Linux-Networking Digest #732, Volume #10 Sat, 3 Apr 99 17:13:33 EST
Contents:
PING Not working with IP-Masq ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Help with Linux as Client on Sygate... (contains setup information to assist
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
mounting smb ("MSquire")
Re: Help with Linux as Client on Sygate... (contains setup information to assist)
("Charles R. Thompson")
multiple masquerading (Christoph H.)
PCMCIA Network Card #2 (Bernie Ott)
Re: IBM_auto16/4 tokenring (David H. Brown)
Re: Advice on Linux as internet gateway ("jcw")
netatalk and afpfs questions (urgrue)
I'm having a security problem (Christopher Swanson)
Re: Web-Browser on Sparc-Linux (Tom Gravgaard Christensen)
Re: MS-LINUX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: hostnames with _ in DNS ? ("Doug Owings")
Re: NT and SAMBA (format of networkname is incorrect) (Tom Betz)
slow ethernet
Simple modem sharing question?? ("David R. Christianson")
Re: DHCP and IP-Masquerade (Larry Benoit)
Re: How do I monitor my modem (NF Stevens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PING Not working with IP-Masq
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:15:38 GMT
Hi All...
I have my Linux box set up with two eth interfaces and have IP-Masq
configured.
I am able to browse and use email through the Linux machine as a gateway from
my Win95 and my Win NT machine.
BUT:
I am unable to Ping internet addresses from the Windows or the Linux
machines. So far it has not caused a problem, but I wonder if I may have
something set up wrong. BTW: I can ping internal machines fine.
BOb
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Help with Linux as Client on Sygate... (contains setup information to
assist
Date: 3 Apr 1999 15:01:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On April 03 1999, "pg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I am suggesting is to configure the Linux box to use the same DNS
> addresses as the Windows box uses.
>
> As you have it set up now, the private address 192.168.x.x would have
> to contain all of the DNS information about the entire Internet in
> order to get the correct IP address back to the Linux box.
I think this is exactly what Sygate is supposed to do. At least when
connecting from a Win 98 machine that is the way it works.
George Sherwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "MSquire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mounting smb
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 09:24:46 -0800
When I try to mount Windows 98 share in KDE, I get the following error:
"mount: fs type smb not supported by kernel"
I am relatively sure that 2.0 supports it, because I looked into the
configuration, and all of the options for Samba were enabled.
The device I mount is:
////computername//share
And the point point is:
"//share"
filesystem is:
SMB
Any thoughts? Is there a better way to mount network shares?
------------------------------
From: "Charles R. Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with Linux as Client on Sygate... (contains setup information to
assist)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:20:07 GMT
>>As you have it set up now, the private address 192.168.x.x
>would have to
>>contain all of the DNS information about the entire Internet
in
>order to get
>>the correct IP address back to the Linux box.
Update...
Does named have to be running and configured to 'port' my
requests to the nameserver?
I've just read a chapter or two in TCP/IP networking and while
it doesn't explicitly say so, I am led to believe that named
should be running and forwarding unresolved URLS to the DNS
server at 192.168.0.1 (which then passes it out the the net). If
I read this right, I should be setting up named to be a Caching
DNS server?!? In the next sentence it said I may not need to do
that, so of course now I'm confused.
Any thoughts?
CT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph H.)
Subject: multiple masquerading
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:23:01 GMT
Hi!
I have now been searching for 1 month about multiple masquerading but
I can't find anything useful.
ALL I WANT is to masquerade 3 internal networks through 3 different
official IP-addresses (3 aliases on the masquerading-router).
e.g.
router itself: 60.10.20.50
3 times masquerading:
192.168.1.0/24 --> 60.10.20.51
192.168.2.0/24 --> 60.10.20.52
192.168.3.0/24 --> 60.10.20.53
60.10.20.x addresses are examples.
I experimentated with IPCHAINS and IPROUTE2, but it was not possible
to do such a configuration!
PLEASE HELP ME!
