Linux-Networking Digest #659, Volume #11 Fri, 25 Jun 99 00:13:49 EDT
Contents:
Re: RH6 & Xircom PCMCIA eth. help! UPDATE-try 100BaseT Cards ("Daniel E. Maddux")
IPChains (chipw)
Re: PCMCIA Networking ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
vanishing net routes ("merry")
Re: Why not C++ (Bruce Hoult)
Re: Still having problems with Samba ("James Peterson")
Re: PPP server authenticate from radiusd/xtacacsd server? ("James Peterson")
Re: Samba and windows have got me baffeled ???? ("James Peterson")
Apache not serving web pages ("Lord Byron")
Re: Can Linux IP stack be "MS Proxy-fied"? (Ken Cormack)
Re: htpasswd, how to use in Apache (M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel E. Maddux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RH6 & Xircom PCMCIA eth. help! UPDATE-try 100BaseT Cards
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:54:38 -0500
"Daniel E. Maddux" wrote:
> Jason Bechtel wrote:
>
> > It's the strangest thing. I'm hoping someone out there has run into
> > this before and found a way to make it work...
> >
>
> ...
>
> >
> > So, since dhcp isn't working, we try it manually: We setup default
> > gateway, static IP (valid and ok w/ sysadmin), eth0, netmask all
> > correctly... Now we restart the network. There's no complaint about
> > the IP address and there's traffic on the line again, but we can't even
> > ping the gateway! Am I missing some critical driver that is necessary?
> > My card is in the /etc/pcmcia/config database and it is (usually)
> > detected just fine.
> >
> > Please help!
> >
> > TIA
> > Jason
>
>
UPDATE
I tried hooking my laptop up peer-to-peer with a desktop using a 100BaseT
Network Card. I found that I could ping both computers from each other. I
saw a Patch (I haven't tried it yet.) on a Mailing List at the PCMCIA Home
Page, which I found off of the LINUX Laptop Page,
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/linux-laptop, click on "COMPONENTS" in
the top menu and click on the link to the "PCMCIA Home Page". Look under
"Support | Mailing Lists" or "Messages". The relevant posting was under
"XIRCOM Drivers".
http://hyper.stanford.edu/HyperNews/get/pcmcia/xircom/101/1/1/1.html Mark
Woodring posted a question about problems with EtherExpressPro Network Cards,
Question Number 101. Apparently, Ken Hughes figured out that the problem was
the XIRCOM/EtherExpressPro PC Card has trouble pinging a 10BaseT Network Card
(100BaseT supposedly works fine) and hacked some Code to fix the problem.
Look at the Response titled "A fix! A fix!" by Mark Woodring for more info.
I apologize about omitting the above messages, but NETSCAPE is giving me NNTP
errors abotu more included text than new text?!
Daniel
------------------------------
From: chipw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IPChains
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:37:57 -0700
Ok, so I get ipmasquerading working except it turns out I need ipchains.
so I down load it and now what? What do I do with it? I try ./ in front
of it, no good, what else?
Please help,
Thanks
Chip
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PCMCIA Networking
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 02:12:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nick Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Compaq Armada 1700 laptop with a
Xircom CE3 10/100 PCMCIA
> running Caldera 2.2. While the machine seems to
recognize the network
> card (the correct MAC appears in ifconfig) and
I can ping its internal
might want to visit
http://simplypc.safeshopper.com to get some
help. I think you can email them and they will
answer your questions. Good luck. > interface, I
cannot ping other devices on the network.
>
> Any help would be much appreciated.
>
> --
> Nick Moore, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tri-Sage, Inc. Phone: 630-241-0500 Fax:
630-241-3835
> The Premier Security Integrator -- Visit us at
www.Tri-Sage.com
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "merry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: vanishing net routes
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 10:49:55 +0100
I'm configuring a linux box to act as dialup gateway & email server for a
WinNT network.
