Linux-Networking Digest #57, Volume #11 Thu, 6 May 99 06:13:47 EDT
Contents:
PCI Network Card that definetly work in Linux and Window 98 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: samba cant see win98 shares (S J Wheeler)
Re: Samba as a printer server->suggestions (Ian Northeast)
no pingies in very simple network ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ip forwarding problems ("Michael Gibson")
IP Masquerading problem (Alex Zinoviev)
Re: procmail (or sendmail?) problems ("Leopold Toetsch")
Re: newbie question - fron red hat to suse ("abba fan")
Re: PPP excessive logging (Bill Unruh)
Re: connecting two networks w/o a router?? (Luca Filipozzi)
Re: ?Windows NT dialup to Linux PPP server? (jianhong)
Re: no pingies in very simple network ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Slow Linux PPP FIXED !!! (Rustan LeBaron)
Re: no pingies in very simple network (Luca Filipozzi)
Re: Samba directory access ("Jochen Chauchet")
Re: diald (Mike Jagdis)
Re: NT faster than Linux? (Jamie)
Re: IP Masquerading problem (Luca Filipozzi)
Mail Gateway ("Marcio Lima")
Re: Slow Linux PPP FIXED !!! (Ralph Wesseling)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PCI Network Card that definetly work in Linux and Window 98
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 03:33:20 GMT
Can anybody suggest a reliable but inexpensive PCI 10/100 Ethernet card that
will definetly work in Linux (without re-compiling the kernel) and Windows 98?
Regards,
Brian
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S J Wheeler)
Subject: Re: samba cant see win98 shares
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 19:30:03 +0100 (BST)
Surely it looks like you have set your Windows 9x PC to user level security
which requires a login authenticator such as a Windows NT server as a
PDC or a novell server?
Can Samba provide login authentication for Windows, cause I didnt think it
could.
Try changing it back to share level.
Steve
MCP# 1400945
:
: It looks like you have not configured Samba to use encrypted passwords.
: Win98, like NT, uses encrypted passwords by default but Samba does not.
: The /usr/doc/samba*/docs/ENCRYPTION.txt file provides instructions on
: reconfiguring Samba. I also maintain instruction in the README.samba file
: on my web site: www.swcp.com/~pgsery/LNTK. Good luck!
:
:
: Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >new to linux
: >I have a small network of 1 linux redhat 5.2 kernel 2.0.36 running samba
: >1.9.18p10 and 1 win98 computer.
: >I recently changed my network security from share level to user level, and I
: >can't see my windows shares on the network anymore. I can see and access my
: >redhat shares from windows network neighborhood. Some of the symtoms which
: >seem to provide clues to the origin of the problem include the following:
: >When trying to set up the windows printer as a shared network printer I
: >recieve this message " you cannot view the list of users at this time.
: > [snip]
:
------------------------------
From: Ian Northeast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Samba as a printer server->suggestions
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 20:02:29 +0100
Jose L Gomez Dans wrote:
>
> Hi!
> After tinkering about with samba for a couple of days, I am unable
> to have a decent printer server up and running. All that is needed is access
> to a single printer (two in the future, if that one works :D). I'd like to
> know how one can achieve that. I read the smb.conf documentation, and the
> other documentation, but got swamped. The FAQ was quite useless, and the
> only resource which was somewhat useful was the SMB-HOWTO. My question is:
> does anyone have one such thing set up, and would be willing to share
> his/her knowledge with me (regarding smb.conf's and stuff like that)? I'm
> getting desperate now!!!
>
Here is the relevant section from my smb.conf (RH 5.1):
; printing = BSD or SYSV or AIX,
etc.
printing =
bsd
printcap name =
/etc/printcap
load printers = yes
This makes all my printers (actually only 1) available to Windows
clients. The relevant driver has to be installed on Windows.
> Also, does anyone know how to go around on the clients side, when
> they're using WfWg? I downloaded a TCP/IP driver, and disk sharing is no
> problem. It's only printing that doesn't happen!
I don't know anything about WfWg I'm afraid. My Windows is 95.
HTH, Ian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: no pingies in very simple network
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 07:00:42 GMT
I'm having trouble with what must be a bloody trivial problem. I've got two
machines, one desktop, one laptop, a hub, two ehternet cards, and can not get
the two machine talking to each other in Linux.
I've tried everything, to no avail,it works when one of the
machines is running Windows(which really irks me).
Just some examples of what I've tried:
using route add default eth0
checking that gated is not running
making each machine it's own gateway (!)
