Linux-Networking Digest #934, Volume #10 Wed, 21 Apr 99 19:13:43 EDT
Contents:
Re: DSL ("David K. Means")
Re: P.S. Networking Windows98 to Linux Please Help ("v4cal")
Re: DSL ("Ben Hirashima")
linux and 3com 905b at 100MB ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Install ethernet 2 SMC Elite 16( WD8013) with RH 5.2 (I Like Spam)
All New!!! WOW! ("Xarj")
Re: Linux - My honest opinion (jedi)
Re: Will Linux work with a Cable Modem??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
whois with Netatalk ("bob cent")
Re: Will Linux work with a Cable Modem??? ("PG")
Re: 3C509B NIC Problem... (Steve Ballard)
Re: NT faster than Linux? (Richard Corfield)
Re: Internet Connection (mist)
Re: Ip Aliases - sending packets from aliases? (Andi Kleen)
Re: tftpd information (I Like Spam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David K. Means" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: DSL
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:47:19 -0700
TURBO1010 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7fiuqd$no4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [ ... ]Do I need 2 nic cards, one connected to the DSL modem, and the
other
> to the hub, or can I stick with just one, and connect the dsl modem to the
hub,
> and then to the nic. Anyone done this before? I want to connect 3 win95
> boxes to the linux box, to IP masquerade.
Strictly speaking, you could use just one NIC in the Linux box, and plug
the DSL
modem's ethernet cable into the hub. HOWEVER, (imho) this is a bad idea.
If
you have all your traffic on a single physical net, it is a piece of cake
for a spoofer
to launch packets at your Linux box that seem to come from behind the
firewall,
and so defeat your (presumed) filtering. If you can spring for the 2nd
Ethernet card,
I would do so, because you can then get ipfwadm (or ipchains) to detect the
presence
of spoofing packets (by noticing the dest=192.168.x.y on the "public"
side), and
discard them.
Lest this seem like a pile of paranoia, I must report that there is a
steady stream of attempted
breakins on my system. I think that none has been successful, yet, but the
24hr connection
offered by xDSL makes a tempting target for hackers, who have nothing better
to do
than try to freeload on someone else's system. [flame off]
Your other question, about setting up several Win95 boxes behind the Linux
box, is
entirely doable. Unless you want to run DNS yourself (perhaps to support
your own
domain name), you can do this quite handily by just making entries in
/etc/hosts, and then
letting DNS run as a caching-only server; in this mode, it just resolves
names as the
WinDoze boxes ask for them, rather than being an active participant in the
Internet-wide
chit-chat about name-address resolution.
------------------------------
From: "v4cal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: P.S. Networking Windows98 to Linux Please Help
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:56:35 -0700
Haw do i get the Internet to all system on the network
Linux dials in to the net and i want all athere systems get the net threw
linux
v4cal wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I am trying to network Windows98 to Linux
>
>1. what is a good IP address to use on Linux
>
>2. Dose the Windows98 computer need a IP address
> If yes what is a good address for the windows98 system
> If not haw do I set it up not to use one
>
>3. Haw do i set up Windows98 to see Linux
>
>4. Haw do i log on to Linux form Windows98
>
>5. Haw do I set up Linux to be a NT Server So when someone logs in they
>will only see what they have access to on the linux system
>
>6. Can i setup my windows98 system so it can load programs from Linux so
>i can have a small drive in my windows system
>
>Thank you for your help
>Norbert
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ben Hirashima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: DSL
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:14:34 -0700
i recently set up something like what you're talking about. if you want to
use ip masquerading, you need 2 NICs on the linux box. you plug the dsl
modem into one (w/ external ip address), and your hub into the other (w/
private network ip address). you use the reserved ip address as your gateway
address for the windows boxes. it works pretty well for me. the tricky thing
is getting linux to recognize both NIC cards. see the networking how-to.
good luck,
ben
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: linux and 3com 905b at 100MB
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:11:34 GMT
Hi
I want to get my 3com 905b work with 100MB When the kernel starts my hub
signals that the 3com switches from 100 to 10MB must I compile my
networkdriver as a module to use parameters and what are these or is there
any other way to switch the mode to 100MB?
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:39:22 -0700
From: I Like Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Install ethernet 2 SMC Elite 16( WD8013) with RH 5.2
IRQ3 is used for Com2. You should change the network
card to a different IRQ, maybe 5, 10 or 9.
