Linux-Networking Digest #95, Volume #12 Tue, 3 Aug 99 16:13:54 EDT
Contents:
3c509 (Matt Menze)
Re: Linux all-in-one machine. Can it appear to be 4 different machines? (Stephen
Satchell)
UDP buffer ("jalaguier johan")
Re: Linux NIC problems ("Andrew Taylor")
Re: Turbo 16/4 Token-Ring (PCMCIA) setup (Thomas Honles)
Re: monitoring ("Rodney Hendricks")
Re: UDP buffer (Ralf Gerlich)
Re: dhcpcd, RH/Mandrake 6.0, and @home (haze)
firewall with multiple public addresses??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Help with RH6 & Routing Problem ("Shane Chrisp")
Re: howto show baudrate? (gus)
Re: RH5.2 and ntwrkng.. ("Mark")
Re: Linux and Windows NT network ("Jan Johansson")
Re: win95->linux routing ("William M. Stockdell")
Setup for LAN with cable modem -- Please help! (Weifan Lin)
Telnet on Second NIC ("Trevor Porter")
Re: Program to find optimal MTU? (Clifford Kite)
Re: win95->linux routing ("Andrew Taylor")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matt Menze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 3c509
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 10:30:39 -0700
I am having trouble getting my 3c509B ethernet card to be recognized by
Linux. Kernel version is 2.2.5. On bootup, it attempts to initialize
eth0, but after about 20 seconds it says "Operation Failed." When I
type ifconfig, all that is found is the loopback. I am loading the
driver as a module right now. Do I need to compile support for this
driver in the kernel?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: Linux all-in-one machine. Can it appear to be 4 different machines?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Satchell)
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 17:34:01 GMT
The only part that knows about the domain name is the domain name system,
and in order to do what you want to do you will need to use multiple IP
addresses. Remember, the various protocols don't know from names (it's a
separate subsystem of the 'Net) and so there is no way for you to know
that this packet was originally from www.mydomain.tld instead of
ftp.mydomain.tld without having the name resolve to a different IP
address.
Sorry.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David McMahon) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Yes, (un)fortunately my all-in-one machine has an all-in-one IP address
>too. I'm trying to do this split using a single IP address. I thought
>there might be some way to do this by only ALLOWing access to
>to certain ports for certain aliases. Is there a way?
------------------------------
From: "jalaguier johan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: UDP buffer
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:41:22 +0200
Reply-To: "jalaguier johan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi!
I've got quite a few problems with UDP, here they are ...
First, I'm working on linux Redhat 5.1....
- How can we know the size of the buffers ?
- What about the default and the max. sizes ?
- Can we change it (or them) ?
Thanx a lot ...
Johan
------------------------------
From: "Andrew Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux NIC problems
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:18:25 +0100
Hi,
I've had no problems with mine, no loss and only one collision in four days
(that I've noticed). Maybe it's a cable problem?
Andy
Geoff Munday wrote in message <7o6j9e$1d35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>What is your setup?
>I have NetGear NICs and FE Hub.
>Everything works with 95 but with SuSE 6.1 (2.2.2.7) I
>get 30% packet loss on PING, to or from the box.
>This is with the supplied TULIP and also with the
>Netgear driver.
>My latest attempt to fix was to use a TULIP 0.90
>driver, this raised the packet loss to 50% but
>I no longer get the "Transmitter stopped !!" message in dmesg.
>
>I would like to find out if anyone has got a similar config working !!
>
>Geoff
>
>
>Andrew Taylor wrote in message
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>I have a Netgear FA310TX NIC in my linux box and although it worked fine
>>with the default tulip driver I found I got better performance when I used
>>the updated driver. Its a tulip driver but it's been modified so it's
>>specific to the card. Why not try getting the linux driver from kingston.
>If
>>not try using the netgear (http://netgear.baynetworks.com) driver. It's
>very
>>easy to install, just compile it (using the script) and copy it over the
>>location of the current module file.
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Thomas Honles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: redhat.networking.general,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: Turbo 16/4 Token-Ring (PCMCIA) setup
Date: 3 Aug 1999 17:30:35 GMT
Mike,
Thanks for the pointer. I downloaded the tr225.tgz package. However, I am
having a tough time getting make to build the binaries.
Make complains that it cannot find the config.mk (specified in the
Makefile).
I am running a Slackware 4.0 distribution, and the kernel source paths
seem to be different than the Makefile and after looking at the ibmtr_cs.c
, the include paths to the *.h files are also different.
Is it possible to use a binary compiled on another system / release?.
This laptop is short on disk space since I need to dual boot it, and I may
not have installed the entire kernel source packages. If those are
necessary for the make of ibmtr, I may have an unresolvable problem until I
either wipe out my Windoze dual boot, or the good folks at Slackware build
a binary I can drop into this system.
phillim wrote:
>
>
> >
> > tr0: Initial interrupt: 16 Mbps Shared RAM base 000d4000
> > tr0: open failed: ret_code = 34, retrying...