The linux box is on Thin CoAx Ethernet to an NT server, all other machines
are on a 100MHz STP hub the other side of the server (the hub is full so
can't put the Linux box on there). The NT server is configured to act as a
router, and runs DHCP, WINS and DNS for the rest of the network. This runs
fine. The Linux box runs RedHat 5.2 with diald, etc added as needed
So the network config is:
phone line to ISP
|
(ISP IP address)
-Linux box-
192.168.2.2
|
| segment 192.168.2.0 - Thin Coax 10MHz
|
192.168.2.1
-NT Server-
192.168.1.1
|
| segment 192.168.1.0 - 100MHz STP
| with NT workstations
|
192.168.1.26
-Tom's NT machine-
I have configured the Linux box to know about the NT server and the local
network segment, so I can connect to machines on the Thin CoAx fine - i.e.
the server and maybe a laptop when it connects. The Linux box remembers the
routes fine.
However, after booting the linux box I want to telnet in and use something
like MI/X to set up the box from the comfort of my own desk, not the machine
cupboard where the phone line is!
If I ping the linux box, then it responds. But it can't ping across the
server unless I manually enter the route (route add -net 192.168.1.0 subnet
255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.2.1).
I have (on a number of occasions) given the LInux box this information. I've
added it using the RedHat network tool. I've edited 'static-routes' in the
boot information. But if I log out from root, or reboot the machine, it
gives network unreachable when I try to ping 192.168.1.26 until I add the
route manually
So what the heck am I doing wrong ?? Why does the Linux box forget about the
route to the STP network?
If you know, please help.
Cheers,
Tom Lane
reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. Please reply to my email if possible, the ng as well if you think
others will benefit.
My news access can be erratic. I'm borrowing the company laptop right now
because my Hard Drive has died. ADVICE: back up your data. Loss can be
annoying !!!!
P.P.S. Does anyone out there have a Western Digital HDD, 1.2Gb capacity,
that works but is redundant. I need the drive electronics to resurrect my
HDD and extract some information.
Please contact me if you do. Thank you in advance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Hoult)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:03:47 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Thomas Steffen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> apart from that, C++ might not be a very elegant language, but it is
> fast. at least compared to other OO languages. and still has about
> every feature you can expect.
You might want to check out Dylan. It's much simpler and easier to learn
than C++, and yet is more powerful than C++ -- for example Dylan supports
dynamic dispatch on more than just one argument of a function, plus Dylan
has things such as lexically scoped local functions, anonymous functions,
and closures, none of which C++ has. C++ has a mish-mash of features.
Often, you have to choose whether what you want to do is best done using
overloaded functions, template functions or virtual functions. Dylan has a
single function dispatch mechanism that covers *all* those C++ function
types. Plus Dylan is designed to be as fast as C++. C++ and Java are
much better than C. Dylan is much better than C++ and Java.
You can have a look at <http://www.gwydiondylan.org> for a free Linux
compiler. It's not a finished product yet -- it needs some more
libraries, the interface to C has to be perfected, the compiler itself
needs to be made faster, and it could do with a few more optomisations in
the generated code -- but it's stable (e.g. it happily compiles itself)
and is plenty good enough to learn the language and even write production
command-line/filter programs with.
-- Bruce
------------------------------
From: "James Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Still having problems with Samba
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:23:42 -0500
what does your smb.conf look like.
Also you might want to set up a user group under linux and add the ppl you
want to that group. or you could do the following ..... (not that I recamend
it)
if in your smb.conf file under your [homes] you can have the following
[homes]
comment = Home Directory
browseable = yes
path = /home
public = no
writable = yes
creat mode 750
this sets up thes users home directory and the permissions they have.
You have to use smbpasswd to create the users samba passwd ... I have not
found/read any way to get around this.
If you want the users to share a common directory in each user account you
can create a symbolic link (ln -s source name) to the directory you what
ppl to have access to.
in windows 9x right click on network neiborhood and go to map. once there
choose a drive letter and the location will be something like this ...
