networking Digest #380, Volume #10 Thu, 4 Mar 99 18:14:08 EST
Contents:
Re: A problem with routing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
~SnargleTooth Wonders ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Can I have a shared modem in Lunux (Steffan Henke)
Re: YATT: IRC, identd, and firewalls ("Kees Bouman")
Re: Netgear on 486? (bgeer)
Re: diald starting when it shouldn't (Lim Chee Onn)
RedHat 5.2 installing wu_ftpd (Jorge Nagasaki)
Re: YATT: IRC, identd, and firewalls (Rick Onanian)
Re: IP Forwarding + IP Masquerading + Security (fred anger)
Newbie 3com 3c509B and 589d (redline)
Samba & W95 logon question (RAZOR)
Newbie: Best Linux Webserver, anyone? (Safe)
Re: Voice Mail with SPK ("vince")
Re: identd logs: how to interpret? (John Winters)
Re: Linux workgroup ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Driver for Efficient ATM 25 (Pun Kok Seng)
Re: unable to login as non-root user. ("mike ryder")
Re: Simple tcp/ip LAN network - problem (John Hopkins)
Re: 3C509B and Red Hat 5.2 Problem Solved!! (Yndigos)
Network Unreachable Killing Me ("Ken Martin")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A problem with routing
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 17:33:23 GMT
On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 13:53:49 GMT, "Jeffrey J. Monahan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a small network at home it consists of 1 NT 4.0 Server, 1 Linux
>Slakware box, and an insignificant WFW 311. Now the problem is I have an
>ISDN line on the NT box and a modem on the Linux box. The ISDN I use for
>work and the modem is to my ISP for personnal stuff. On the Linux box I can
>only see the local machines and the internet through my ISP unless I use the
>proxy server on the NT box then I can browse the Internet through the ISDN.
>But I would like to be able to telnet to a HP 9000 at work but I can't .
>
>I'm not sure where the actual problem lies, I'm assuming it's on the NT box
>not able to route the telnet session through the proxy. But I'm not sure.
>Any help would be a great help.
>
>
>Thank you
>Jeff
>
NT cannot route telnet or ping or anything other then http throught
the proxy. you neet a port replicator/redirector in NT ($$$) or set
up the isdn in linux and set up ipmask. this would solve all the
problems. NT, linux and the wfw311 will see the internet then through
however you connecte through linux.
tng
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ~SnargleTooth Wonders
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 15:36:26 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Mendoza's Passwords Updated
http://pages.hotbot.com/games/stmonk/password.html
http://pages.hotbot.com/games/stmonk/password.html
Passwords to the top ten Sites on the net - NOW!
http://pages.hotbot.com/games/stmonk/password.html
X]Oz;.lMQt
------------------------------
From: Steffan Henke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can I have a shared modem in Lunux
Date: 4 Mar 1999 11:19:10 GMT
Aaron Dershem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Can I set up a home network and put the modem in the Linux server, but have
: a Win98 machine use the modem on a dial-on-demand system? I'd like to call
Hi,
this is possible. You need a small daemon on the linux side and a client
on the win site, ie. from http://www.tactical-sw.com/
Regards,
Steffan
--
... Our continuing mission: To seek out knowledge of C, to explore
strange UNIX commands, and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.
------------------------------
From: "Kees Bouman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: YATT: IRC, identd, and firewalls
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 21:33:47 +0100
Rick Onanian wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Yet Another Tired Topic...
>
>I can't seem to get IRC working behind my IP Masquerading firewall. I've
>installed two differant identd's that are supposed to work with ip masq,
>and followed their directions, but to no avail.
>
modprobe irc_masq
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bgeer)
Subject: Re: Netgear on 486?
Date: 4 Mar 1999 13:36:45 -0700
Derek Fountain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Does the Netgear FA310TX card work on a 486 machine? The manual (such as
>it is) says it's for connecting a Pentium - no mention of 486 anywhere.
My FA310TX worked fine on my AMD 5x86-133 (486-like processor). I had
to download & install the latest tulip driver from
http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/.
