Linux-Networking Digest #592, Volume #10 Mon, 22 Mar 99 12:14:08 EST
Contents:
Re: VPN with NT and Linux (Bill Keeler)
bizarre SIOCGIFADDR problem (Simon Kilvington)
Re: Enough!! What is the best Linux to install? ("Flying")
Re: What is the best Linux to install? ("Flying")
NetBIOS programming on Linux ("Markus Fretz")
Re: Logging/blocking specific ports (Bob)
Re: VPN with NT and Linux (Bill Keeler)
Re: Win98 >< Linux (Andy Birkett)
Re: Win terminal for Linux? (Andy Birkett)
Win95 X-software suggestion (Jon Slater)
Re: Different IP in one network (Andy Vontobel)
Re: Different IP in one network ("Joseph Santaniello")
DHCP client and Mediaone problem (John Walstra)
pppd getting dropped unexpectedly (Thomas Rankin)
Re: no more timeout on diald dialup (Mike Jagdis)
Re: What is the best Linux to install? (Josef Drexler)
Re: Routing Problem with 3 NICs (Rudolf Potucek)
RH5.1 cannot reach Internet (Rick Lim)
Re: FTP through authenticating firewall (Daniel Cave)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Keeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VPN with NT and Linux
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:14:43 -0700
Thanks, John. I'm on it!
- - - - -
John Hardin wrote:
> Bill Keeler wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >I need to set up a secure network (VPN) using RedHat Linux 5.2 and NT
> >4.0. Is that possible? Where can I find out how?
>
> Take a look at the VPN Masq home page, at
>
> ftp://ftp.rubyriver.com/pub/jhardin/ip_masq_vpn.html
>
> --
> John Hardin KA7OHZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin PGP key ID: 0x41EA94F5
> PGP key fingerprint: A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5 E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In the Lion
> the Mighty Lion
> the Zebra sleeps tonight...
> Dee de-ee-ee-ee-ee de de de we um umma way!
--
Bill Keeler
Online PC Help
Remove "NOSPAM." in my e-mail address if responding that way
------------------------------
From: Simon Kilvington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: bizarre SIOCGIFADDR problem
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:18:37 +0000
Hi,
has anyone else had problems trying to get the IP address from
a device with ioctl SIOCGIFADDR?
in the program below, on Red Hat Linux 5.2 with a 2.0.36 kernel
if you don't set the sin_family in struct ifreq to a non-zero value
SIOCGIFADDR returns the HW address (same as you get with SIOCGIFHWADDR).
is this supposed to happen?
/* get_dev_ipaddr
* dev_name is eg "eth0"
*/
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <ioctls.h>
#include <net/if.h>
#include <net/ethernet.h>
#include <netinet/in.h>
int
get_dev_ipaddr(char *dev_name, struct in_addr *output)
{
int error = 0;
int dev_sock;
struct ifreq ifr;
struct sockaddr_in *sockptr;
memset(&ifr, 0, sizeof(struct ifreq));
strcpy(ifr.ifr_name, dev_name);
/* stupid linux bug, if sin_family is 0 on entry ioctl returns the HW
address */
sockptr = (struct sockaddr_in *) &ifr.ifr_addr;
sockptr->sin_family = AF_INET;
dev_sock = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
if(dev_sock < 0 || ioctl(dev_sock, SIOCGIFADDR, &ifr) < 0)
{
memset(output, 0, sizeof(struct in_addr));
error = -1;
}
else
{
memcpy(output, &sockptr->sin_addr, sizeof(struct in_addr));
{int i; u_char *p = (u_char *) sockptr; for(i=0; i<sizeof(struct
sockaddr_in); i++) printf("data[%d]=%d\n", i, p[i]);}
}
close(dev_sock);
return error;
}
/* EOF */
--
Simon Kilvington, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Flying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.redhat,alt.os.linux.slackware
Subject: Re: Enough!! What is the best Linux to install?
Date: 22 Mar 1999 16:17:04 GMT
Hi,
Just give Mangrake a try.
Actually you have RH5.2 coming so add KDE1.1 and I believe you will have
Mandrake ;-)
Although Mandrake is also nice because it has on its disk the newest
kernel < needs to be installed> and the newer 4.50 Netscape
along with much more.