\\SERVERNAME\USERLOGINNAME. if you don't want to type the passwd every time
you reboot your computer check the box that says save passwd.
provided your samba is set up right you should have a connection and should
be able to share a common directory this way.
again setting up a group is somewhat less hassle on the admin side.
DonJr wrote in message <7kfiqk$d4l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Bob Miller wrote:
>>
>> I posted a message here about a week ago and got a couple of responses,
>> but nothing I tried worked (like enabling password security).
>> I reinstalled Samba and I'm actually able to see the Linux box now from
>> the network, but that's it. I can't see any of the shares when I try to
>> connect to Samba. Win95 just keeps giving me the standard message -
>> either it can't get any shares or it can't connect to the machine.
>>
>> I've got a small network of about 10 Win95 machines, 2 WinNT machines,
>> and a NetWare server. When I was running RedHat 5.2 with its Samba
>> version (1.9.?), I had it working just fine. But when I upgraded to
>> RedHat 6.0 and then to Samba 2.0.4b, I just can't seem to get it
>> working.
>>
>> What I would like to do is just have a simple share system going. I
>> only want to have the machines connect and get a list of shared
>> directories, without having to authenticate to the Linux box. So,
>> I tried first to set the security to share, but that didn't work. Then
>> I set up every user on the system in Linux, with passwords set
>> properly, and set the security to user. That didn't work, either, so
>> I set the security to server and had it go to the main NT server,
>> "test," for user authentication. Well, neither did THAT work. In
>> RedHat 5.2's setup, I had both user and server level security working
>> just fine (though I noticed server level took a little longer).
>>
>> Can anyone give me any suggestions? I'd really appreciate it. Here's
>> my smb.conf file:
>>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> # /etc/smb.conf: RMJ, 6-16-99
>> # Samba configuration file
>>
>> [global]
>> workgroup = DOMAIN
>> server string = Samba Server
>> hosts allow = 38.150.13.
>
>Fix this to something like:
> hosts allow = 38.150.13.0/24
>
>Add this to give it a name
> netbios name = MYSAMBA
> After you get it working you can pick a better name.
> Must be 8 "Alfia characters or numbers" or less.
> Dispite the DOCs it has no relationship to any TCP/IP number or name.
>Although it servers the same propose under the 'netBIOS' protocol.
>
>> printcap name = /etc/printcap
>> load printers = yes
>> log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
>> max log size = 50
>> security = user
>> ; password server = test
>> password level = 8
>> username level = 8
>> encrypt passwords = yes
>> smb passwd file = /etc/smbpasswd
>
>Have you created /etc/smbpasswd this file?
>If not see /usr/doc/samba*/docs/ for how. Without it nobody can login.
>Is it owner and group 'root' and only RW by 'root'?
> IE chmod 0600 /etc/smbpasswd
>There is a security feature in the code that will only allow it to work
>that way.
>
>> socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
>> ; interfaces = 38.150.13.32/24
>
> The above should work if that is the IP of the host that samba is
>running on.
>
>> ; remote browse sync = 38.150.13.34
>> remote announce = 38.150.13.255
>> ; local master = yes
>> ; os level = 33
>> ; domain master = yes
>> ; preferred master = yes
>> ; domain controller = test
>> name resolve order = bcast wins lmhosts
>> wins server = 38.150.13.34
>> dns proxy = no
>> guest account = ftp
>>
>> [home]
>> comment = Home Directories
>> browseable = yes
>> writable = yes
>>
>> [printers]
>> comment = All Printers
>> path = /var/spool/samba
>> browseable = no
>> guest ok = no
>> writable = no
>> printable = yes
>>
>
>Do you really want an area READ/WRIT/ABLE to Everybody.
> Remove the 'guest ok = yes' and then only logged in users will have
>access
>
>> [public]
>> path = /home/public
>> public = yes
>> browseable = yes
>> ; only guest = yes
>> guest ok = yes
>> writable = yes
>> printable = no
>>
>> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>
>> -> Bob Miller
>> Systems Engineer & CNE
>> PALOMINO technologies
>
>That's all I see at first glance.