You also are only showing one Network card, but
said that you have 2. Are you taslking about the cable modem?
Finally, I found that my NE-2000 clone only shows up on
certain addresses
(listed in /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/ne.c on MY system.)
Make sure you are using a good address.
Younes Yajoud wrote:
>
> Hi I have cable modem intenet access and I want to install linux server
> with this configuration:
> Server Linux:
> RH 5.2
> Processor : Pentium 90 MHz
> RAM : 40 Mo
> Hard Disk SCSI : Seagate 1 Go
> IDE : Conner cp 100 Mo
> CDROM SCSI : Sony
> Graphic adapter : ATI mach 32
> SCSI adapter : Adaptec AH 2940 PCI
> Network Card :2 SMC Elite 16( WD8013) i/o =280; IRQ= 3 ;
> RAM=D0000
>
> i/o=300; IRQ=10; RAM= CC000
> Mouse : 3 butons ms-compatible
>
> 3 Clients working with Windows.
>
> The probleme is my linux doen't recognise my 2 Networks Cards and my
> mouse doesn't work in X.
> I need help to configure this server.
>
> Thanks for any help
>
> ps: my english is not good, my mother tongue is french.
------------------------------
From: "Xarj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: All New!!! WOW!
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:39:10 +0200
http://teen.sexhound.net/xxxpic/
ALL FREE!!!
100% FREE!
C'est Gratuit! Venez VITE!
It's Free! Come Fast!
Please come and have a look! 300 Pics hot Teens Updated Weekly!
XaaR
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Linux - My honest opinion
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:11:53 -0700
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:26:07 -0700, Farhad Farzaneh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unfortunately, the usenet and volunteer community-based support has its
>own set of problems and is not the answer for serious support. For
>example, I've spent the last day and a half trying to setup a ppp
>server. This is presumably something that a good fraction of linux
ISP*Hookup*Howto.
>users have to do but is there one place to learn how to do this? Not
>one that I found (forget the How-To - it's really out of date and it's 2
>paragraphs on server support are not that helpful). I waded through
>tons of how-to's, other documents, newgroups, Redhat knowledgebase,etc.
>My posts to the usenet were not answered. My search on "PPP and PAP and
>server and linux" in dejanews returned 5800 hits (to me this says that
>setting this up is an issue which has not been addressed). This is a
>very inefficient process. A big problem is that:
No, people just get tired of reposting the same answers
over and over again. People bore of it.
>
>+ there's a fair bit of bad advice out there
>+ there's also a fair number of abnoxious people whose only answer is
>"Read the FAQ"
>+ the how-to's and documents are old and don't reflect the current OS
>setups and there is no telling that they're out of date unless you're
>already pretty knowledgeable in the issues.
>+ even knowledgeable people often respond based upon their os setups,
>which is not necessarily reflective of the questioner's setup. A
>typical example is with the latest pppd. All the documentation says to
>use -chap +pap as arguments, but these are obsolete in pppd 2.3.3.
>
>Since there is noone responsible or accountable, there is no incentive
>to add some structure to the information or categorize in a way that's
>useful for people. I suppose there is a business there for someone to
>do this...
Then do what Windows users can effectively do, put the burden
on your ISP or take your money elsewhere. WorldNet has some
nice support pages for a WIDE variety of OSes.
>
>I still haven't solved my problem...
>
>Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:44:08 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >Mr. Feiner's post is a perfect example of why people must continue to use Windows.
>> >The level of arrogance and smugness that I have encountered in this community is
>> >truly astounding. Even though I have considerable experience with computer
>>
>> This is not a Linux problem. It is a Usenet problem.
>>
>> >systems, I must conclude that I'm a moron as I am presently unable to solve the
>> >problems I'm having with PPP and X-Window. The last month has made me feel as
>> >though I were on a pilgrimage; I have literally searched through a mountain of
>mans,
>> >docs and usergroups to no avail. Somehow, I have difficulty imagining Mr. Feiner's
>>
>> My docs at http://cirl.meei.harvard.edu/hylafax/linux/ aren't helpful for the
>> PPP issues?
>>
>> X-windows is its own set of issues. Those are often difficult to wade
>> through, I admit.