Hey for a $1.99 ??
You may as well give it a try, you wont be sorry.
Good Luck,
Mike
Bud Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<W6tJ2.7629$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> I have read through these post's and still don't know which I should
> install!!!
> I am a Newbie, Home PC, used to using Win98 with a browser, e-mail,
backup,
> cdrom, etc.
> I'm just so tired of MS that I could scream!!! so I've ordered RH 5.2
after
> doing a little research but there is so much out there that a guy just
> doesn't know where to start.
> I need suggestions for a "newbie, first time user, home pc".
>
> Thank You,
>
> Bud Zimmerman
------------------------------
From: "Flying" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.redhat,alt.os.linux.slackware
Subject: Re: What is the best Linux to install?
Date: 22 Mar 1999 16:18:33 GMT
Too True ;-)
Especially when places like www.cheapbytes.com
has most distros for $1.99 ;-0
WhiteFox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<7d5omj$c35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> I think I'll throw up if I read one more post like this: What is the best
> XXX to install?. As the original poster might be able to discern from
the
> eager replies, what's stopping you from testing the stuff and forming
your
> own opinion?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Markus Fretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NetBIOS programming on Linux
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:01:09 +0100
I would like to write a program which communicates with a server that is
using NetBIOS Session communication (NetBIOS over TCP/IP).
I know that SAMBA is usin NetBIOS. But is there a way to directly access
NetBIOS for communication (no filesharing).
Thanks for help
Markus
------------------------------
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Logging/blocking specific ports
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 00:23:41 +0800
try man ipfwadm
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Charles Stack wrote:
> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:07:25 -0500
> From: Charles Stack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking
> Subject: Logging/blocking specific ports
>
> Can anyone tell me how I can block requests on certain ports and log those
> requests?
>
> Specifically, I'd like to block all but Apache (on port 80) while still
> allowing local access to all services.
>
> TIA,
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
Bob PHILLIPS
Partner/System Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ISP to the nor'west of Western Australia
| http://www.norcom.net.au
Yes, I am on the interthingy | If it aint broke, fix it, then it will be
==========================================================================
Pilbara Systems PO Box 2762 SOUTH HEDLAND WA 6722 AUSTRALIA
==========================================================================
------------------------------
From: Bill Keeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VPN with NT and Linux
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:25:39 -0700
Hi John,
I can't get there. I tried severl times, it looks like your server is down.
I'll try again later.
Thanks again,
Bill
- - - -
John Hardin wrote:
> Bill Keeler wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >I need to set up a secure network (VPN) using RedHat Linux 5.2 and NT
> >4.0. Is that possible? Where can I find out how?
>
> Take a look at the VPN Masq home page, at
>
> ftp://ftp.rubyriver.com/pub/jhardin/ip_masq_vpn.html
>
> --
> John Hardin KA7OHZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin PGP key ID: 0x41EA94F5
> PGP key fingerprint: A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5 E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In the Lion
> the Mighty Lion
> the Zebra sleeps tonight...
> Dee de-ee-ee-ee-ee de de de we um umma way!
--
Bill Keeler
Online PC Help
Remove "NOSPAM." in my e-mail address if responding that way
------------------------------
From: Andy Birkett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win98 >< Linux
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:53:53 +0000
In article <7cutdj$90t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes
>I am doing the same thing: 2 machines one NT, one linux. Set up the 3c509b
>on Linux, had to use DOS 3Com config program to turn off PNP, but I was still
>hooped. Doing the crossover wire between the two cards worked just great.
>
>Thank God...
>
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ken Oster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > Okay its been two weeks and I am no closer to getting my two boxes networked
>> > as I was when I started. Heres what I got:
>> >
>> > Linux RH5.1
>> > 486 Dx-50
>> > 20MB Ram
>> > 420HD
>> > 3com 3c509
>> > IP:192.168.1.1
>> >
>> > Win98
>> > P-200MMX
>> > 96MB Ram
>> > 1.6GHD
>> > 3com Fast EtherLink XL 10/100Mb TX
>> > IP:192.168.1.2
>> >
>> > The Link light on my Linux box is on until the card is initalized at boot
>then
>> > it goes off. When I go into Network Configurator in X it shows the card it
>> > active. Only when I deactivat the card does the link light come on. On the
>> > Win98 box the light is NEVER on. Not on boot, not while it pings itself,
>> > NEVER! I know this card works but I have never seen the light.