>
>--
> -----------------------
> Don E. Groves, Jr.
> my Email is jetnick AT erols DOT com
>
> I'll add a witty saying here later.
>
>----------------
------------------------------
From: "James Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PPP server authenticate from radiusd/xtacacsd server?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:06:27 -0500
I am trying to set up a ppp server on a linux box I could use some advice or
rather some reading materials other than the HOWTO's. Ifyou have any
sugestions please let me know.
James Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mr. Chow Wing Siu wrote in message <7kf9i3$139$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Hi,
>
>I want to setup PPP server (Linux) that may authenticate from
>the radiusd/xtacacsd server (Solaris), i.e:
>
>Solaris (SPARC) Linux (slackware) Windows 95/98
>authentication PPP server client
>(radiusd/xtacacsd)-----> (pppd)------------> (dialup)
>
>There should not be any accounts in PPP server for users.
>But the user can authenticate by using the authentication server's
>loginname/password to use the dialup service.
>
>Is it possible to do that?
>
>I am now using Linux as PPP server using the single username/password.
>The problem is that it cannot trace who had logged on.
>
>I am looking for any solution. pppd radius patch seems working for
>Linux client to authenticate Linux PPP server. (isn't it?)
>
>I am trying to look for any PERL script to authenticate the radiusd
>or xtacacsd by replacing the login (via login.config in mgetty?).
>
>Please input some ideas? Thanks in advance.
>
>- --
>PGP PUBLIC KEY: https://www.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/~wschow/pgp.html
>Key fingerprint = 15 C4 36 D6 EC CF 1D A4 7F D8 F9 EF 2E D7 32 A6
>Tel: 2339 5820 (Direct) Fax: 2339 7892
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6.3i
>Charset: noconv
>
>iQCVAwUBN2sprb3ixeOqBhAdAQGZDAQAhtMUDwxLUqNRciCi9jXLG+xiqP+LzMD2
>xoQvg0cUGk+GYz4vL2Fs8XX6Qaey/Kl58hbrQaCJ7vYkB3DF3+yn1NAHvO9gMgZy
>sEyb7N031oAKJOPUuhc1lOaYNBZa9TqC+lQYNeHUU5ffWuGN9Lw+7xPr+AhAGm7b
>OvfFNvJJYio=
>=oy3v
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
From: "James Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Samba and windows have got me baffeled ????
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 09:28:15 -0500
humm try puting your servers ip in your win98 directory... the file that
handles this is hosts.sam rename that so it just says hosts and in that
hosts file is where you put yoru linux box servers ip... even though it
should not make a differance if you can telnet to yoru linux box.
also on your smb.conf have you specified a workgroup and netbios name so
that you can see yoru linux box in your network neighborhood?
James Peterson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
peter wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>This is strange... I followed everything in the how-to's and also on
>some other web sites that I was told to visit
>
>http://www.eunuchs.org/linux/samba/
>
>and
>
>http://us1.samba.org/samba/samba.html
>
>Samba and windows 98 are still giving me problems. I think the
>problems might be on the Win98 side.
>
>The machines could: ping each other, windows could telnet to the linux
>machine (but I could not log in as root)
>
>The linux machine could see the windows, when I type :
>
>smbconfig -L localhost
>
>Windows networking could not see linux or even itself !!!
>
>the smb.conf is more or less stock, when I made a any changes it would
>stop working.
>
>I'm thinking it has something to do with the "guest" line in the
>smb.conf, or the encrypted password in win 98 ???
>
>What do you think ?
>
>BUT I don't see the reason I have no networking at all on the windows
>machine...I'm using TCP/IP, should I add something else ???
>
>Also, could someone please post their smb.conf, that might help
>
>Thanks,
>
>peter
------------------------------
From: "Lord Byron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Apache not serving web pages
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:59:13 -0500
I recently tried to set up an old computer as a web server, using Linux and
Apache. It has limited hard drive space (1 gig), and I don't plan on using
it for anything besides the web serving, so I don't want a full-blown
installation of Linux (Mandrake 6 is what I use). I tried installing it
with just the base stuff and apache, but that didn't work. httpd is
running, but I'm not able to access the documents from any computer. Can
someone tell me the minimum stuff I need to install to get apache running.