>>
>> In general, I find that a detailed question to the Usenet about an issue
>> is stunningly more useful than a tech support to Microsoft or their
>> often collateral-damaged software partners.
>>
>> >> Learning curves for LiNUX ARE short- for USERS. However, you have been turned
>> >> off to it because you've had to play (unwittingly) system administrator AND
>> >> user. The sysadmin's job is infinitely more difficult than the user's- hmmm,
>> >> JUST LIKE WITH A CERTAIN OTHER OS. The fact is, sadly, people don't realize the
>> >> difference between them. You are a perfect example of this.
>>
>> And he had a point here. The learning curve for a Windows
>> administrator plateaus much faster than for a Linux administrator, but
>> at a vastly lower level. And at least the docs are at least *THERE*,
>> and you don't have to buy just plain fraudulent source books or add-on
>> debuggers to decode what the hell happened to somebody's machine. It's
>> usually still running enough to remotely log in and double check it:
>> and the concept of a "only the root user can mess with the important
>> stuff" saves so many man-hours, it's stunning.
>>
>> --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Will Linux work with a Cable Modem???
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:00:40 GMT
I plan on doing the same @Home and Linux thing. @Home doesn't mind if we set
up servers for ourselves and our friends to access do they? They just don't
want bandwidth to be sucked up by a public server. Same goes for the ISP
stuff. They probably would have problems with other people dialing into the
connection but I think its ok if you use it as an ISP. (For example, I'm away
from home but need Internet access for my laptop)
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks
In article <371d4453.34524089@news>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Preston) wrote:
> It's relatively easy to connect to a cable modem using Linux. I can't give you
> the details -- maybe someone else will, but you have to configure your Linux
box
> to work with your ethernet card then just use your IP address and gateway
> address supplied by the cable company in the network configuration.
>
> You should be able to just hook all of your computers and the modem into the
> hub. You can use a workgroup to network your Windows boxes. I think you could
> use samba on the Linux box to allow the Windows units to see it but I haven't
> gotten that to work yet myself.
>
> As for being your own ISP, which would be fun; the @home service that I used
> forbade running any kind of servers and if they catch you doing it, they'll
> disconnect you.
>
> You could probably get away with testing a web server a little while though
and
> I think that Apache is easy to set up if it's not already after you install
Red
> Hat 5.2. I believe the security is set by default to only let people see
certain
> directories. You could set up accounts for your freinds and let them login too
> but you probably don't want to do that much because it does violate the @home
> user agreement as far as I know.
>
> Sorry I haven't been more specific -- I'm new to this stuff myself.
>
> On 2 Feb 1999 23:50:27 GMT, Father QAA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >My family is getting Comcast @ home cable modem service. I believe that
> >the cable modem is actually a router that is accessed through a network
> >card. That is what I think anyway. My family uses Windows 95 on many of
> >our computers and that is fine for them, but I am using Red Hat Linux
> >5.2 and I am not sure that Linux will support the cable modem. If I
> >didnt make it clear before, the cable line is put into a special router
> >just for cable lines. Then a network card is placed inside my computer
> >and the net is accessed through the router. I believe that it is a great
> >deal for $40 a month(because I am already a comcast cable customer) and
> >I was also wondering, and am pretty sure that Windows 95 computers can
> >network to the modem via a hub to the linux server via TCP/IP???? I am
> >not a network guy or anything but I think if I use a hub to connect my
> >Windows 95 computers to the Linux server, I believe it will work. I am
> >also planning to set the linux computer up as a web server, so any tips
> >on that would be appreciated too. Can I also sell off bandwith by having
> >friends dial in to my cable modem access? I might want to become my own
> >ISP =)
> >Security for the website is also a thing. How do you setup linux to only
> >let web surfers access certain directories and not others??? Just
> >wondering...
> >Oh and thanks for anybody who helped me on PPPD, It was a real pain, but
> >I think I got it.
> >Mike Tin
> >Please Respond via Email at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "bob cent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: whois with Netatalk
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:15:56 -0700
Hi,
The who and whois command is supposed to show which users are logged in.
Unfortuantely, no AppleTalk users are shown when I used this command. How
can I tell which AppleTalk users are logged into my system? Thanks.
Bob Cent
University of Washington
------------------------------
From: "PG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will Linux work with a Cable Modem???