>> > Also am I correct in thinking that I do not have to have a hub to network
>> > these? I can just plug the network cable into the two right?
>> >
>> > And by the way I have read the Ehternet HOWTO, DNS HOWTO, SMB HOWTO, IPX
>> > HOWTO, DHCP HOWTO, TCP/IP HOWTO, and I am currently writing the "HOWTO not
>> > have a nervous break-down when trying to network Linux and Windoze"
>> >
>> > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I'm getting tired of staying
>up
>> > until 3 in the morning without getting any further in the process.
>> >
>> > --Rhasan
>> >
>>
>> The problem seems to be the attempt at connecting the 2 directly
>> together
>> without a hub...
>>
>> You can do this.. if you use a "crossover cable"...
>>
>> Check out section 6.2 (Twisted Pair) in the Ethernet HOWTO... I think
>> this section you might have missed...
>>
>> http://metalab.unc.edu/mdw/HOWTO/Ethernet-HOWTO-6.html
>>
>> I hope this helps...
>>
>> Ken Oster
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://ken.oster.org/
>>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
I had exactly the same problems with the same cards, firstly make sure
you are using a cross-over cable, on my system when Linux booted, the
3c509 card always booted using BNC connections. I had to use the dos
utility from 3com to manually change the network card to use the UTP
RJ45 connector. After that everything was fine.
--
Andy Birkett
------------------------------
From: Andy Birkett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Win terminal for Linux?
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:03:09 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Kevin White wrote:
>
>> Hi, I love using my linux box, but sometimes have to work on the other
>> boxes (Win95 or WinNT). I would like to be able to do my linux "work"
>> (emacs, compiling, working with files that are on my linux box, etc.)
>> from the Win95 or NT box. Is this possible?
><--snip-->
>
>Sure, the easiest way is to use the telnet client included
>in win95/NT.
>Just telnet to your linuxbox and log in. Remember, you can't
>login as root. Log in as a user and su as root.
>Good Luck
>
Ah, that answers a question I was about to ask, I've been trying to
logon as root from a telnet session, but I kept failing. Why can't you
logon as root?
--
Andy Birkett
------------------------------
From: Jon Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Win95 X-software suggestion
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:36:45 -0700
I want to be able to run X on my Win95 box. I am connecting to a RedHat
Linux 5.2 box.
Any suggestions?
Thanks!
--
Jon D. Slater QualComm Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 6150 Lookout Road
Phone: (303) 247-5037 Boulder, Colorado
Fax: (303) 247-5167 80301
------------------------------
From: Andy Vontobel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,hk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Different IP in one network
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:21:23 +0100
I think the problem is Netmask. I think you have a Netmask of
255.255.255.0 and so, your IP-numbers are in two different
subnets. The first one is the subnet 192.168.16.0 and the
other on is 192.168.18.0
Choose an Ip-number of 192.168.16.2 for your second
machine and it runs. Never choose the IP-number x.y.z.0
for a machine because the .0 is the number of the subnet.
(That is correct for a netmask of 255.255.255.0)
If you ping to the subnetnumber you get an answer of every
machine connected to this subnet. (No problem to try it!)
The 2nd way is to change the netmask of both machines to
255.255.0.0 or 255.0.0.0 but I would prefer the other way.
cu Andy
Jack Cheng wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a network system using RH5.2 and running fine. The IP is 192.168.16.1
>
> Because I want ot learn more about linux, so I hooked up one more linux box
> in my existing lan (of course running as a SERVER and IP is 192.168.18.1),
> so i can change anything in the new linux box for my testing.
>
> I cannot ping the 192.168.16.1 from the new linux box (192.168.18.1), is
> possible set two different IP in one lan system?
>
> Best Regard
> Jack Cheng
--
-------------------------:WARNING:----------------------------
By sending me unsolicited commercial/political/religious/MailPush
E-mail message/s (known also as "spam"), you irrevocably agree to
pay me $500.-(plus any legal expenses incurred by my trying to
collect the amount due) per unsolicited commercial/political/
religious/MailPush E-mail message - for the service of receiving it.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph Santaniello" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,hk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Different IP in one network
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:41:11 +0100
Hi Jack,
You can use as many IP addresses as you want. But they have to be on the
same subnet:
192.168.16.1 and 192.168.16.2 are on the same subnet.