I COULDN'T BELIEVE THAT NOBODY EVER TRIED A CONFIGURATION LIKE THAT!
Everybody says, that all masq-related info can be found at
http://ipmasq.cjb.net. But there is no information for a problem like
described above.
Thanks in advance
Christoph
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Bernie Ott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardawe,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: PCMCIA Network Card #2
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:27:53 GMT
I have been trying to get help with a D-LINK DE-660 pcmcia card.
Nothing work, so I purchased a Linksys Etherfast 10/100 Cardbus PC Card.
It is not working either.
When Linux (RedHat 5.2 w/cardmgr v3.08) starts up, it says that my
network card is a MEMORY device (anonymous).
cardctl ident says the following:
Socket 0:
no product info available
Socket 1:
no product info available
When the machine starts up or I remove/insert the card, I get 1 low beep
and then 1 high beep.
In the dmesg log, after the cs: IO port probe 0x0a00-0x0aff: clean.
statement
I get:
ROM image dump:
no valid images found!
memory_cs: mem0: anonymous: unknown size
Anybody have any clue on this. I've only got a few days left to take it
back
for a refund, if needed.
Please respond to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David H. Brown)
Subject: Re: IBM_auto16/4 tokenring
Date: 3 Apr 99 19:29:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, M. Brian Akins wrote:
>the token ring card MUST be connected to a token ring network for it to even
>initialize correctly. You didn't say if it is or not. A token ring card
>cannot be in isolation.
>
>Martin van Betlehem wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter, Hi all...
>>
>> I also have an auto 6/4 tok IBM isa card. I get an error message
>> like : tr0:Unrecoverable error:errorcode = 0011
If it's the first card on the ring, you have to set the ring speed
(with Lanaid in DOS), as it cannot "autodetect" a ring that is not
running yet.
--
Dave Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Austin, TX
------------------------------
From: "jcw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advice on Linux as internet gateway
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 13:22:26 -0600
Hey, I'd like to do this, too! Problem is, I do not have a clue as to how to
do it. Would anybody out there like to configure a system for us out of
hardware I could supply? We are struggling, we are tiny, we are financially
strapped to the wall, but I'd still entertain $ offers from someone who
could configure the software to make it work. Heck, I'd love to barter.
Anybody need some awesome pix for a trade? See http://www.imaginx.com for
examples.
I have a standard 10/100 ethernet LAN in my business that has about 5
machines on it ("about" is because we add and take off machines from
time-to-time). We use inexpensive plain ol' ethernet cards and we have 2
hubs. I'm going to add a third hub soon. Most of the machines are IBM PC's;
one or two are MAC's. We have an ethernet uplink to a guy next door that has
an ADSL line to a local ISP. He is adding other users in the surrounding
buildings to the ADSL line so we'd like a firewall for security.
Also, currently we pay for a new dedicated IP address for each machine we
add to the ADSL service. The gateway machine would allow us to have only 1
IP address, so as to save us $$, right?
I'd be willing to build a Socket-7 system just for the gateway, no problem.
I just don't know how to deal with Linux and the gateway setup.
As you can tell, I am a completely unschooled network admin. I am a
photographer with a growing studio and I double as a computer systems
engineer out of sheer necessity. I absolutely do not know what I'm doing, I
just face the fact that no one else here can do it and it has to be done, so
that the business can grow. I've installed network cards, plugged RJ-45
cables in and played with Win '98 until it all worked... Now it's time to do
a little better.
We use the ADSL for browsing, ftp file transfers to and from clients, and
on-line gaming (Quake, Tribes, HalfLife, etc.).
Thanks!
Clay
AfterBurn wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 23:15:32 +0000, Steve Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
net>
>muttered in [comp.os.linux.networking]:
>
>->Richard Steiner wrote:
>->
>->> Here in comp.os.linux.networking, Dale Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>->> spake unto us, saying:
>->>
>->> >I will be switching to ADSL service here at the end of the month when
it
>->> >becomes available in my area. I have several computers at home and I
>->> >would like to network them and use a dedicated machine to provide
>->> >internet access. I will be networking four pentiums (running
win95/98)
>->> >and I would like to use a 486dx2-66 I have as the dedicated machine.
