Linux-Networking Digest #624, Volume #11 Tue, 22 Jun 99 14:14:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win98 Machine Connected Via Modem, Linux Needs Connection..help!!!! (Nicholas E
Couchman)
Re: mgetty for dial-in blocks outgoing traffic ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: SuSE Linux 6.1 & PPPIOCGUNIT Operation not permitted (Clifford Kite)
Re: Can't install 3c509b's in RH60. Please help!! ("Jamalludin Ab. Rahman")
Registering in .fr domain (Grant Guenther)
Re: Problems reading CD created under Win9x (Rod Smith)
FTP Questions...again... ("Tony C")
Re: Will a Linux workstation connect to a NetWare 4.2 Server? And other simple
questions :) (Lew Pitcher)
Re: Setting up Linux to share PPP connection... (Bill Unruh)
Re: What's the difference: IP Masquerading vs. NAT? (Duncan Simpson)
Re: Loading modules at boot ("John Hardin")
Re: diald still dials every time (Paulo Garcia)
Re: Can Linux IP stack be "MS Proxy-fied"? (Michael Shuldman)
Linux - Cable modem configuration (Geets)
where is "always defragment"? ("Scott MacDonald")
Trouble: My dfe530tx wont go 100MBit FDuplex ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
TCP options? (poodah)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nicholas E Couchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win98 Machine Connected Via Modem, Linux Needs Connection..help!!!!
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 05:06:15 GMT
Go download SpoonPoxy for Win9x machines (I think the website is
www.spoonproxy.com, if not, go to www.tucows.com). I use SpoonProxy w/
Win95 and it works great. I have two Linux machines and an NT machine
routed through it.
--Nick
"[D] [R] [O] [Z]" wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I have a Win98 machine with a cable modem, internal. I want to be
> able to use linux thu the win98 machine. I have both computers on a
> 5-port hub, they both ping each other, however, how do i get to use
> Linux thru the 98 machine, now here is my wish.. I would like to use
> all the shell utilities, i know x-windows is the thing, but i want to
> be able to use the other stuff in the shell, like lynx, telnet, etc...
> is this possible??? Any help can and will be much appreciated..
> -Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mgetty for dial-in blocks outgoing traffic
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:36:39 GMT
So, make sure that you have the option
> lock
> in /etc/ppp/options.
> That's it!
>
I have, Bill. But it still won't work....
More info....
The Red hat modem config tool makes a soft link from /dev/modem to
/dev/cua3, I changed this to point to ttyS3 instead.
I can still dial-in OK using mgetty, but dialing out using ifup ppp0
behaves sporadically. Sometimes it doesn't work at all. Others, it dials
up but fails to connect and then drops the line after about 10 seconds.
ttyS3 Log messages:
Some are like this:
waiting for RING
timeout in chat script
Uh? Junk on the line
Others mention:
lock not made: lock file exists
Any ideas?
Michael
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: kite@NoSpam.%inetport.com (Clifford Kite)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: SuSE Linux 6.1 & PPPIOCGUNIT Operation not permitted
Date: 22 Jun 1999 09:22:38 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..
: ### PPP_FLAGS="38400 mru 1500 modem debug kdebug 0 defaultroute crtscts
: noipdefault asyncmap 20A0000 escape FF"
: PPP_FLAGS="115200 mru 576 mtu 576 modem debug defaultroute crtscts
: noipdefault escape FF"
Get rid of the escape FF option. It's almost always worthless and
with a broken ISP PPP implementation it can cause the kind of problem
you are experiencing.
--
Clifford Kite <kite@inet%port.com> Not a guru. (tm)
/* A salute to Inspector Baynes, of the Surry Constabulary, the only
police Inspector to ever best Mr. Sherlock Holmes at his own game.
"The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge", by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. */
------------------------------
From: "Jamalludin Ab. Rahman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can't install 3c509b's in RH60. Please help!!
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:30:22 +0800
Why don't you try disable the PnP on the 3c509 using 3c5x9cfg.exe (DOS). I
experiance the same thing previously. It works with me.