Thanks.
--
Byron
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Cormack)
Subject: Re: Can Linux IP stack be "MS Proxy-fied"?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 02:42:51 GMT
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 00:17:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Cormack)
wrote:
> Why would you think your virtual-NIC driver would have to do
> this? Route is what handles this stuff. You already said this
> thing would have the default route. Well, the real NIC would
> have a route for the local net.
> (I hope you're not in the habit of setting your ethernet card
> as the default route? yuck...)
Ordinarily, no, I dont set an interface to be the default route.
That's what routers, gateways, proxies and firewalls are for. I'm not
quite that foolish.
I have an NT server (running MSProxy) with two NICs
The first is the "outside" NIC, with a DHCP-assigned address
The second is the "inside" NIC, with an address of 192.168.0.1
The router is the ISP's gateway.
I have a Win98 PC (running MSProxy's Winsock Client).
It's IP address is 192.168.0.2
Router is 192,168.0.1 (the NT box)
I have a Linux box (currently not configured to speak to any proxy).
The NIC's address is 192.168.0.3
No route currently, default or otherwise, since it's only
talking to the internal 192.168.0.x segment at the moment.
Look at crude diagram below, and you should understand more what I was
thinking. (Best viewed in in courier font, trust me)
Outside DHCP-assigned address
Netmask 255.255.255.0
Router is the ISP's gateway
|
(NT BOX)
|
192.168.0.1
Netmask 255.255.255.0
Route to the Virtual NIC (192.168.1.3) set to
192.168.0.3 (the address of the Linux box's real NIC)
|
|
|
+-------------+-------------+
| |
(WIN98 BOX) (LINUX REAL NIC)
192.168.0.2 192.168.0.3
Netmask 255.255.255.0 Netmask 255.255.255.0
Router is 192.168.0.1 Router is 192.168.0.1
Winsock Proxy Client knows This NIC is configured
the address of the server, like any normal NIC
and since it's on the same would be.
segment, I'm not sure a |
router address is needed. |
I'll have to try it without (LINUX VIRTUAL NIC)
one, just for kicks. 192.168.1.3
Netmask 255.255.255.0
(Configured to know the
IP address of the proxy)
The system's default route
is set to 192.168.1.3
(the virtual NIC)
By placing the virtual NIC on it's own segment (x.x.1.x instead of
x.x.0.x) and defining it as the Linux Box's default route, all
non-local-segment traffic is forced to pass first through the virtual
NIC for tweaking.
NOTE: Ok, I could have subnetted the x.x.0.x segment, but
changing the third octet requires far less thought, and
on my apartment's three-node LAN, I'm not really worried
about large ARP tables or broadcast storms. <g>
Traffic to/from local addresses would never pass through the virtual
NIC. It would simply flow in/out directly through the real NIC,
knowing that it already had an interface on that segment, no routing
needed.
Since the virtual NIC is configured to know the IP address of the
proxy, and the Linux box knows it has a NIC on the same segment AS the
proxy, no "routing" is needed for it to know how to get to the proxy.
The virtual NIC simply hands the data off to the real NIC, for
delivery to MS-Proxy.
I'm still wondering about limitations of this, and dont claim to be an
IP-guru, but it does make me think it's possible, if not in fact the
most elegant solution. Virtual NIC's are working for other OS's, so
perhaps it's not too crazy an idea.
Ken
------------------------------
From: M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: htpasswd, how to use in Apache
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:17:11 +1000
Hi George,
> I'm cutting and pasting this verbatim. Apologies to Apache Week, but I
> don't have their page bookmarked, I only saved the informatiom.
Thanks for the reference. The home page of Apache Week is
http://www.apacheweek.com/
Michael
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
