Linux-Networking Digest #627, Volume #10 Thu, 25 Mar 99 12:13:42 EST
Contents:
dhcpcd problem with Linux 2.0.0 (Dipangkar Dutta)
3Com 3c507TP (Josh Gardner)
Re: 8.8.7 -> 8.9.3 ("Curt")
Re: After Samba installation ("Dribs")
Re: winmodems (Marc Hering)
Re: Linux Client on an NT network (Marc Hering)
Re: Can Linux Do This ??? (Luca Filipozzi)
Masq. + Rules!!!!!???? (Ng Wai Wing)
Re: "Industrial" Ethernet (Dave Crane)
Lotus Domino Server Compatible? ("J.S. Mammen")
Re: win98+linux and program on a network. (Eric Rossing)
need help with mini network ("Claus Meisel")
Re: Help on PPP install (Bill Unruh)
Re: IP Forwarding via Command Prompt ("��d�W")
SAMBA - Can't Logon to Server ("Gerhard Paulman")
Re: SAMBA - Can't Logon to Server (Alan Mead)
Re: Difference Between NAT and IPMasquerade ("Leopold Toetsch")
monitoring traffic over pppd on demand ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: mod_rewrite not working (Henry Blackman)
Re: net-tools-1.50/51 (Marcus Harnisch)
Re: ICQ Client and socks... ("Curt")
Problem with ipautofw ("Pekka K. Kurki")
Netscape and DNS again... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux as a firewall!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dipangkar Dutta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: dhcpcd problem with Linux 2.0.0
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:08:02 -0500
Hi,
I was able to get my network card working with a tulip driver in
slackware Linux 2.0.0,
but dhcpcd times out without being able to connect to the Media one
Express dhcp server.
I have installed dhcpcd-0.7
Can anyone help fix this
Thanks
DD
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:49:19 -0800
From: Josh Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 3Com 3c507TP
Does anyone know where I could get a driver for the 3com 3c507TP,
otherwise known as a 3com Etherlink II TP?
I need it very badly to get my linux machine on my network to make it
into a web server!
Thanks very much!
Josh
PS please reply via email, if possible.
------------------------------
From: "Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,linux.redhat.rpm
Subject: Re: 8.8.7 -> 8.9.3
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 06:51:30 -0500
Try qmail at www.qmail.org. It's much simpler to deal with than sendmail,
IMO.
Haaino Beljaars wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi,
>
>I am currently trying to upgrade my sendmail from version 8.8.7 to 8.9.3
>on a redhat 5.2 system. I have upgraded without succes. The problem is
>as follows:
>
>1) which rpms do I need for upgrading, I have found the following:
>
> sendmail-8.9.1-2.i386.rpm
> sendmail-cf-8.9.1-6.i386.rpm
> sendmail-config-8.9.1-6.i386.rpm
>
>As you can see non of the above sendmails are from version 8.9.3, where
>can I find the latest sendmail.rpm (I have tried freshmeat and
>filewatcher)
>
>2) When I upgrade with the prviously mentioned sendmail rpms the mapfile
>is moved from /usr/bin to /usr/sbin which has the effect that all mail
>programs (pine/elm) think that I don't have mail anymore. How can I fix
>that, can I just create a symbolic link in /usr/bin to /usr/sbin file?
>
>Any help would be appresiated, please mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>Greetings from Haaino Beljaars
>
>Home Page: HTTP://www.phys.uu.nl/~beljaars/
>
>I am pro Open Source Software
------------------------------
From: "Dribs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: After Samba installation
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 19:06:08 +1100
It would help if you tell us what version of Linux you are using and other
bits of useful info such as whether you have a DNS configured.
>I installed Samba 2.0 and now I can't ftp to my Linux box from either 98
>
>and NT.
------------------------------
From: Marc Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: winmodems
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:25:22 GMT
John Hardin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:37:26 -0500, "batags"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >better yet...get everybody that runs linux to e-mail USR/3com to
> >develop a linux driver for their winmodem. They cannot ignore 2
> >million e-mails in their mailbox requesting support. :-)
>
> Feh. Why do *I* care whether a Winmodem will work under Linux?
>
> Return it for a refund and get a real modem. *That* USR will pay attention
> to.
We hope :)
>
> --
> 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!
------------------------------
From: Marc Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Client on an NT network
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:25:52 GMT
man smbmount :)
Wayne Chunn wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Is it possible to login to an NT network with my Linux laptop?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Wayne
>
> ------------------ Posted via SearchLinux ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luca Filipozzi)
Subject: Re: Can Linux Do This ???