Jamal
Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:uQEb3.490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> I've been having a hell of a time trying to get my linux
> box connected to my NT box. I have 2 3c509b's installed
> in the linux machine, and I thought they were ok when it said
> "Brining up interface for eth0 and eth1" and then responded with
> an "ok" for both. But I have been unable to ping my NT box or
> vice versa with a connect the 2 with a cross-over cable, or a home
> made cross over. I've been working with NT in networks for some
> time so I'm quite sure it's configured properly, but can't seem to connect
> those isa cards working in Linux.
>
>
> I just noticed that when linux boots with the cross-over cables connected
> that paticular card fails the startup test.
>
> Please respond soon as I will be sticking a gun to my head shortly.....
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Guenther)
Subject: Registering in .fr domain
Date: 22 Jun 1999 15:21:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a customer here in Canada who wants to be able to register a domain
in the .fr TLD. My understanding of the process is that the application
must be submitted through an ISP that is a member of AFNIC.
Are there any AFNIC member ISPs listening here that might be willing to
help out a small (linux based) ISP ? If so, please contact me and I'll
provide more information ...
==========================================================================
Grant R. Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Problems reading CD created under Win9x
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:55:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Posted and mailed]
In article <GxMb3.365$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"R Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently donwloaded a 140MB file and had some one copy it to a CD for me
> under Win95. When I look at the CD under Linux I can see 68MB of the file
> but when I look at it under a Win95 macine I can see the whole thing.
>
> What's up with this and how can I see the whole file. I don't have access
> to a CD-RW under Linux or another UNIX OS.
Chances are the file was copied using a packet writing program. This is a
program that lets you treat the CD-R drive as if it were a regular hard
disk. The problem is that Linux doesn't like CDs created in this way.
If the only way you can get this file into Linux is directly off the CD,
your best bet is to have your friend try again using conventional CD-R
software like Easy CD Creator, Nero, or whatnot. Alternatively, you might
have luck if you ran VMWare on Linux and accessed it from Windows under
VMWare, but then you'd have to install Windows in VMWare, and that's a lot
of work to get one file.
--
Rod Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.channel1.com/users/rodsmith
NOTE: Remove the "uce" word from my address to mail me
------------------------------
From: "Tony C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FTP Questions...again...
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:48:00 -0700
Greetings,
I apologize for the redundant question but I am in need of some help in
getting ftp between a Win98 and Linux PC working. I am running RH5.2 on the
Linux PC along with ipfwadm for IP masquerading. I have a local private net
of 2 Win PCs connected through as 10/100 hub to the Linux PC. The Linux PC
has 2 ethernet cards, one attached to the private net and the other attached
to my DSL modem. Everything is working as far a accessing the Internet. I
can even use my Web browser to ftp items from various sites on the net.
What I can't seem to do right now is ftp from the Windows PC to the Linux
box. When I invoke ftp from a DOS shell I get the following message:
C:\ftp 192.168.1.1
> ftp: connect: 10061
ftp>
At which point if I try to provide a user login or anything else for that
matter ftp responds with a 'not connected' message. If I try to ftp to the
Lan interface that is connected to the DSL line I get nothing. It just hangs
until I Ctrl-C or close the DOS window.
I am sure this is a simple problem to fix and the solution is surely staring
me in the face. If you can help me 'see' the answer I would greatly
appreciate it.
Cheers
TC
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lew Pitcher)
Subject: Re: Will a Linux workstation connect to a NetWare 4.2 Server? And other
simple questions :)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:46:14 GMT
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:08:21 +0100, "Bridge College"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please excuse these very simplistic questions. I have no experience with
>Linux at all.
>
>Will a Linux workstation connect to a NetWare server?
Yes, undoubtedly!!
> If so is there a Client 32 equivalent for Linux from Novell? Or is it a 3rd party
>product?
The client portion is implemented in the NCP filesystem support in the Linux kernel,
and
the NCPFS utilities package readily available at most fine Linux distribution sites.
There are two different implementations of Netware server support; Caldera's Netware
for
Linux, and the Mars-NWE package. Netware for Linux is available from Caldera, and
Mars-NWE
is available again "at most fine Linux distribution sites".