To get 192.168.16.1 and 192.168.18.1 to talk to eachother, you'll have to
play around with routing.
If you want the new mcahine to have 192.168.18.1 as an address because
you're just experimenting and don't want to mess around with your "real"
network, try adding the additional IP 192.168.18.2 to the first machine.
Multiple addresses per interface works fine. that way the first machine will
be on both subnets.
Joe
Jack Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
s.net...
> Hello,
>
> I have a network system using RH5.2 and running fine. The IP is
192.168.16.1
>
> Because I want ot learn more about linux, so I hooked up one more linux
box
> in my existing lan (of course running as a SERVER and IP is 192.168.18.1),
> so i can change anything in the new linux box for my testing.
>
> I cannot ping the 192.168.16.1 from the new linux box (192.168.18.1), is
> possible set two different IP in one lan system?
>
> Best Regard
> Jack Cheng
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: John Walstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: DHCP client and Mediaone problem
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:02:38 -0600
Last Wednesday night, for some reason, my link to my Mediaone (Chicago
area) cable modem went down. When I tried to get it back up, all
attempts with dhcpcd v.1.3 failed. I am running 2.2.2, and have run
dhcpcd v.1.3 since 2.2.2 came out and have had no problems. I went to
work and found out my friend was having the same problem, but Windows
would still work for him. He was running 2.2.1. Another friend had no
problem, he was runnign 2.0.36. So I decided to try booting into 2.0.36
and use the dhcpcd client that came with RedHat 5.2. It worked. Once
again I tried to use 2.2.2/v.1.3 and it failed. Mediaone must have done
something (upgraded their dhcp server?) to cause this.
I'm posting this in case other people run into this problem and
hopefully to find a fix.
--
John Walstra Motorola, Inc. CIG
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1475 West Shure Drive 2C4
phone :(847) 632-3071 Arlington Heights, IL 60004
fax :(847) 632-4164 Proud member of MotLUG
------------------------------
From: Thomas Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: pppd getting dropped unexpectedly
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 09:10:53 -0600
Ok here goes..... I am now using RedHat 5.2, and a U.S.Robotics
33.6 Modem.
Anywho.... I never had any problems dialing in, but recently I got
rid of my sound card modem, and started using my old 33.6. I also
upgraded to 5.2,, but here is the other kicker.... My ISP also moved
from A Unix ISP to a Windows NT ISP, and they also upgraded their
modem pool to use 56K flex modems.
Ok I did some snooping, and did find out that the connection
requests
"<auth pap>" etc...
Still getting dropped with a can't find remote host....... yada yada..
And I
did do a debug from the command line..
so I have a more verbose ppp log......
I will give a little more info also....... to see if it
helps...................
Normal login screen/sequence
>Tim line 72 MICA K-Flex 2.5.1.4
>
>
>User Access Verification
>
>Username: tlr159s
>Password:
>
>
>Tim>ppp
>Entering PPP mode.
>Async interface address is 0.0.0.0
>Your IP address is 146.7.18.49. MTU is 1500 bytes
>Header compression will match your system.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Here it is with debug,,,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mar 22 07:49:44 localhost ifup-ppp: pppd started for ppp0 on /dev/modem
at
115200
Mar 22 07:49:44 localhost pppd[1284]: pppd 2.3.5 started by root, uid 0
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: abort on (BUSY)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: abort on (ERROR)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: abort on (NO CARRIER)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: abort on (NO DIALTONE)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: abort on (Invalid Login)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: abort on (Login incorrect)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: send (ATZ^M)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: expect (OK)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: ATZ^M^M
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: OK
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: -- got it
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: send (ATDT8756996^M)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: expect (CONNECT)
Mar 22 07:49:45 localhost chat[1286]: ^M
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: ATDT8756996^M^M
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: CONNECT
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: -- got it
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: send (^M)
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: expect (name:)
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: 28800/ARQ/V34/LAPM/V42BIS^M
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: ^M
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: Tim line 15 MICA K-Flex 2.5.1.4^M
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: ^M
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: ^M
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: User Access Verification^M
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: ^M
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: Username:
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: -- got it
Mar 22 07:50:04 localhost chat[1286]: send (tlr159s^M)
Mar 22 07:50:05 localhost chat[1286]: expect (word:)
Mar 22 07:50:05 localhost chat[1286]: ^M
Mar 22 07:50:05 localhost chat[1286]: Username: tlr159s^M
Mar 22 07:50:05 localhost chat[1286]: Password:
Mar 22 07:50:05 localhost chat[1286]: -- got it
Mar 22 07:50:05 localhost chat[1286]: send (********^M)
Mar 22 07:50:05 localhost chat[1286]: expect (>)
Mar 22 07:50:08 localhost chat[1286]: ^M
Mar 22 07:50:08 localhost chat[1286]: ^M
Mar 22 07:50:08 localhost pppd[1284]: Serial connection established.