>->> >
>->> >Is it possible to configure Linux to act satisfactorily as an internet
>->> >gateway on a 486? (Or am I shooting myself in the foot?)
>->>
>->> That's exactly what I do here. A pair of PPros (soon to be three) on
>->> the inside of the firewall, and a 486DX4/100 using IP Masquerading as
>->> the guardian against the Evil Forces Without. :-)
>->>
>->> >Also, is a particular flavor of Linux better suited to this task than
>->> >another?
>->>
>->> Probably not. Although some mini distributions (Trinux is one example)
>->> are sort of specialized for such use. I just use Red Hat here.
>->>
>->> >Although I'm pretty competent working with tcp/ip networks on windows
>->> >machines, I'm pretty inexperienced with Linux and Unix systems in
>->> >general so the most user-friendly recommendations would be
appreciated.
>->> >:)
>->>
>->> If you don't really need a service running on the firewall box, make
>->> sure you turn it off. :-)
>->>
>->> >As far as hardware is concerned, is there anything I should avoid or
be
>->> >leary of? I have been planning on setting up a 100mb UTP ethernet
with
>->> >generic NE2000 NICs and a simple hub.
>->>
>->> I have a 3Com 10BaseT hub here, the PPros all have Intel EtherExpress
>->> Pro/100B cards, and the firewall has a pair of el-cheapo NE2000 clone
>->> cards. They work fine.
>->>
>->> >If there are any links or other sources of information you can point
>->> >me to, I'd appreciate it.
>->>
>->> DejaNews. :-)
>->>
>->> http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
>->>
>->> Perhaps also here:
>->>
>->> http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/mini/ADSL.html
>->> http://www.tor.shaw.wave.ca/~ambrose/
>->>
>->> --
>->> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
>->> OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
>->> WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
>->> -- This tagline was discovered by an alchemist --
>->
>->Richard,
>->What are using for the Firewall/Forwarding control; IPFWADM or IPChains?
I'm
>->really struggling with IPFWADM and would appreciate an editted version of
>->your IPFWADM statements -- if you don't mind.
>
>Try upgrading to 2.2.x and use ipchains. Much easier to configure as
ipfwadm.
>
>-AB-
>afterburn <at> crashdot <dot> com
>
> "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on disk somewhere!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (urgrue)
Subject: netatalk and afpfs questions
Date: 3 Apr 1999 19:37:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I need to be able to send files from my mac to my linux box. they are connected
via netatalk. i can mount the linux drives to the mac and copy FROM them. i
cant copy TO them, because my linux partitions are completely full (nothing i
can do about that at the moment, getting a bigger hard drive later...), and dos
partitions only have write permission for root (chmod doesnt seem to let me
change that, i suppose it has something to do with them being dos partitions?).
i also tried setting up the mac as an ftp server, and ftping it from the mac
using root, which works, but for some reason transfers are shoddy at best. it
connects and starts up transfers, but will transfer about a meg, then pause for
a minute or two, transfer another meg, pause, etc, until around 5 megs when it
just times out. this is over 10mb ethernet.
i read about afpfs, which is supposed to let me mount mac drives on the linux
box, but the home site is down, and the mirror site also doesnt seem to be
working (times out on the file, though otherwise the page works fine).
so:
1) can anyone email me afpfs (or tell me where to find it)?
2) how can i allow write permissions on my dos partitions for users other than
root?
3) why does ftp choke like this on transfers and how can i fix it?
------------------------------
From: Christopher Swanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I'm having a security problem
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 11:02:56 -0800
Hello All!
I just installed a Red Hat 5.1 system and accidentally ( but
intentionally ) didn't install anonymous ftp. Unfortunately, this choice
didn't install any ftp service. So, I took the steps to get an in.ftpd
executable and restarted inetd. Now, I can connect with a login prompt
but the system reports :
"530 User cswanson access denied".