>How about a WinNT4 server?
Of course!!
The client portion is implemented in the SMB filesystem support in the Linux kernel,
with
some tools from the SAMBA package available at http://www.samba.org/
The server portion is implemented in the SAMBA package available at
http://www.samba.org/
>Would it be possible to run a Linux and NetWare 4.2 server on the same
>network at the same time and users see both servers?
Yes, if you want.
>Or do users log into one or the other? e.g. users see both a drive F and G, where F
>is a
> NetWare partition/server and G is a Linux partition/server.
Yes, if you want.
>Would Win95 users be able to use a Linux server to browse the
>internet/download e-mail, either by PPP or POP3 and at the same time use a
>NetWare 4.2 server as a file/print server?
Yes, if you want.
>Does Linux run Unix applications?
Yes, of course.
>Yes I know, from this question you can finally confirm your suspicion that the closest
> I've come to Linux is seeing it in a shrink-rap box at my local retailers :)
Better that then "Linux?? Wassat??"
>Anyway thanks in advance for any response given to this e-mail, I'm sure
>you've been very patient in getting this far. We all have to start
>somewhere, some of us much lower down than others :)
>
>Tim Banner
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>To reply by e-mail please delete the uppercase text from the above e-mail
>address. Thanks.
>
>
Lew Pitcher
System Consultant, Integration Solutions Architecture
Toronto Dominion Bank
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
(Opinions expressed are my own, not my employer's.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Setting up Linux to share PPP connection...
Date: 22 Jun 1999 17:04:29 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Andreas Krogh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Enable ip_firewalls and ip_masquerading in the linux-kernel and
>recompile(if you know how to do that).
Oh dear. Do not tell people to recompile their kernels. In most modern
installations they are already there. Kernel recompilation is apt to
break far more than it fixes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Duncan Simpson)
Subject: Re: What's the difference: IP Masquerading vs. NAT?
Date: 22 Jun 1999 17:00:15 GMT
In <IkEb3.412$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David A. Ferguson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>What is the difference between IP Masquerading and NAT? Is there NAT for
>Linux?
Last time someone answered this question, which is rapidly heading for
FAQ status, IP masquerading was a subset of NAT. However if you just
want to hide a load of machines behind a singe IP address then IP
masquerading does the job. (Not sure what extra knobs NAT offers ior
even if ther is consensus about the list).
I believe there is, or was, a more general NAT patch somewhere. I
really do not know anything about it though, since I have only
recently had a couple of boxen. (Besides which my old. keyboardless,
solbourne box needs me to construct a cable so I can plug both an
ethernet trasnciever and serial line into it). My 486DX2/50 shows all
sorts of signs to being comprehensively dead.
--
Duncan (-:
"software industry, the: unique industry where selling substandard goods is
legal and you can charge extra for fixing the problems."
------------------------------
From: "John Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Loading modules at boot
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:42:03 -0700
Cowles, Steve wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>The following is my /etc/conf.modules file:
>####### /etc/conf.modules #######
>alias eth0 3c59x
>alias eth1 3c509
NB: This only works if your NIC cards are different. (AFAIK)
--
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: Paulo Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: diald still dials every time
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:52:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:22:24 GMT, Paulo Garcia <digivoice@my-
deja.com> wrote:
> >I look this standard.conf and to my knowlegement it 's very dificult
to
> >understand, but I'll research a little more.
> >
> >If you can send me your standard.conf I accept. May be looking your
> >file I can do something...
> >
> Do a search of http://www.deja.com for the thread "Diald keeps
> dialing...". It is in the same newsgroup as this one,
> comp.os.linux.networking
>
> I just posted a copy of my /usr/lib/standard.filter file in the above
> thread.
>
With this standard.filter my diald stop to dial every time, but still
dials mainly when I try to connect my Windows Box (Find Computer) or
when I try to get my local pop3 messages (intranet).
Does this standard.filter has some documentation?
While I tune my diald I have a workarround idea:
My users access first my intranet pages. There are a link to "connect
to internet". My user will have to click on this link. Then in linux I
have a script that dials, connect and run pppd.