--
<> Robert Geer & Donna Tomky | * <>
<> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | _o * o * o <>
<> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -\<, * <\ </L <>
<> Salt Lake City, Utah USA | O/ O __ /__, /> <>
------------------------------
From: Lim Chee Onn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: diald starting when it shouldn't
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 23:15:04 +0800
Svein Norland wrote:
>
> James Ranson wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Whenever I log on at my win95 machine, the diald on my Linux machine
> >starts up the internet connection. How do I prevent this? Please
> >e-mail me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I have a similar problem: but the connection is made only at FIRST login,
> later logins without restarting windows pass unnoticed. I use Samba as a
> logon server. Diald debug tells me that 2-4 packets are sent to the external
> nameserver after the logon script has finished. I have not found out whos
> address is wanted, if I had it maybe could be prevented by listing it in
> hosts.
Add the following lines to your standard.filter file and it should be
fine.
** Near the end of the TCP section before "accept tcp XXX any" **
ignore tcp tcp.dest=tcp.netbios-ns
ignore tcp tcp.source=tcp.netbios-ns
ignore tcp tcp.dest=tcp.netbios-dgm
ignore tcp tcp.source=tcp.netbios-dgm
ignore tcp tcp.dest=tcp.netbios-ssn
ignore tcp tcp.source=tcp.netbios-ssn
** Near the end of the UDP section before "accept udp XXX any" **
ignore udp udp.dest=udp.netbios-ns
ignore udp udp.source=udp.netbios-ns
ignore udp udp.dest=udp.netbios-dgm
ignore udp udp.source=udp.netbios-dgm
The standard.filter file by default accepts udp.netbios-ns packets so
you would like to comment out those lines too. Hope that helps.
Cheers.
--
=========================================================
A successful man makes more money than his wife can spend
A successful woman finds the man above
=========================================================
Alex C. O. Lim
Future Trend Computer Services
http://www.ftrend.com.my
=========================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 17:32:27 -0300
From: Jorge Nagasaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RedHat 5.2 installing wu_ftpd
I installled RH5.2 and have problems trying to install wu_ftpd when
using the
CUSTOM option during Linux install. (i386 version ).
1- If I install the RH5.2 with CUSTOM option I m not able to install
wu_ftpd.
- The wu_ftpd option IS selected OK in the Network Daemons list
along the
other default selections.
- Tried to manually install the package with rpm -i wu_ftpd....rpm
but
it does not get installed. (rpm ends without any msg)
- Other daemons looks OK. ping to linus OK, telnet to Linux OK.
2- Tried the SERVER option and it installs the wu_ftpd SUCCESSFULLY
and
it works. (this made me loose the other systems in my machine)
BUT the problem is that the SERVER option destroys entire disk (IDE
HArddisk)
because does not give option to partiotion the disk myself (CUSTOM makes
me able to use a free area in the disk).
I need the option to select the partition because I have another OS
installed in the
same machine.
Please what am I missing here? thanks for any suggestion.
J.Nagasaki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Rick Onanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: YATT: IRC, identd, and firewalls
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 16:00:34 -0500
Kees Bouman wrote:
>
> Rick Onanian wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Yet Another Tired Topic...
> >
> >I can't seem to get IRC working behind my IP Masquerading firewall. I've
> >installed two differant identd's that are supposed to work with ip masq,
> >and followed their directions, but to no avail.
> >
>
> modprobe irc_masq
I forgot to mention..been there, done that. :) I've got the module
loaded,
got identd loaded, inetd.conf and services both set up right for identd.
The irc server refuses me and says to install identd.
If it matters, my ipmasqerading firewall machine is running Linux Router
Project (http://www.linuxrouter.org), maybe there's some weird default
in
there somewhere that's causing my problem?
--
rick - a guy in search of raw (ISO) cd images of SuSE and Slackware
===============
My opinions don't exist, and as such, are not anyone elses. I do not
represent anyone, not even myself, and especially not my employer.
---
Looking for a 1968 Camaro SS convertible, black interior,
beat-up rustbucket that is in need lots of restoration and TLC.
---
To email me, take out the papers and the trash
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: fred anger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IP Forwarding + IP Masquerading + Security
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 20:57:42 GMT
In article <9zdD2.489$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Donley P'Simer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Linux 2.0.36 Kernel running with IP Masquerading turned on and all
> internal traffic being forwarded to the internet and masqueraded fine.