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:29:11 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 11:37:55 -0800, "The Lone Scribe"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >peter wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >>1) Does linux support 56k v90 modems ???
> >
> >
> >Yes. But to take advantage of v.90, your ISP has to have v.90 modems
> >installed at their POP(s).
> >
> >>2) Now, linux also supports multiple modems, does my IP have to
> >>support it as well???
> >
> >
> >Yes, your ISP will need to sell you a 'shotgun' type of account (if
> >available) so that you can use two phone lines/modem as a pair, not as two
> >separate accounts. I've never tried this with Linux because it was more cost
> >effective to get a xDSL account instead. Shotgun accounts were twice the
> >cost of a standard dial-up ($40/mo.), and needed a second phone line
> >($12/mo.), bringing the total cost to a bit higher than DSL ($49/mo.) at a
> >fraction of the speed of DSL, and I saved even more because I eliminated my
> >voice phone line (you can use both DSL and voice at the same time on the
> >same line). But perhaps someone else has done this and will post a solution
> >for you if you can't get affordable DSL in your area.
> >
> >
> >
> Wow, DSL sound great, what speed is your line?
>
> My friend has DSL running something like; 192k download and 80k
> upload. He pays a total of $59.
>
> Can people call you on the DSL line?
>
> peter
>
DSL is just another "phone line". The difference between DSL and a
"standard" phone line is in how the bandwidth gets used. The DSL comes
into your house and you use a filter (POTS splitter) to separate voice
frequency and data frequency portions of the bandwidth. The voice
frequency stuff goes to your phone. The data frequency stuff goes into a
DSL modem that converts it into standard 10Base-T levels.
I have ADSL. I get 3.1Mbps download (telco has a java-based test
program). I don't have numbers on my upload speed. It costs
CA$65.00/month and includes one dynamically assigned ip address and five
email accounts. It does not include the "telephone service". Just the
"data service". I *must* have the "telephone service" in order to get the
"data service". The "telephone service" is CA$24.00/month. So, at
C$90.00/month, I have voice (which I am forced into) and data. A little
steep, maybe... but the bandwidth is great :).
Of course, Linux is *not* supported. What's worse, I have to "login" to a
special web page before the telco's news server will allow me to connect.
The mail server has no such restriction. Fortunately, the local LUG has
developed a script to perform the appropriate SSL stuff to "login". :)
Sadly, the telco is running ads on the television offering a second phone
line and dial-up Internet service for CA$55.00/month to people who are
"on-line" a lot. Since ADSL isn't advertised at all, people end up going
with the second phone line and get a measly 56kbps link!!! Of course,
profits are the driving motivation behind this marketing ploy.
my CA$0.02's worth (that's around US$0.013)
Luca
--
Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ng Wai Wing)
Subject: Masq. + Rules!!!!!????
Date: 25 Mar 1999 08:18:42 GMT
I have the following rules for my firewall. But I can't telnet from
the private network to the internet.!!!!
Please help
# Telnet from 202.64.xx.yy to internet.
/sbin/ipfwadm -I -a accept -k -P tcp -S any/0 telnet \
-D 202.64.xx.yy 1024:65535
/sbin/ipfwadm -O -a accept -P tcp -S 202.64.xx.yy 1024:65535 \
-D any/0 telnet
# Masq.
/sbin/ipfwadm -F -a accept -m -S 10.0.0.1/24
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Crane)
Subject: Re: "Industrial" Ethernet
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:13:12 GMT
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 19:47:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am designing a Emergency Shutdown and Fire and Gas System for an offshore
>platform complex consisting of three platforms. I will have a ESD and F&G PLC
>on each of the three platforms. Each PLC will have its own PC based
>workstation (or HMI). Each platform is a stand alone system, not depending on
>the other platforms. All of the mentioned components are Ethernet/IEEE 802.3
>compatible. I want to link all of these components via an Ethernet network.
>My proposed topology and cabling is as follows:
>
>Install a backbone consisting of redundant fiber between platforms in a Bus
>configuration. Install a media converter and hub on each platform thus
>converting to a Star configuration.
>
>My limited knowledge of Ethernet tells me that a Bus topology depends on
>being "terminated" at every end and will fail the entire network if a cable
>breaks, and that a Star topology will continue to operate if one segment
>fails as long as the hub continues to operate. My concern is (with this given
>topology) if the backbone is cut between the platforms, does the star network
>on the "stand- alone" platform continue to operate?