Do someone knows how can I do that. Can I run minicom to do that?
Thanks again!
===========================
[]'s
Paulo Garcia
Digivoice Eletronica
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Shuldman)
Subject: Re: Can Linux IP stack be "MS Proxy-fied"?
Date: 22 Jun 1999 15:51:50 GMT
Ken Cormack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> I'm seeing related postings about this, and since I am in a similar
> boat myself, I was wondering if anyone has given any thought to
> creating an "MS Proxy-fied" version of the Linux IP stack?
>
> I'm not talking about the "Socks" functionality, or even the "Reverse
> Proxy" stuff... Specifically, I refer you to the "Winsock Proxy"
> client functionality of MS-Proxy 2.0.
>
> If I understand MS Proxy's "Winsock Proxy" functionality, a Win9x or
> other MS Proxy-supported client's WINSOCK.DLL gets re-named, the
> Proxy's own Winsock version gets put into place, and calls the renamed
> original file's services when needed.
>
> The advantage to this is that you dont need to putz with each
> individual client app's own proxy settings (when they are available
> and/or supported), or try recompiling every client app to "socksify"
> it, etc. If it calls the services of WINSOCK.DLL, it just normally
> works (for outbound stuff, anyway. For inbound UDP's etc, well, thems
> is the breaks.)
>
> It's far more elegant (and much less a hassle for the end-user) to
> attack the problem at the point of commonality on the client, and you
> gain the advantage of making many otherwise proxy-ignorant apps
> available to the user through the proxy.
>
> It strikes me as practical to impliment something similar in Linux,
> "intercepting" calls to the IP stack, and in a fashion similar to the
> MS client, tweak the packets on-the-fly, steering them to the MS Proxy
> server.
>
> Adding the needed functionality and configuration parameters as
> configurable options to the kernel "make config" or "make menuconfig"
> would be terrific. If it could be implimented as a module, it might
> be even better.
>
> A few of you will suggest using a Linux server with IP Masq'ing
> instead of MS-Proxy, but in situations where that is just not an
> option, wouldn't it be better in the long run to consider such a
> cross-platform coexistance? (Especially if you want to make Linux a
> more attractive option for corporate desktops?)
a) putting such stuff in the kernel seems rather silly, aswell as
unnecessary.
b) the main problem with msproxy support is that it's a protocol
made by microsoft, and microsoft does not seem to have any
intentions of making the description of it public.
For a), the README.socksify that comes with the (free) socks proxy
implementation Dante describes how you can get virtually all your
applications to use a proxy. The exception to this is applications
linked staticly and applications that are set[ug]id (they must be
recompiled).
Concerning b), with the help of some clever people I did some work
on reverse engineering the msproxy protocol for Inferno Nettverk A/S
a few months back and as a result the client part of Dante contains
some support for msproxy. The msproxy support is however not
complete, has some problems, and since Inferno Nettverk didn't
receive much interest in it from customers, it's not likely that
anyone will be assigned to work on completing it anytime soon.
Of course, since Dante comes with full sourcecode, others are more
than welcome to complete it and send us the diffs. There is in
fact not very much missing, the bulk of the work is done.
--
_ //
\X/ -- Michael Shuldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geets)
Subject: Linux - Cable modem configuration
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:18:54 -0400
Hi. I am currently up and running with a Motorola cable modem (provided
by Comcast using @home service) attached to an ethernet hub and then out
to 2 PC's, one WinNT Server, the other Win98, In the interest of not
leaving well enough alone (and for other not nearly as important reasons,
like getting fired if I don't), I need to use a third PC running Red Hat
5.2 as an internet server.
Before I network the three machines, I thought I'd attach the cable modem
directly to the linux box, and get that connection working. No luck so
far. I think I'm doing something stupid, so if you will humor me a bit
I'll describe how I'm correctly configured on the Win NT box, and how I'm
incorrectly configured on the Linux.
WinNT:
TCP/IP Properties:I
IP Address tab: "Obtain an IP address from a DHCP server" is checked.
Also on the "Advanced" button --> "DHCP enabled" is checked.