[snip]
> This works great, but I am concerned about security. I do not run any
> servers on the internal machines of the network (My Win98 box, and my wife's
> iMac), but I'd like to know if this setup would allow any malicious users
> into my network. It looks to me like only packets that originate from one of
> my internal machines will be forwarded to the network and that all packets
> will be accepted by the linux box. Am I vulnerable to "spoofing" or any
> other cracker tricks?
Your main concern is making sure your linux box itself is secure. Take a
look at /etc/inetd.conf. Are you running any unnecessary services? Comment
out the ones you don't absolutely need. For the ones you do need, make sure
connections are logged by tcp_wrappers. Check the versions of the daemons
you're running. Go to a cracker site like rootshell.com and make sure there
are no expliots for your daemons. If there are, patch them up or replace
them. Don't run sendmail unless you absolutely need it - try qmail if you
really need smtp on your box. As for spoofing, that tends to rely on TCP
packet sequence prediction, which would be difficult against a recent kernel.
It's a lot of trouble, so you'd really have to be worth cracking.
--
fred anger
I'd rather know what I'm doing...
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: redline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Newbie 3com 3c509B and 589d
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 01:29:02 GMT
PLEASE help me im gonna go totally crazy ive been working on this for 4
days now i have a toshiba tecra 700 in a docking station i am trying to
at least get one network card working i have the 3c509b in the pci slot
of the docking station and the 589 (pcmcia)in the lap top anyway i cant
get any of them to work can some create or show me a place where i can
get a howto to do this step by step to get it to work
Thanks
Going completeley nuts
Please reply by email
------------------------------
From: RAZOR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Samba & W95 logon question
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 13:13:00 -0800
Hey guys! :-)
I have some questions for u :-)
I'm reading about "Supporting Windows 95 Nework Logins" in Samba book by
John Blair.
There is only one thing that i don't understand. If I want to enable W95
logins, how should i configure W95? 1) Do i need to enable in 'Client
for Microsoft Networks' - "Log on to Windows NT domain"? (if yes - what
should i put there? The Netbios name of my Linux puter or the workgroup
(domain ) name?)
2) Or by "Supporting Windows 95 Nework Logins" samba only supplying a
list of users for "user level" security in w9x?
Any, ANY tips are greatly appreciated .
Thanx in advance :-)
Btw i'm using Samba Version 1.9.18p10 . If i'll install Samba v 2.* will
it support #1?
------------------------------
From: Safe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Newbie: Best Linux Webserver, anyone?
Date: 4 Mar 1999 01:31:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am interested in setting up a Linux Web Server with my Bell Atlantic
7.1 Mbps DSL service. Any suggestions what server brand is the cheapest
and the best? I heard HP is good, anyone?
------------------------------
From: "vince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux,alt.linux
Subject: Re: Voice Mail with SPK
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 14:34:44 +1300
Can't always go on the sockets at the back of the machine. Some of the
earlier 33k6 and 28k8 modems had them but didn't actually work.
If the modem responds to the following commands - then you're on the right
track...
AT+ACM-MDL? Identify model.
AT+ACM-MFR? Identify manufacturer.
AT+ACM-REV? Identify revision level.
if it responds to OK with the command
AT+ACM-VRX+ADw-cr+AD4-
then the odds are even better.
Refer : http://www.dynalink.com.au/support/atcommands.htm
and see if you can't find your own modem manual here...
http://56k.com/links/Modem+AF8-Manuals/
Good luck+ACE-
Vince.
seppanen+AEA-bresnanlink.net wrote in message
+ADw-7aaa9q+ACQ-bsa+ACQ-1+AEA-nnrp1.dejanews.com+AD4-...
+AD4-I was thinking about setting up voice mail on my linux machine. Has anyone
+AD4-used spk, and what were your thoughts on its capabilities, and limitations?
+AD4-What is required to run spk. The website is very short on details as is
the
+AD4-readme files. I've got a USR 33.6 modem, but I'm not sure if it can handle
+AD4-voice data. How can I tell. Any thoughts... Any success using generic
+AD4-modems?
+AD4-
+AD4-Thanks for any and all.