Yes, the independent segments continue to operate. And all segments
on the same side of the break will continue to communicate with one
another. The loss is connectivity to all segments on the other side of
the break.
Is an RF-based system out of the question for the "backbone" that
connects the platforms? I guess I'm asking why you want to connect the
platforms if it's not important that they stay connected in an
emergency. These things have a way of growing over time and future
interdependencies can't be predicted.
------------------------------
From: "J.S. Mammen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Lotus Domino Server Compatible?
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:06:49 +0308
Hi
I have a question, but please pardon me if it is the wrong group.
There is a office setup with WindowsNT and Lotus Notes with Domino
Server. We would like to remove the NT but
keep Lotus Notes and Domino Server.
My question
1. Is there a Linux port Domino server or Lotus
2. If not, is there a compatiable Domino server which can be run on
Linux OS
3. Or is there a server similar to Domino to acomplish the purpose of
Domino Server
Any help on this matter is appreciated.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
J.S.Mammen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Rossing)
Subject: Re: win98+linux and program on a network.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:15:03 GMT
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:24:28 -0500, "Jean-R�ginald Louis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hi. I made a little test. I have copy the file edit.exe in a linux directory
: and try to execute it with windows by the network. What I want to know is if
: windows download the program, then execute it or did the program is
: 'running' on the linux machine?
The copy on the Linux machine is the copy being run by Windows, but the
actual program processing is taking place in the Windows machine. All the
Linux machine is doing is handing the file to the Windows machine.
Eric Rossing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Claus Meisel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: need help with mini network
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 00:53:40 -0800
Hi
I plan to set up a little network in the house to share the costs for DSL.
So I bought a Hub 10Mbps and hooked, to start with, my Pentium II 350Mhz,
running 98 and the Pentium 90, now running RedHat 5.2 Server together.
The Modem is in the Pentium II and not the RedHat machine because it did not
recognize the PCI Modem.
If I use Wingate under 98 or RideWay, it works fine between the windows
environment. Using Proxy settings I even manage to browse the net from all
machines.
The problem is, how can I get on-line with the Unix machine ? The windows
machine is online and the Unix machine doesn't seem to know it.
I set the IP to 192.168.1.2 and the DNS to 192.168.1.1 ( window machine with
modem )
My plan was really to get ADSL, use the Unix machine as the server and hook
up all the windows machines to it using IP_Masquerade (??)
Any suggestions ? Also, for $50 more I can get a 100Mbps Hub and 2 100Mbps
cards. Is it necessary for a Network which will at the most have 5 machines
?
Thanks for your help. Please e-mail me.
Claus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Help on PPP install
Date: 25 Mar 1999 08:56:14 GMT
In <01be7668$3e1f0810$0c07849c@SilverHost> "Enrico Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>I carefully followed the instruction for PPP (Redhat manual) but can't
>connect to my ISP. I can hear the modem dialing but it just keep trying
>repeatedly. Minicom command can recognize the modem. Is there a way to
>invoke the PPP connection and not during boot-up? Please advise.
Are youtrying to use diald? Get ppp set up first without diald. Then
whan youknow exactly what your ISP wants, youu can set up diald.
Read
axion.physics.ubc.ca/ppp-linux.html
for information as to how to hook up with pppd.
------------------------------
From: "��d�W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IP Forwarding via Command Prompt
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 14:46:29 +0800
I got the same IP Forwarding problem, too !!!
Here is the detail:
+----------------------------------+
| Linux Box |
| with 2 NICs |
+------------+-----+---------------+
| eth0 | | eth1 |
|10.131.12.50| | 192.168.0.1 |
+-----+------+ +-------+-------+
| |
| |
+-----+------+ +-------+-------+
| Internet | | CWin98 Client |
+------------+ | ------------- |
| with gateway |
| = 192.168.0.1 |
+---------------+
I want to let my CWin98 client connect to internet through Linux Box.
So, I set the gateway of the CWin98 client as eth1(192.168.0.1).
"IPv4 forward" is enabled in the Linux Box.
When I use browser to view Homepage, it appear as "Test Page for Red Hat
Linux's Apache Installation".
The HTML content is as following:
##It Worked!
##If you can see this, it means that the installation of the Apache software
on this Red Hat Linux system was successful. You may now add content to this
directory and replace this page.
##--------------------------------------------------------------------------
======
##If you are seeing this instead of the content you expected, please contact
the administrator of the site involved. If you send mail about this to the
authors of the Apache software or Red Hat Software, who almost certainly
have nothing to do with this site, your message will be ignored.