Mar 22 07:50:08 localhost chat[1286]: ^M
Mar 22 07:50:08 localhost chat[1286]: Tim>
Mar 22 07:50:08 localhost chat[1286]: -- got it
Mar 22 07:50:08 localhost chat[1286]: send (ppp^M)
Mar 22 07:50:09 localhost pppd[1284]: Using interface ppp0
Mar 22 07:50:09 localhost pppd[1284]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/modem
Mar 22 07:50:09 localhost pppd[1284]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <magic
0xa918caf1> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Mar 22 07:50:09 localhost pppd[1284]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0xb3
<asyncmap
0xa0000> <magic 0x1fecda1e> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Mar 22 07:50:09 localhost pppd[1284]: sent [LCP ConfAck id=0xb3
<asyncmap
0xa0000> <magic 0x1fecda1e> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Mar 22 07:50:09 localhost pppd[1284]: rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x1 <magic
0xa918caf1> <pcomp> <accomp>]
Mar 22 07:50:09 localhost pppd[1284]: sent [IPCP ConfReq id=0x1 <addr
0.0.0.0>
<compress VJ 0f 01>]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: rcvd [IPCP ConfReq id=0x4a
<compress VJ
0f 00> <addr 0.0.0.0>]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: sent [IPCP ConfRej id=0x4a <addr
0.0.0.0>]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: rcvd [IPCP ConfNak id=0x1 <addr
146.7.19.11>]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: sent [IPCP ConfReq id=0x2 <addr
146.7.19.11> <compress VJ 0f 01>]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: rcvd [IPCP ConfReq id=0x4b
<compress VJ
0f 00>]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: sent [IPCP ConfAck id=0x4b
<compress VJ
0f 00>]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: rcvd [IPCP ConfAck id=0x2 <addr
146.7.19.11> <compress VJ 0f 01>]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: Could not determine remote IP
address
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: sent [IPCP TermReq id=0x3 "Could
not
determine remote IP address"]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: rcvd [IPCP TermAck id=0x3]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: sent [LCP TermReq id=0x2 "No
network
protocols running"]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: rcvd [LCP TermAck id=0x2]
Mar 22 07:50:10 localhost pppd[1284]: Connection terminated.
Mar 22 07:50:11 localhost pppd[1284]: Exit.
Thanks,,
Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Jagdis)
Subject: Re: no more timeout on diald dialup
Date: 22 Mar 1999 16:46:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phantom wrote:
>Someone might find this interesting:
>
>I used to get timeout errors from my windoze box
>when diald connected.
>I used the option -reroute and it has gone away!
>
>either windows gets confused with the rerouting
>or ip masquerading does!!
DO NOT USE -REROUTE!
This implies that *all* packets will via the proxy to diald which
will then forward them to the real interface. This is hell of a
penalty to pay for what is basically a config problem that only
affects the packets buffered while the link is coming up. The
-reroute option was intended as a workaround for problems in early
1.3 kernels. It will/has disappeared in newer dialds so rely on
it at your peril.
The correct fix should be to get the latest diald from
http://diald.unix.ch and read the README.masq.
Mike
--
A train stops at a train station, a bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a work station...
.----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Roan Technology Ltd. | |
| 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 |
| RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Josef Drexler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What is the best Linux to install?