To keep it simple, I'm using the two basic commands to get things up and
running:
ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 up (resp. 192.168.0.2 on
the other machine)
and
route add -net 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 eth0 (same on both
machines of course)
ifconfig -a shows:
lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Bcast:127.255.255.255 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP BROADCAST LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:3584 Metric:1
RX packets:39748 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:39748 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:5A:DD:02:99
inet addr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:9 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0
Interrupt:10 Base address:0x300
and route shows:
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
Iface
192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 1
eth0
localhost * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 5
lo
But it don't work! I'd appreciate any help!
Regards,
Dennis
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Michael Gibson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ip forwarding problems
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 00:27:33 -0400
Looks like your mis-assigning IPs with your ppp link. Your "inet addr:" and
"P-t-P:" need to be on the same subnet. Box A should be giving another
(unused) IP on its subnet to Box B. So your ppp0 should look like this on
Box A:
inet addr:192.168.1.12 P-t-P:192.168.1.13
...and like this on Box B:
inet addr:192.168.1.13 P-t-P:192.168.1.12
Then just play with your routes accordingly. I'm sure you can take it from
here :)
Good luck!
-M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <7gksfj$fij$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <7gdjt5$ql7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Does anyone have any clue as to what the problem could be? I never received
a
>reply to my post and have pretty much used up every howto and faq I can
find
>on the subject. BTW, I am using the 2.0.35 kernel. ANY help would be
greatly
>appreciated.
>
>> I am attempting to setup a ppp link between two lan segments. Obviously,
I
>> need to setup two gateways, one at each segment. According to the docs, I
>> then need to ensure that ip forwarding is enable on both gateways so that
>> each each machine on both segments can be contacted, rather than just the
>> gateways.
>>
------------------------------
From: Alex Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: IP Masquerading problem
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 12:55:02 +0400
I have a problem with IP masquerading.
I have local net (192.168.1.) divided by two subnets
(netmask 255.255.255.128), with WinNT box as gateway with
two network cards (192.168.1.30 & 192.168.1.130).
Linux box (RedHat 5.1) has addr. 192.168.1.7 & modem.
The problem is that, i can ping Internet
from any host in first subnet (192.168.1.0),
but from second (192.168.1.128) i can't.
My ipfwadm commands:
/sbin/ipfwadm -F -f
/sbin/ipfwadm -F -p deny
/sbin/ipfwadm -F -a accept -m -P all -W ppp0 -S 192.168.1.0/25 -D
0.0.0.0/0
/sbin/ipfwadm -F -a accept -m -P all -W ppp0 -S 192.168.1.128/25 -D
0.0.0.0/0
Linux box routing table:
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
Iface
192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.128 U 0 0 131
eth0
192.168.1.128 192.168.1.30 255.255.255.128 UG 0 0 6
eth0
127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 5
lo
ISP's IP num. My PPP IP num.
ppp0
default My PPP IP num. 0.0.0.0
ppp0
>From Linux box i can ping both local subnets
and Internet, and all local computers can ping each other.
What's wrong ?
Please send answers directly to me, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Leopold Toetsch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: procmail (or sendmail?) problems
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:26:49 +0200
Hi,
Juergen Fiedler wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi,
>
>I'm having problems distributing mail among my local users (again).
>I just upgraded the latest Slackware (the one with the 2.2.6 kernel).
>It came with sendmail 8.9.3.1 (before I upgraded, I had 8.9.1.1),
>fetchmail 4.6.3 (same as before) and procmail 3.13.1 (before: 3.11pre7).
>
>All local users get their mail from the same account at our ISP and I'm
>trying to forward all messages to the appropriate users.
>
>I reused the old configuration files.
>..fetchmailrc looks like this:
>
>>-------SNIP-------<
>poll mail.eclipse.net
> protocol POP3
> localdomains NanoSoft
> no dns
> user fiedler with password fluglum is * here
># mda "procmail"
> mda "cat >> /var/spool/mail/all"
>>-------SNIP-------<
This is multidrop mode, isn't it. You could deliver to individuals here by:
user x with pass y to user1 user2
or
remoteuser1=localuser1 ...
if usernames don't match.
Then the normal delivery would go on, by fetchmail putting the mails to port
25 (SMTP), where sendmail would do local delivery.
In my sendmail.mc I have as local mailer procmail, which does more sorting,
autoforwarding ...
>
>I changed the line for debugging purposes.
>My .procmailrc looks like this:
>>-------SNIP-------<
>:0
>* ^TOjuergen
>! juergen
>
>:0
>* ^X-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>! juergen
>
># same for the other users
># ...
Seems like you are forwarding your mail here, so sendmail gets invoked and
your mail would be in mqueue.