##--------------------------------------------------------------------------
======
##The Apache documentation has been included with this distribution.
##For documentation and information on Red Hat Linux, please visit the web
site of Red Hat Software. The manual for Red Hat Linux is available here.
##You are free to use the image below on an Apache-powered web server.
Thanks for using Apache!
##You are free to use the image below on a Red Hat Linux-powered web server.
Thanks for using Red Hat Linux!
Besides, I cannot ping IP of those machine in the internet.
Would anyone has got idea of what else I need to do ?
Please offer your help !!!
Thank you
Chris Hanrahan ���g��峹 <36ef1b04.2483591@news>...
> I'm using RedHat 5.2 and am comfortable setting up IP
>Forwarding using the netcfg tool in X Windows. However, I'd like to
>be able to accomplish the same thing via the command line. I tried
>editing /etc/sysconfig/network and set FORWARD_IPV4 to yes, however,
>the box still would not route. Are there other places that I must
>make changes ? Once the device driver for an ethernet card is
>installed, what's the procedure for configuring the IP address etc.
>for that Interface. The only way that I know is to add the proper
>ifconfig statements to the /etc/rc.d/rc.local file, but clearly, there
>is another way, since after using X to accomplish the same thing,
>rc.local is untouched. Can someone point me in the right direction ?
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Chris Hanrahan
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Gerhard Paulman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SAMBA - Can't Logon to Server
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:00:04 -0500
Somebody help me please. I have changed the workgroup name to the local
domain and set up some shares in smb.conf, and I see the machine just fine
in Explorer, but I can't log on. Security is user. When I click on the
machine, which should then display the shares, it asks me to supply a
username and password. No matter what I enter for user + passw, I get the
error:
\\machine is not accessible
The account is not authorized to log in from this station
I'm sure it's a simple thing I overlooked, but can someone please point me
in the right direction on this? Thanks,
Gerhard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Mead)
Subject: Re: SAMBA - Can't Logon to Server
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:06:05 GMT
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 11:00:04 -0500, "Gerhard Paulman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Somebody help me please. I have changed the workgroup name to the local
>domain and set up some shares in smb.conf, and I see the machine just fine
>in Explorer, but I can't log on. Security is user. When I click on the
>machine, which should then display the shares, it asks me to supply a
>username and password. No matter what I enter for user + passw, I get the
>error:
Are you using win9x or winNT? If so, are you using encrpted
passwords? I suggest you read ENCRYPTION.txt. Mine was in
/usr/doc/samba<version>/docs/ENCRYPTION.txt.
For some reason I don't understand, my samba refused to show up in the
same workgroup as regular Win95 machines. You could try changing the
workgroup name.
-Alan
------------------------------
From: "Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Difference Between NAT and IPMasquerade
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:52:37 +0100
Ramon Leon wrote in message <7dbkip$msj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I didn't say it couldn't do many to many, I was trying to convey that MASQ
>and NAT are not different things. MASQ is just NAT implemented in a many
to
>one configuration. They are both still NAT. You make it look like NAT can
>only do one to one translation, this is not true. NAT can do many to one
>also, therefore MASQ is NAT. Just because you unix guys want to call it
>something else doesn't change the fact that MASQ is NAT.
>
So we come clearer to the point:
Masquerading, is a special implementation of NAT, which can do _only_ many
to one translations.
NAT can do many to many translation (which of course includes many to one
translation).
IMHO I couldn't imply "MASQ is NAT".
Masquerading does of course NAT (Network Address Translation) but the term
NAT includes many to many which Masquerading doesn't.
Detailed description of NAT:
http://www.csn.tu-chemnitz.de/~mha/linux-ip-nat/diplom/nat.html
leo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: monitoring traffic over pppd on demand
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:01:57 GMT
Hi,
I'm running a local network (mainly running NT and win95) witch are connected
to the internet though a linux box having a modem. I have configured
pppd to dial on demand. Does anybody know the way to:
1) monitoring when the modem is connected and when is not.
2) monitoring who on the local network is exchanging data through the modem.