I went through the shadow password conversion and the hosts.allow file.
To me this is too much security than I need.
Does anybody have a hint on what I need to do?
Thanks
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Gravgaard Christensen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Web-Browser on Sparc-Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 21:44:28 GMT
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:40:00 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi Dara,
>
>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Dara Hazeghi wrote:
>
>[..]
>>
>> Netscape already runs their. It's just in their unsupported directory. Go to
>> http://home.netscape.com/download/unsupported.html
>> It's under SPARC Linux
>>
>
>Ok, you are right.
>There is just one little problem. There is only a version for Sparc-Linux
>with strong encryption. And as I don't live in the USA but in Germany the
>server just tells me: Your domain is not from USA so you are not allowed
>to download this.
>
>A version without encryption would do fine for me, because I don't need
>it. But I can't find one.
You must be looking in the wrong places, since I got Netscape 4.5 on a
SparcStation 4 here in Denmark ;)
If you can't find it on Netscape's pages, just goto
ftp://sunsite.auc.dk/pub/infosystems/www/netscape/communicator
and then some, just remember it's in the unsupported dir.
-tgc
--
Tom G. Christensen, Denmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Homepage: http://hjem.get2net.dk/tgc
Linux atlantis 2.2.5 i586
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.linux.sux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.protocols.smb
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS-LINUX
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 14:22:05 -0500
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/02/99 at 09:16 AM,
David Delikat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Agreed, this is quite funny. Unfortunately my paranoia about MS allows me
>> to think it is possible!
>>
>> Dan
>>
>yes, it is curious. what would happen if he tried it?
>I would guess the first responce would be (assuming source code was not
>supplied) a variety of lawsuits.
The lawsuits would only have a basis if MS used the Linux source or name.
If he went to the trouble of writing the code from scratch no one could
prove infringing.
>but what if he did?
>what do you think?
It would be valuable for MS to create confusion in the market place.
Giving a Linux variant with win32 capability and giving away executables
would splinter the market. As long as MS kept the kernal "pure" and open
and added their peculiar variants to the window interface he could avoid
lawsuits and still keep his version of the source closed.
Just as with windows 3.1 users who needed more "advanced" applications
would then need to purchase his "advance, closed" os -- NT.
As the recent Melissa virus shows most people will put up with and are
ignorant of many problems with a stand-alone operating system. Most of the
problems with virus etc. have been experienced on more mature operating
systems but novices "expect" a safe and convenient envirnoment.
Convenience as used on an OS designed for standalone work leaves a lot of
problems for a network situation. "Safe" and "convenient" can be, and are
on MS machines, very unsafe.
I recently read some of the virus news groups and people want an all
protecting big brother with wonderful apps. Until enough of these
applications are available for people to create their business world
anything MS does to fragment to competition will keep most of the ignorant
masses in their pocket.
I am feeling rather pessimestic today!
>-dav
Dan
==============================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==============================================
------------------------------
From: "Doug Owings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hostnames with _ in DNS ?
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 11:13:54 -0600
Have you tried putting the domain name in quotes or using the \ as a
despecialcharacterizer? (like abc\_1). I've never tried using underscores
for DNS but I'm sure it can be done.
Just a thought
Doug
PETERS Maschinenfabrik GmbH wrote
>I have the this problem:
>I want to set up a DNS-server in Linux,
>but I need to cover some hostnames
>like abc_1, abc_2 etc which the DNS-
>server doesn't accept (bind8).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Betz)
Subject: Re: NT and SAMBA (format of networkname is incorrect)
Date: 3 Apr 1999 16:07:31 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|Reading the smb.conf section on the "security" parameter, the default for Samba 2.0 +
|is "user" and
|the user must first "log-on" with a valid username and password.
|
|I use:
|security = share
|which eliminates the need for usernames and passwords. But, I'm running a small
|office, and
|security is not a concern, yet!
I still haven't been anle to get Samba to work with "security = user".
Is that because I don't have an NT server available to do the password
verification?