+AD4-
+AD4-Brian Seppanen
+AD4-seppanen+AEA-bresnanlink.net
+AD4-
+AD4------------+AD0APQ- Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
++AD0APQ-----------
+AD4-http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Winters)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.unix,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: identd logs: how to interpret?
Date: 4 Mar 1999 20:41:34 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jerome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Mar 1999 08:14:17 -0600, Katherine Hosch wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>>identd[23113]: from: BBB.BBB.BBB.BBB ( fqdnofmachine ) for: 7741, 23
>>identd[23113]: Successful lookup: 7741 , 23 : root.root
>>
>
>read "the machine with the IP b.b.b.b claimed that the connection
>between me and b.b.b.b with the local port 7741 and the remote
>port 23 belongs to root (uid.gid=root.root)"
The other way around. "The machine with IP b.b.b.b asked me who owned
the connection from port 7741 on this machine to port 23 on b.b.b.b and
I told him it was root.root."
John
--
John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.
The Linux Emporium - a source for Linux CDs in the UK
See <http://www.polo.demon.co.uk/emporium.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux workgroup
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 21:39:10 GMT
Try SAMBA at http://www.samba.org. SAMBA is built for the problem you
mentioned below. If you need other sites, hit
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8984/linuxlinx.htm. That's a
portal site I've compiled for my day to day Linux use.
Good luck,
Randy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joven (Another Linux User!)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What can I set up Linux as workgroup so other Win95 client can see my
> Linux under network nebourhoot?
>
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Pun Kok Seng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Driver for Efficient ATM 25
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 09:44:14 +0800
Hi,
I am looking for a driver for my Effiicient ATM 25 adapter.
Apparently, Efficient does not provide such driver. Could any one refer
me to an alternate site?
regards,
kok seng
--
------------------------------
From: "mike ryder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.linux
Subject: Re: unable to login as non-root user.
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 21:56:37 -0000
Isn't the problem that you cannot telnet in as root. In redhat, it is one of
the `security` features. If the tty you come in as is not registered in
/etc/securetty then you cannot login as root.
i.am/dof wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>hello all.
>
>I recently changed to slakware, and since then i have been having
>problems with telnet and ftp acess to my own machine (and now logging in
------------------------------
From: John Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Simple tcp/ip LAN network - problem
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 01:47:42 GMT
Here's my setup:
outgoing nic (Win95) - dynamic ip from cable company. Everything is
auto-configured.
local nic (Win95) - I chose 10.2.2.2 as the IP address for this one.
Netmask 255.0.0.0.
local nic (Linux) - I chose 10.2.2.3 as the IP. Netmask also 255.0.0.0.
Scott Brown wrote:
>
> Well, first off, how do you have your nic's set up? One should be set up to
> your @home specs.. the other needs to be set up as a local intranet.. as in
> 192.168.0.1 (good info on how to set up a intranet at Sygate's web site)
> and your linux machine would be 192.168.0.2 the netmask needs to be
> 255.255.255.0 that's just a small start..<G>.. If you can let me know what
> you are using for IP addresses I might be able to help.. It took me 2 days
> (about 2 hours a night) to get my linux machine on the net.. it has to be
> set up as a intranet.. then if you want to get proxy server software later
> you can easily (hehe) make the full connection to the internet..
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Scott Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Simple tcp/ip LAN network - problem
>
> >
> >
> >Bingo - almost! What you describe is where I want to be ultimately.
> >But right now I don't care about WinGate, etc... because I can't even
> >ping from one machine to the other, nevermind getting on the 'net. I
> >still can't figure out why.
> >
> >John
> >
> >Scott Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> I think I understand what you are trying to do.. let me know if I'm on
> the
> >> right track.. You have one Windows 95 machince with 2 nic's and you have
> >> one nic going to the cable modem and the other to a intranet.. to do
> this
> >> you will need to use a proxy server software.. as in SyGate or Wingate..
> >> (SyGate is better) I'm still working on getting my Linux machine working
> >> correctly, but I did have it ftping to my 95 machine (Which has two
> nic's)
> >> and telneting to the Linux machine from win95.. check out SyGate's web
> site
> >> for more info..