Date: 22 Mar 1999 17:02:59 GMT
In article "Re: What is the best Linux to install?", WhiteFox writes:
> I think I'll throw up if I read one more post like this: What is the
> best XXX to install?. As the original poster might be able to discern
> from the eager replies, what's stopping you from testing the stuff and
> forming your own opinion?
Time constraints maybe? In order to really find out what would be the best
distribution, you need to invest a lot of time.
You have to install every one of them, maybe tweak them, work with them
and
then find out what the differences are. Then you need to decide what you
deem important and select your distribution based on this.
It would be reinventing the wheel, not trying to benefit from the
experiences of others. Not having to do their errors again, just out of
ignorance.
If somebody doesn't have time to do this research on their own, why
shouldn't they ask other people about their opinions?
--
Josef Drexler
==================================+========================================
Conscience is what hurts when | In order to email me, please replace
everything else feels so good. | .canada with .ca - Death to Spammers!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rudolf Potucek)
Subject: Re: Routing Problem with 3 NICs
Date: 22 Mar 1999 16:06:51 GMT
Did you set the Firewall to forward? Something like
ipfwadm -F -a m
and the add some paranoia:
ipfwadm -I -p accept
ipfwadm -O -p accept
ipfwadm -F -p deny
# Outright kill all play addresses from outside world ...
ipfwadm -I -i deny -S10.0.0.0/8 -Weth2
ipfwadm -I -i deny -S127.0.0.0/8 -Weth2
ipfwadm -I -i deny -S172.16.0.0/12 -Weth2
ipfwadm -I -i deny -S192.168.0.0/16 -Weth2
Rudolf
berndm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Hi together,
: we have a machine with 3 NICs.
: eth0 - IP 192.168.101.1
: eth0:1 - IP 192.168.102.1
: etho:2 - IP 192.168.103.1
: eht1 - IP 195.a.b.5
: eth2 - IP 195.a.b.6
: eth2 is connected to our ISP. eth1 is a connectin to our mail and web server
: (IP 195.a.b.7). eth0 is connected to a LAN with 3 Subnets. On the machine
: with the 3 NICS which should work as firewall we can ping the mail server
: and vice versa. Moreover we can ping a machine in the LAN from both firewall
: and mailserver. Internet connection can be established from firewall.
: Our problem: we aren't able to ping any machine in the internet from the LAN
: and from mail server.
: We think that we have no problem concerning route. That means we tried
: nearly everything with the route command. And much more recommanded in the
: HowTo's????
: With a packet counter we ensured that equests for foreign IPs reached the
: correct NIC, but were not transported to eth2.
: Our kernel includes
: IP forwarding
: IP masquerading ...
: Questions:
: 1.) How can we transport IP packest from one card (eth0, eth1) to another
: (eth2)?
: 2.) how active is ipfwadm? This means that we don't know whether pfwadm
: pushes packets?
: thanks in advance
: bernd
--
------------------------------
From: Rick Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RH5.1 cannot reach Internet
Date: 22 Mar 1999 14:38:35 GMT
I have a RH5.1 box connected to the internet
with shadow passwords.
I have setup via the GUI the default gw, the eth0
interface, nameserver.
In the hosts.allow I have
ALL: 1.2.3.4
1.2.3.4 represents the address for my real IP
In the hosts.deny I have
ALL: ALL
all I can do is ping the local host.
I can't ping outside the box.
Help !!!
--
The wealth of reality, cannot be seen from your locality.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FTP through authenticating firewall
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:39:30 +0000
Dean
If you have a login id on the actual firewall itself, then you should be
able to ftp from your machine via the firewall using the ftp 'proxy'
command.
Im not sure of the technicalities of this and whether the ftp client
requires the firewall to be running a proxy (such as socks)
Id give this a try.
> I was wondering if there is a ftp client for linux that will go through
> an authenticating firewall. I am currently using Netscape get through
> the firewall but I would prefer a command line client. The firewall
> requires a username/password to work.
>
> Thanks,
> Dean
--
Regards,
Daniel Cave,
Unix Systems Administrator
Cable Internet,
Genesis Business Park
Albert Drive
Woking
Surrey
KT21 5RW
Tel: 01483 295 191
Fax: 01483 295 810
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