--
|We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist |
|for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: |
|it's time we tried education. | <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
|<http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz> | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: slow ethernet
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 23:07:33 +0200
I have two computers, one running linux and one running win98.
Together they make up a network, the linux using a 3Com 3C503 and the win98
using a NE2000. I just to get transfer rates around 800kb/s, but after I
reinstalled the drivers on the win98 box (no other config changes) the
transfer rate when I receive from the linux box is about 8kb/s and when I
send to it about 800kb/s. I have tried almost everything, but I can't figure
out what can be wrong.
Thanks,
Karl S�derstr�m
------------------------------
From: "David R. Christianson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Simple modem sharing question??
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 21:11:42 GMT
Hello all,
I have a linux machine, currently 2.036, with an external modem. I am
using Samba 2.0.0 to serve Win95 and WinNT clients at home (Samba as a
PDC) via ethernet. My Internet connection is via cable modem.
I have a dial-up account where I work. We have a Shiva LanRover
connected to our Novell network. What I'd like to do is initiate a
dial-up connection from one of my Windows machines using the modem on
the Linux machine. What is the best and most straightforward way to do
this? I have very little experience with dial-up networking in Linux, so
please be gentle.
Many thanks in advance,
--Dave C. :-)
------------------------------
From: Larry Benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DHCP and IP-Masquerade
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 16:15:34 -0500
Yue:
As Greg said, you need to add a second ethernet NIC for your connection to the
your ISP via the cable modem. PPP had served the same function as a NIC, but
over a serial line. I assumed you had done that. When you set up the second
NIC, connect it to the cable modem. You should not configure the IP address,
gateway, DNS, etc., as these will be dynamically assigned by your ISP with DHCP.
Also, you will need to obtain the assigned DNS address (this is NOT the
IP address assigned to your Linux box) and add it to the configuration/setup for
your private LAN clients. See the previous HOWTO I mentioned that describes
methods for getting the DNS address. You will also need to revise your ip
forwarding scripts.
For info on setting up a second NIC see:
http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/misc/multicard.html
Greg Weeks wrote:
> In article <7e5b09$o9f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Yue Huang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Here is my setup. I have Slackware 3.2 package and use kernel 2.0.36.
> >
> > When I used PPP connection over phone line, the DNS, PPP and IP-Masquerade
> > were setup on the 192.168.0.5 box. DNS is setup according to DNS-HOWTO.
> > Other three machines, 192.168.0.x, connected to 192.168.0.5 could access
> > each other and the internet.
> >
> > Now I have a cable modem with DHCP connection to the internet with dynamic
> > IP. The connection is setup on 192.168.0.5 according to DHCP mini-HOWTO.
> > I compile and install dhcpcd 0.7 using "make" and "make install". when
> > dhcpcd starts the box is connected to the internet, very fast. However,
> > the hostname is changed to an assigned named and IP is changed to
> > 212.xxx.xx.xxx. So, I lost connection to other boxes with 192.168.0.x.
> > The problem is not only DNS since I cannot even ping these boxes with
> > their IPs.
> >
> > I have moved DNS to another box 192.168.0.2 and the problem is the same;
> > once 192.168.0.5 connected to the internet with DHCP the machine is isolated
> > from my network.
> >
> > My question is how I can keep connection of DHCP box with my network and how
> > I can update my DNS for dynamic IP from DHCP connection.
>
> Is this with a single ethernet card in the box? The normal situation
> would be with two ethernet cards. One gets the static 192.168.0.5
> address and one gets the DHCP assigned one. If you're using a single
> ethernet card you have to establish the 102.168.0.5 address as an
> alias for the card. I've never done it this way though.
>
> Greg Weeks
> --
> http://durendal.tzo.com/greg/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: How do I monitor my modem
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 1999 18:47:29 GMT
"Stephen Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am using diald to dial up a ppp account with my ISP. I would like to
>monitor the modem connection rate, time connected, bytes sent, bytes
>received, etc. Is there a utility to do this?
pppstats
Norman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