If you want to put mail in users mailboxes, you could do:
:0:
* ^TOjuergen
* ^X-Rcpt-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
juergen
Hope this helps.
I have a detailled description of a very similar mail delivery on my site
http://www.toetsch.at/de/tips/linux/99/16.htm
(in German, script in linux:-)
leo
------------------------------
From: "abba fan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] yes - do take the junk out!>
Subject: Re: newbie question - fron red hat to suse
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 09:55:43 +0100
Thanks for the tip about generic.
Yes - I was in my early teens when ABBA were great. Sadly, they were never
cool. Now with the 70s revival, ABBA are suddenly cool but at thirty five
I'm too old to be cool.
Patrick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: PPP excessive logging
Date: 6 May 1999 07:50:46 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Shawn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I have absolutely no idea what's going on. I have a (very) stock debian
>2.1 box setup as a masquerade router. I'm running kernel 2.2.5 with
>pppd 2.3.5. For some reason the kernel seems to be logging EVERY SINGLE
>ppp packet in /var/log/kern.log, messages, and ppp.log. The -debug
Look in /etc/ppp/options, /etc/ppp/options.ttyS? and your ppp startup script for a
kdebug 7
option. Get rid of it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luca Filipozzi)
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: connecting two networks w/o a router??
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 00:54:25 -0700
In article <7grfo7$7mr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> In article <7D9Y2.411$jw4.32264@burlma1-snr2>,
> Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <7gr7mn$16t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Azfar Kazmi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes. I don't think you can do that on the client under NT, though. Does
> anyone know if NT supports static routes? Something in 'lmhosts', maybe?
Yes, Bill, you can add static routes from a command prompt.
> get DNS working. It's a common problem [maintaining one server doing both
> internal and external DNS consistently].
>
> One solution, which I just outlined, is to simply resolve all DNS queries to
> external IP addresses, and let the gateway do the translations. Another
> solution is to maintain different servers for internal and external DNS.
The two DNS server is my preference. Allows for very clean separation
between "internal address space" and "external address space".
> The
> simplest solution is to use /etc/hosts, since this is the main reason it's
> still around and hasn't been completely replaced by DNS.
True enough. Maintaining an /etc/hosts file on every machine becomes a
pain in anything but small networks.
> Unfortunately, that
> won't work on any windows box, for obvious reasons.
Sure it will.
Windows has both a hosts file and an lmhosts file. The hosts file maps
fully qualified domain names to ip addresses just like on Unix boxen for
use with IP. The lmhosts file maps netbios names to ip addresses for use
with the netbios over IP. Their locations on an NT box are as follows:
\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\lmhosts.sam (sample file)
They have similar locations on a 95 box... something like
\windows\system32\....
> Windows *does* have a
> bastardized version of a hosts file, 'lmhosts', that lets you override DNS
> resolution, but it's a bitch to work with, isn't very well documented, and
> doesn't always seem to work right [some applications use DNS first no matter
> what, it seems].
Which file gets consulted depends on context. hosts for fully qualified
domain names when using TCP/IP utilities (like ping). lmhosts for unc
type stuff like "net use \\server\share".
--
Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: jianhong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: ?Windows NT dialup to Linux PPP server?
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 01:09:46 -0700
Hi, Richard,
Thanks a lot for your tips.
Windows NT dialup does send out "CLIENT" first, as I can see from
`minicom` on the Linux box. However, when I added
CLIENT SERVER
to the chatscript file, the ppp server on the Linux still failed with
the following error,
Connect script failed.
The pppd was activated by,
`pppd ttyS0 19200 -detach -chap -pap crtscts connect "chat -v -f chatscript"`
and the chatscript file has only one line,
CLIENT SERVER
What was I missing? The dialup on the Windows NT was using all the default
parameters.
Thanks for your help again. Jianhong
========================================================
Richard Birchall wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> jianhong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to network my laptop(Slackware Linux 3.5) with my
> > desktop (Windows NT 4.0 SP3) through a Null Modem Cable.
> > The problem is I can't get the Windows NT dialup to work with the
> > Linux PPP server. NT dialup complained that "there is an error with
> > the modem or other device", while the PPPD complained that
> > "LCP: timeout sending Config-Requests,
> > Receive serial link is not 8-bit clean:
> > Problem: all had bit 7 set to 1"
>
> Your NT box has to send 'CLIENT\n' and the Linux box has to respond 'SERVER'.
>
> This handshaking is required by NT RAS for null modem connections.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: no pingies in very simple network
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 07:35:01 GMT
In article <7gremp$6r4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 1
> eth0
> localhost * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 5
Woah... that's not right.