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:22:10 GMT
Check the AUP. They will mind a whole lot if you set up Linux incorrectly
and it has an impact on their network.
PG
(another @home user...)
============================================================================
===========
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7flhq5$tv5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I plan on doing the same @Home and Linux thing. @Home doesn't mind if we
set
> up servers for ourselves and our friends to access do they? They just
don't
> want bandwidth to be sucked up by a public server. Same goes for the ISP
> stuff. They probably would have problems with other people dialing into
the
> connection but I think its ok if you use it as an ISP. (For example, I'm
away
> from home but need Internet access for my laptop)
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks
>
>
> In article <371d4453.34524089@news>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Preston) wrote:
> > It's relatively easy to connect to a cable modem using Linux. I can't
give you
> > the details -- maybe someone else will, but you have to configure your
Linux
> box
> > to work with your ethernet card then just use your IP address and
gateway
> > address supplied by the cable company in the network configuration.
> >
> > You should be able to just hook all of your computers and the modem into
the
> > hub. You can use a workgroup to network your Windows boxes. I think you
could
> > use samba on the Linux box to allow the Windows units to see it but I
haven't
> > gotten that to work yet myself.
> >
> > As for being your own ISP, which would be fun; the @home service that I
used
> > forbade running any kind of servers and if they catch you doing it,
they'll
> > disconnect you.
> >
> > You could probably get away with testing a web server a little while
though
> and
> > I think that Apache is easy to set up if it's not already after you
install
> Red
> > Hat 5.2. I believe the security is set by default to only let people see
> certain
> > directories. You could set up accounts for your freinds and let them
login too
> > but you probably don't want to do that much because it does violate the
@home
> > user agreement as far as I know.
> >
> > Sorry I haven't been more specific -- I'm new to this stuff myself.
> >
> > On 2 Feb 1999 23:50:27 GMT, Father QAA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >My family is getting Comcast @ home cable modem service. I believe that
> > >the cable modem is actually a router that is accessed through a network
> > >card. That is what I think anyway. My family uses Windows 95 on many of
> > >our computers and that is fine for them, but I am using Red Hat Linux
> > >5.2 and I am not sure that Linux will support the cable modem. If I
> > >didnt make it clear before, the cable line is put into a special router
> > >just for cable lines. Then a network card is placed inside my computer
> > >and the net is accessed through the router. I believe that it is a
great
> > >deal for $40 a month(because I am already a comcast cable customer) and
> > >I was also wondering, and am pretty sure that Windows 95 computers can
> > >network to the modem via a hub to the linux server via TCP/IP???? I am
> > >not a network guy or anything but I think if I use a hub to connect my
> > >Windows 95 computers to the Linux server, I believe it will work. I am
> > >also planning to set the linux computer up as a web server, so any tips
> > >on that would be appreciated too. Can I also sell off bandwith by
having
> > >friends dial in to my cable modem access? I might want to become my own
> > >ISP =)
> > >Security for the website is also a thing. How do you setup linux to
only
> > >let web surfers access certain directories and not others??? Just
> > >wondering...
> > >Oh and thanks for anybody who helped me on PPPD, It was a real pain,
but
> > >I think I got it.
> > >Mike Tin
> > >Please Respond via Email at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Steve Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 3C509B NIC Problem...
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:00:31 +0100
If your card is an ISA card then I would suggest running 3c5x9cfg.exe which comes
on your network card driver disk (disk 2). This can also be downloaded off
www.3com.com.
You will be able to set the internal network card BIOS and choose whichever IRQ
and IO you
want.
If this is a PCI card then you can change use the motherboard BIOS to change these
settings, but
the method depends on the type of BIOS on the motherboard (either disallow or
choose preffered
settings).
I hope this is of help, and let me know how you get on.
Steve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <7dhi5t$169$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to install slackware linux in our PC. I have tried many
> things
> > but could not make the network card up.
> >
> > The Windows device manager shows the network card with these settings.
> >
> > 3Com Fast Etherlink XL 10/100Mb Tx Ethernet NIC
> > 3C905B - TX.