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: John Hopkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking
> >> Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 9:13 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Simple tcp/ip LAN network - problem
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Yes - I just double-checked now and there is definitely no conflict. In
> >> >fact, I've already removed my sound card and modem. On the Win95 box, I
> >> >can ping 10.2.2.3 fine too. Just not 10.2.2.2 (linux). :(
> >> >Perhaps my selection of ip's is at fault? I set the subnet mask to
> >> >255.0.0.0, which should be correct according to what I've read, as a
> >> >class A network address?
> >> >At least we're narrowing things down; thanks.
> >> >
> >> >John
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Paul Miyasaki wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Have tried to see if the there is some kind of resource conflict on
> Win95
> >> machine
> >> >>
> >> >> John Hopkins wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hmm... I will keep that in mind for future, but I don't think I need
> >> >> > routing done here. As I said, I don't care if the private network
> >> >> > between linux and Win95 can see the 'net, even though my second
> network
> >> >> > card on Win95 can. I just want to be able to connect to things on
> >> linux
> >> >> > (eg. webserver development, ftp, etc...).
> >> >> > I've even removed the Internet NIC from Win95 (not physically, via
> the
> >> >> > control panel) and tried my local network. Still they couldn't ping
> >> >> > each other. So I'm guessing that the second NIC in the Win95 box
> >> >> > doesn't have an effect on the private network (tell me if I'm
> wrong)?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > John
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Paul Miyasaki wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > So You got 2 NIC in your Win95 machine. I assume this is the
> case.
> >> If so, then are they both on the same
> >> >> > > network ie. NIC1 10.2.2.2, NIC2 10.2.2.1. The problem is probably
> >> the Win95 machine. If you have two
> >> >> > > different networks under Win95 this could be a problem because
> Win95
> >> doesn't do routing. There is a
> >> >> > > registery hack for this, but I have tried it but didn't get it to
> >> work. The easiest thing to do would be to
> >> >> > > buy a cheap 10MB hub and eliminate one of the NIC cards.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Paul
> >> >> > >
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yndigos)
Subject: Re: 3C509B and Red Hat 5.2 Problem Solved!!
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 22:21:18 GMT
>After searching through OVER 30 web sites and more than 500 usenet posts, I
>found a web site that had a section that targets 3Com Ethernet cards.
Thanks to you, I just resolved a full week quest (Each night i mean) to made
this network card working....
>
>It turns out that the IRQ was conflicting with my sound card which I did not
>test yet.
>
I threw away my card and everything is fine...
Really, Really many thanks...
Yndigos
PS: I promise to put this tricks on my Website soon... (I don't put it know
because of a huge work! But soon on http://users.skynet.be/sky67220 you will
find my linux pages)
------------------------------
From: "Ken Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Network Unreachable Killing Me
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 22:23:46 GMT
I think I am doing everything correctly, but it just doesn't work.
Redhat 5.2 upgraded to 2.2.1 kernel etc. NIC works fine
somehow I just cannot tool out the routing. Does anybody
understand what is wrong here ? I included all the info I
could think of. The Linux box (pern) is 208.136.18.21, the
Cisco router is 208.136.18.16, my NT boxes are 208.136.18.(17/18/19).
The NT boxes and WIndows98 work fine. Linux can ping the router and the
NT boxes but cannot figure out how to get outside. When I try to add the
gateway I get network unreachable error.
- Thanks for any help
- Ken (respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
[root@pern /root]# insmod tulip
[root@pern /root]# /sbin/ifconfig eth0 208.136.18.21 netmask 255.255.255.240
[root@pern /root]# /sbin/ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:23:CD:DA
inet addr:208.136.18.21 Bcast:208.136.18.255
Mask:255.255.255.240
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
Interrupt:10 Base address:0xd000
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:3924 Metric:1
RX packets:18 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:18 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
[root@pern /root]# /sbin/route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
Iface
208.136.18.16 * 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
root@pern /root]# ping 208.136.18.16
PING 208.136.18.16 (208.136.18.16): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 208.136.18.21: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=0.1 ms
64 bytes from 208.136.18.21: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 208.136.18.21: icmp_seq=2 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms
64 bytes from 208.136.18.21: icmp_seq=3 ttl=255 time=0.0 ms
--- 208.136.18.16 ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.0/0.0/0.1 ms
[root@pern /root]# /sbin/route add default gw 208.136.18.16
SIOCADDRT: Network is unreachable
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