It's supposed to have an IP or MAC address in the "Gateway" field, not '*'.
Add in the routes like this:
`route add default 192.168.0.1`
...and *not* like this:
`route add default eth0`
..because that doesn't make any sense [unless it's *completely* different on
Linux than it is on FreeBSD].
-Bill Clark
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Rustan LeBaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.dev.ppp,linux.redhat.ppp,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Slow Linux PPP FIXED !!!
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 03:06:34 -0500
I read EVERYthing about this problem on this newsgroup and others, and
tried several things, but this fixed my problem:
Simply add to your pppd arguments the following:
mtu 750
That's IT!
By default it's set to 1500, so change it to a value of at least 296,
depending on your modem speed/connection speed, and this might fix your
problem, it fixed mine! Now I'm getting throughput in Linux equal to
what I got in Windows.
I know all you experts out there will laugh or say something else was
the problem, but this is what I did to fix my problem, so all you people
out there with this similar problem, try this first.
Thanks for all the help, everyone.
RL
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luca Filipozzi)
Subject: Re: no pingies in very simple network
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 00:41:53 -0700
In article <7gremp$6r4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
> I'm having trouble with what must be a bloody trivial problem. I've got two
> machines, one desktop, one laptop, a hub, two ehternet cards, and can not get
> the two machine talking to each other in Linux.
>
> I've tried everything, to no avail,it works when one of the
> machines is running Windows(which really irks me).
>
> Just some examples of what I've tried:
>
> using route add default eth0
> checking that gated is not running
> making each machine it's own gateway (!)
>
> To keep it simple, I'm using the two basic commands to get things up and
> running:
>
> ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 up (resp. 192.168.0.2 on
> the other machine)
> and
> route add -net 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 eth0 (same on both
> machines of course)
>
> ifconfig -a shows:
>
> lo Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet addr:127.0.0.1 Bcast:127.255.255.255 Mask:255.0.0.0
> UP BROADCAST LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:3584 Metric:1
> RX packets:39748 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:39748 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0
>
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:5A:DD:02:99
> inet addr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:9 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0
> Interrupt:10 Base address:0x300
>
> and route shows:
>
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 1
> eth0
> localhost * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 5
> lo
>
> But it don't work! I'd appreciate any help!
>
> Regards,
> Dennis
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
FIRST (ensure kernel likes Ethernet card)
Your routing table and ifconfig statements look good. Try rebooting and
using dmesg to see if the kernel complained about your Ethernet card at
all.
NEXT (attempt to isolate problem by packet sniffing)
Try using running "tcpdump -i eth0 -n ip proto 1" while you are pinging
the other machine to see if icmp echo request packets are even making it
out of the local machine's interface.
If you see echo requests, then the local machine is ok but the remote one
is broken.
If you don't see echo requests, then it's the local machine that's
broken.
Do the same for the other machine. At least this way we can hopefully
isolate the problem.
NEXT (ensure that the firewall rules don't block icmp packets)
Check to ensure that you don't have firewall filters blocking traffic.
You can use the following to list the rules
"ipfwadm -I -l -n" to check the Incoming rules
"ipfwadm -O -l -n" to check the Outgoing rules
"ipfwadm -F -l -n" to check the Forwarding rules
I don't know the syntax for ipchains, sorry.
You can use the following to flush the rules and accept by default
"ipfwadm -I -f -p accept"
"ipfwadm -O -f -p accept"
"ipfwadm -F -f -p accept"
NEXT (post again if the above doesn't help)
Luca
--
Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Jochen Chauchet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Samba directory access
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:33:31 +0200
We have a Samba Share running just for 2 users.
[Finanz]
comment = Finanz
path = /users/bmp_backup
username = xxxx, xxxx
read only = No
create mask = 0666
directorymask = 0777
We run Smaba 2.03 an SuSE Linux 6.0
Jochen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb in Nachricht
<7gni0p$pn9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I'm having trouble setting permissions on Samba shares. I would like to
>create a parent directory which everyone can access, but give individual
>permissions to the subdirectories. The idea seems fairly simple but I'm
>stuck. I have a share called "Engineer" and a subdirectory called "Private"
>(among others). I need everyone to have access to the Engineer share but
only
>one user to have access to the private share.
>
>My smb.conf looks like this:
>
>[Engineer]
> comment = Engineering Share
> path = /home/engineer
>
>[private]
> comment = Private Directory
> path = /home/private
> valid users = %S
> public = no
> writable = yes
> printable = no
>
>As is, everyone can access the private share. ???
>Any ideas?