DNS tab: Host bame: cc262221-a
WINS Address tab: "Enable LMHOSTS Lookup" checked
DHCP relay tab: Seconds threshold: 4; Maximum hops: 4
Routing tab: "Enable IP forwarding" is checked
And that's pretty much all there is
================
Linux:
For the Linux machine, in control panel I'm configured as follows:
Names tab:
Hostname: localhost
Domain: localhost.localdomain
Hosts tab:
IP address Name Nicknames:
127.0.0.1 cc262221-a Linux
192.168.0.4 PIII-1 WinNT Box
192.168.0.9 PII-1 Win98 Box
127.0.0.1 cc262221-a Linux
192.168.0.7 foo.bar.com LinuxBox foo
Note, on the above I was not able to configure the first 127.0.0.1 IP
address to use localhost as its name. Nor was I able to leave the second
127.0.0.1 IP address blank (DHCP protocol is enabled in the Broadcast
tab. I tried to leave the IP address blank so my ISP could provide one
dynamically, but linux won't let me)
Interfaces Tab:
IP proto at boot active:
lo 127.0.0.1 none yes active
ppp0 none no inactive
eth0 dhcp yes inactive
When I press "Edit" button for eth0, I get:
IP: field is blank
Netmask: field is blank
Network: 192.168.0.0
Broadcast: 192.168.0.255
"activate interface at boot time" is checked
Interface configuration protocol: DHCP
Also, when I run ifconfig I'm informed that only lo is running, even
after setting eth0 to active and at boot. In fact, when I save and close
control panel, and re-open it, eth0 is listed as inactive again.
So, there you have it. Any kind soul willing to help will be the
beneficiary of my good wishes. Thanks.
Vince
PS email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] but remove those "XXX's"
first.
------------------------------
From: "Scott MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: where is "always defragment"?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 12:31:35 -0500
Hey,
I'm rebuilding my kernel for masquarading, and the how-to says for the 2.2.x
series kernels that you need "always defragment". I know it was there in the
2.0.x series kernels, but I can't seem to find it anywhere now? Am i blind?
thanks
scott
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Trouble: My dfe530tx wont go 100MBit FDuplex
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 17:06:17 GMT
This might be the second posting, as i might have
had a problem accessing the newsgroup. Just ignore
it if it is so. Now on to the message:
I have a Linux Redhat 5.2 installation with kernel
2.0.36 on a Amd K6 166MHz. The machine has three
NICs, one of them being a dlink dfe530tx. I using
the Via-Rhine device-driver written by Donald
Becker for that NIC. The dfe530tx interface runs
smoothly against a 10MBit hub, but when I connect
it to a 10/100MBit H/F-duplex switchport (dlink
DES-818) there is _NO_ data going through. I have
tried rebooting the machine whilst connected to
the switchport to see if that would help the
Autonegotiation, but without succes. I have also
tried using the same cable and card in a
win95-machine. The result was the dfe530tx running
100MBit Fduplex smoothly; ergo the problem is
_not_ the hardware. I have browsed the newsgroups
and various Linux-sites without seeing anybody
having exactly this problem, even less a solution.
People mention the Via-Rhine driver being included
in the 2.2.* kernel, so i'm considering upgrading
the kernel, but im unsure about the effect of a
kernel-upgrade on my installation as a whole.
Also, the Via-Rhine should run on a 2.0.36 kernel
as far as i'm informed.
Any help and suggestions will be greatly
appreciated.
Yours truly
- Thomas Sorensen
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: poodah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TCP options?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:27:03 GMT
Hello,
I am creating a testbed in which various flavors of TCP will be
evaluated for performance in severe environments. I need to know which
options (extensions, enhancements, RFCs)are implemented in each TCP I
test(SACK, SNACK, PAWS, Scaled Windows, MTU Discovery, AIDA,
etc...things like that). I have such information for all the TCPs under
test except for the TCP included with RED HAT 5.2 Linux (kernel 2.0.36).
There is nothing on this subject in the included documentation. Can
_anyone_ point me to a source for such info?
--
Fred Tims [Critical Technologies Inc.]
http://www.nonstop.net/poodah.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