> > IRQ-11, Memory Range 08000100-0800017F
> > I/O Range 1080-10FF
> >
> > When I boot the linux system I get this message which results in some other
> > error messages (SIOC.. fail because eth0 setup failure)
> >
> > The PCI BIOS has not enabled this device! Updating PCI command 0014->0015
> > eth0: 3Com 3C905B Cyclone 100BaseTx at 0xd480, 00:10:5a:9e:a8:19, IRQ 255
> >
> > *** Warning: IRQ 255 is unlikely to work! ***
> > 8K byte-wide RAM 5:3 Rx:Tx split, autoselect/NWay Autonegotiation interface.
> > Enabling bus-master transmits and whole-frame receives.
> > 3c59x.c:v0.99E 5/12/98....
> >
> > Has anyone familiar with this problem?. Do I need to disable plug and play
> > stuff?.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mohan.
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
>
> I have exactly the same problem myself (though with a different brand
> ethernet card, SOHOware, so it doesn't seem to be card specific). Please let
> me know if you figure it out. There is some way you can add a string in LILO
> where you can set the IRQ it uses, I think (I'm just repeating what I read in
> LINUX Secrets), so I may try that.
>
> Anyone have any insight on how to fix this problem?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help you can give.
>
> Ed
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Richard Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.samba,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: NT faster than Linux?
Date: 20 Apr 1999 19:17:58 +0100
In article <7feuka$5mh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Glen Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>3 This I think you will find is about the norm. NT biggest problem is that
>is badly optimised most of the time and installed badly by badly trained
>monkeys ( I should know, I'm a well trained monkey). Every other time I
>have seen any other benchmark from any other "independent" vendor that
>situation has been reversed. The Unix/Linux/NetWare Box/Whatever has been
>installed by some Demi-God and the NT Box has been installed by Bobo the
>chimp who is more concerned with bananas than service configuration.
Isn't this one of NT's biggest (and as you say presumably incorrect)
selling points? Aren't we meant to believe that NT's pretty graphical
interface does indeed allow a (badly|un)trained monkey to operate it?
We hear all the time that UNIX is not as pretty as NT and this is its
failing but it seems that neither system is that easy. You have to know
and fully understand what you're trying to achieve whichever system
you use.
OK so deep system tuning parameters do indeed need a well trained person
to understand them. This is beyond mundane tasks like adding users and
resetting their passwords which both NT and Linux can do in a pretty
handholding way. To have a good NT system you need to pay for good NT
administrators just as you have to pay for good UNIX administrators on
a UNIX system and Novell admins on a Novell system and so forth.
Some people should stop trying to claim otherwise.
- Richard.
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_/ _/ _/ _/ Web Page: http://www.littondale.freeserve.co.uk
_/_/ _/ _/ Dance (Ballroom, RnR), Hiking, SJA, Linux, ... [ENfP]
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ PGP2.6 Key ID: 0x0FB084B1 PGP5 Key ID: 0xFA139DA7
------------------------------
From: mist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Internet Connection
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:05:25 +0100
Reply-To: mist <new$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jon Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribed to us that -
>I have a private LAN that I'm trying to connect to the internet through a
>Linux 5.2 box. The client machines are Windows 98. The internet connection
>is via dialup and the Linux box is able to connect fine but I need
>help/advice to get to Linux box to allow the Win98 machines to connect
>through it.
>
Read up on IP Masquerading. If you upgrade to the 2.2.* kernel, then
you can use IPChains and the whole thing works in about two lines,
similar to
echo 1> /proc/sys/net/ip_v4/ip_forward
/sbin/ipchains -A forward -j MASQ -s your.dotted.ip.range
--
Mist.
------------------------------
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Ip Aliases - sending packets from aliases?
Date: 21 Apr 1999 19:47:32 +0200
Geoff Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> If so; could someone point me at the correct ioctl()
> or the socket options or even a snippet of code.
Use bind(2) to the alias before the connect. After a connect
the local address cannot be changed anymore for obvious reasons.
bind can only be called once on a socket.
-Andi
--
This is like TV. I don't like TV.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:05:30 -0700
From: I Like Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: news2.qx.net
Subject: Re: tftpd information
I think that TFTP is falling out of favor because of
the complete lack of security.
SNMP is the preferred method.
Tom Powell wrote:
>
> Does anyone know where I can get information on configuring the
> tftp service. I need to set it up for updating routers, etc.
> I have looked at the tftpd and related man pages but they are
> pretty thin. Any info would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom Powell
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