>Thanks
>Scott
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Jagdis)
Subject: Re: diald
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 09:14:24 GMT
In article <7gp994$1q6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Villy Kruse wrote:
>In some cases you are better off dropping the packages instead of buffering
>them during the dial process.
>[...]
>This may not be common, but it does happen, and the fix is to drop everything
>until the ppp conection is up, and the timout code in the tcp stack will take
>care of sending another syn packet.
You can disable all buffering with the -buffer-packets option. The TODO
list includes an entry for being able to not buffer specific packets
(defined by rules). You probably never want to buffer things like
ntp...
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: Jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: NT faster than Linux?
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 09:37:30 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A friend of mine was on the development team of the BBC 'A'. One day he
gave me one to play with, to see how an "ordinary person" got on with
it. Several months later he had to try and pry it off me (I put up a
good fight). He has a lot to answer for now, as I sit surrounded by 3
PCs and a Sun workstation. I designed and wrote my first program in BBC
Basic and I was so very disapointed when I tried to do things in M$
Basic.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
< Snip >
> Nahhh... M$ BASIC was crap long before the BBC or spectrum showed people
> what could be...
>
> (And yes, I know, at the time the BBC model A and B came out, it was the
> best BASIC out there... The speccy was pretty good too though)
> --
> | |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
> |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
< Snip >
--
=======================================================
Jamie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it wasn't me ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luca Filipozzi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: IP Masquerading problem
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 02:20:00 -0700
[This followup was posted to comp.os.linux.networking and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
>
> I have a problem with IP masquerading.
>
> I have local net (192.168.1.) divided by two subnets
> (netmask 255.255.255.128), with WinNT box as gateway with
> two network cards (192.168.1.30 & 192.168.1.130).
>
> Linux box (RedHat 5.1) has addr. 192.168.1.7 & modem.
>
> The problem is that, i can ping Internet
> from any host in first subnet (192.168.1.0),
> but from second (192.168.1.128) i can't.
>
> My ipfwadm commands:
>
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -f
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -p deny
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -a accept -m -P all -W ppp0 -S 192.168.1.0/25 -D
> 0.0.0.0/0
> /sbin/ipfwadm -F -a accept -m -P all -W ppp0 -S 192.168.1.128/25 -D
> 0.0.0.0/0
My suggestion: don't bother with two masquerade entries. Just use the
following.
/sbin/ipfwadm -F -a accept -m -P all -W ppp0 -S 192.168.1.0/24 -D
0.0.0.0/0
It accomplishes the same thing.
> Linux box routing table:
>
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.128 U 0 0 131
> eth0
> 192.168.1.128 192.168.1.30 255.255.255.128 UG 0 0 6
> eth0
> 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 5
> lo
> ISP's IP num. My PPP IP num.
> ppp0
> default My PPP IP num. 0.0.0.0
> ppp0
This looks good.
> From Linux box i can ping both local subnets
> and Internet, and all local computers can ping each other.
Good.
> What's wrong ?
What's the default route for the NT box? It had better be the linux box.
The fact that a client on the second subnet can ping the linux box is not
sufficient.... it just proves that the client has the NT box as its
default route. When the client tries to send to the first subnet, the NT
box knows to route the packet out of the 192.168.1.30 interface. But if
the client sends a packet to something other than 192.168.1.0/25, then
the NT box won't know what to do with the packet!!
--
Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Marcio Lima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 06:06:01 -0300
Reply-To: "Marcio Lima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
I am trying to setup a linux box as a gateway between my local network and
the ISP. I have several e-mail addresses in the ISP and the Linux box have a
set of e-mail addresses for the local network users. What I want to do is
that the Linux box calls the ISP, collects all e-mails, puts it in the local
area network users mailbox and send all e-mails from the users to the ISP.
The PPP stuff is already working. Now, I suppose I need to configure
sendmail, fetchmail, etc.
Can anybody help me ?
Thanks,
Marcio Campos
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ralph Wesseling)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.dev.ppp,linux.redhat.ppp,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: Slow Linux PPP FIXED !!!
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 11:25:51 +0200
> I read EVERYthing about this problem on this newsgroup and others, and
> tried several things, but this fixed my problem:
> Simply add to your pppd arguments the following:
>
> mtu 750
>
> That's IT!
>
> By default it's set to 1500, so change it to a value of at least 296,
> depending on your modem speed/connection speed, and this might fix your
> problem, it fixed mine! Now I'm getting throughput in Linux equal to
> what I got in Windows.
>
I did exactly the same to fix slow samba problems, the MTU was set
optimally for a modem on a windows machine, setting MTU back to 1500
(better for network cards) cured all my samba woes
R
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