Thank you
Sandro Ferrari
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henry Blackman)
Crossposted-To: comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
Subject: Re: mod_rewrite not working
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:07:53 -0800
Try with the Addmodule command and recompile. It should be in your
configuration file but hashed out #, uncomment it and try again.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
------------------------------
From: Marcus Harnisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: net-tools-1.50/51
Date: 25 Mar 1999 17:04:00 +0100
Hi Thomas
Thomas Zajic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bad grepping! :-) From /usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes:
Wrong! grepping was ok, reading was bad ;-)
>
> >Networking Changes
> >==================
> >
> > Please read Documentation/networking/routing.txt and
> >Documentation/networking/policy-routing.txt for more information about
> >changes in routing code. OSPF classes have been added, and interface
> >routes are generated automatically.
> >
> > If for some reason you need to override this automatic default
> >routing, you have to specify the complete route specification (netmask,
> >device, etc.) for the kernel to accept it. Consequently, you need to
> >either remove interface routes from your init scripts or add missing
> >information to them if you need to replace the automatic routes.
> >
> > Also note that some routes, such as loopback routes, do not show up
> >in some standard tools. Check in /proc/net/rt_local to verify their
> >presence.
>
> The important part is in the middle paragraph ... ;-)
Got it. Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Marcus
------------------------------
From: "Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ICQ Client and socks...
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:38:59 -0500
http://www.socks.nec.com/sockscap.html
I've not had to sockify any clients after I started using sockscap.
Matthew Mactyre wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:13:06 -0500, "Curt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>ICQ will work thourgh a socks proxy server if you use a socks wrapper like
>>sockscap32
>>or another one from hummingbird. Take a look at www.socks.nec.com .
>
>Thanks for the advice, but I didn't see a Sockscap client for Linux on
>www.socks.nec.com. I would still like to be able to compile with the
>--enable-socks5 switch turned on. There are lot of clients that I'm
>going to need socks support with...
>
------------------------------
From: "Pekka K. Kurki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problem with ipautofw
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:41:00 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
I am since yesterday a proud user ud Linux kernel 2.2.3. With 2.0.6 I
was using IP Masquarading without any problems, including ipautofw. Now
on 2.2.3 everything works fine with ipchains bu when I type
/usr/local/sbin/ipautofw -A -r udp 6112 6112 -h 172.16.1.2
I get the response:
setsockopt: Protocol not available
I have compiled my kernel with virtually all available options, so this
should not cause a problem. What I was missing in 2.2.3 config dialog
was the question about IP-forwarding (whic was there in earlier
versions, but otherwise all is in there.
I read in the man page of ipmasqadm that the autoforward options can be
viewed with ipmasqadm autofw -h but that just told me the command
letters without any further explanation.
Any ideas what I could do or where I could find more info?
best regards,
Pekka
--
Pekka K Kurki
Intellectics GesmbH
Schloss-Strasse 59
A-2551 Enzesfeld, Austria
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellectics.com/Pekka_Kurki.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Netscape and DNS again...
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:40:18 GMT
I see a lot of people that can't connect with Netscape and are told to insert
the DNSs in the /etc/resolv.conf file. Well, I'm on S.u.S.E. 6.0 with kernel
2.2.3 and Netscape 4.5. I am using dhclient (DHCP) on my job. I can ping with
IP or server name, FTP is fine, my /etc/resolv.conf looks right. Basically
everything seems fine *except* for Netscape. What makes Netscape so different
from all my other clients???
What should I look for next? I have a line showing my home net (192.168.0.0)
when I do "route", but apart from this it looks just like on my NT or UNIX
machine from what I can tell.
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux as a firewall!!
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:09:27 GMT
> To do a true DMZ you'll need more than 1 IP address from your ISP. Do
> you have them? If so the DMZ traffic is routed and not Masq'd. The
> firewall becomes a simple packet filter then.
>
> If you only have one IP then you'll need to masq the DMZ also. This
> will require explicit port forwarding on the firewall.
>
> Oh, and three network adapters isn't any more difficult than two.
>
I have another question for the same subject.
We're going to be connected to the internet via a permanent line.
We'll have several official IP numbers and we would like to create
a DMZ using linux :
| PERMANENT LINE
|
[[]] CISCO ROUTER
|
|
| 192.111.11.1
|||||
Firewall |||||?-------------- DMZ (with www server)[] 192.111.11.2
|||||
|192.168.1.1
|
| Intranet
The problem I'm confronted to is that the hosts in the DMZ will
have the same network number than the firewall network card
connected to the CISCO.
How the cisco knows it have to route using the firewall to
connect to my www server inside the DMZ
I think the CISCO must be configurated a particular way for
the DMZ to work ? I won't be the cisco owner, my ISP will ...
Ideas ?
Sorry for my bad english.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