> > tr0: open failed: ret_code = 34, retrying...
> > tr0: open failed: ret_code = 34, retrying...
> >
> This error message is from using the old pcmcia token ring driver, you
> need to new driver for 2.2.x
>
> Check out www.linuxtr.net for more details.
>
> Mike
> Linux Token Ring Project
> http://www.linuxtr.net
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: "Rodney Hendricks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: monitoring
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:38:01 +0800
I've seem a couple of places i work at use a package called Big Brother with
success. I don't have a url for it tho. try doing a www search for it.
ROd.
Worshipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Okay I need a solusion here, I'm going to be running two unix server,
> Is there any utility that I can run in the background of each server,
> so that it monitors the other server and pages me if the other server
> has a problem or has errors
>
> Brent Higgs
> Chamelean Media Group.
> System Adminastrator
------------------------------
From: Ralf Gerlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UDP buffer
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 19:56:39 +0200
Hi!
> - How can we know the size of the buffers ?
> - What about the default and the max. sizes ?
> - Can we change it (or them) ?
Try man setsockopt
The options are SO_SNDBUF and SO_RCVBUF, AFAIK.
Hope this helps.
Ciao,
Ralf
------------------------------
From: haze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.redhat,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: dhcpcd, RH/Mandrake 6.0, and @home
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 17:50:03 GMT
is your nic in pnp mode if so i believe you can get a utility to turn it off
from 3com
do you have to use dhcp for your modem i have @hoem to in middle TN works
great as static ip with ip_masq working my nic is an ati some crap like that
uses the ne2k-pci driver though thank god
goodluck e-mail if info on my config is needed
HAZE
Stephen Bosch wrote:
> Hello, everyone:
>
> Well, I think it's safe to ask for help now. I've spent days beating
> bushes, reading documentation and looking through Usenet archives. I've
> even spoken with my local guru, but he uses static IP and didn't have
> much that he could offer me that I hadn't already tried.
>
> Here is my situation:
>
> I'm running an AMD K6/2 400 on an Asus P5A motherboard. The machine is
> running Windows 98, Windows NT Server 4, and Mandrake 6.0. I have @home
> cable internet service. My ethernet card is a 3Com Etherlink XL TPO
> (PCI) (that's a 3c590 I think).
>
> The network works just fine in Windows 98 and NT.
>
> When I first installed Linux about six weeks ago, it too worked fine. I
> was really impressed with how easily things set up, since I had tinkered
> with Solaris 7 and had no luck getting it to work with the ISP. I didn't
> use the Linux for about three weeks, and then on Friday I logged in
> again, intending to install some new applications.
>
> This time, however, the network did NOT work. On boot I got a red
> "[FAILED]" after the eth0 init. It was unable to configure IP. Things
> got increasingly strange. After fiddling quite a bit I realized that the
> network card was not initializing because Linux wasn't even detecting
> it. Reinstalling Linux to a blank partition didn't help. The problem
> remained.
>
> Fortunately, that problem has now been resolved. The card is detected,
> and starts up (the "PC" light on my cable modem is now lit again). But
> this hasn't solved my IP troubles. I have tried everything I can think
> of, and I'm nearing exhaustion =) I've tried setting up static IP using
> the winipcfg information obtained from Win98 - no luck.
>
> When I try to start dhcpcd (whether I had my @home hostname or not), it
> cooks for about 60 seconds and then gives me an "operation failed". When
> I do a dmesg |tail I see this message, sometimes repeatedly:
>
> eth0: Tx ring full; refusing to send buffer
>
> I've heard of people having troubles with pump, so I wanted to remove it
> using kpackage -- but it gives me an error dialog saying "pump refers to
> multiple packages" or something to that effect. I tried installing an
> update, but that didn't solve the problem either.
>
> My DNS are correctly specified. The only thing I can ping is my
> loopback. When I do an "ifconfig eth0" I don't see any IP information at
> all (no 0.0.0.0 for example). Usually I see only "BROADCAST", sometimes
> "UP BROADCAST MULTI", but still no IP information. I have reset my cable
> modem umpteen times... unplugged it even. I have released my leases in
> Win98 before rebooting to Linux. No luck there either.
>
> Some info that might point towards a solution: I tried to think of the
> one thing that had changed since I last successfully used Linux with my
> ISP. I have been doing some heavy display card troubleshooting in the
> past few weeks, and that required that I make numerous changes to my
> BIOS settings. Thinking this might be the cause I reset the BIOS to
> Setup defaults before reinstalling Linux... unfortunately, that hasn't
> helped.
>
> I'm new to the operating system, so bear with me. I'd really appreciate
> any assistance any of you could provide. Hopefully someday in the future
> I'll be able to reciprocate.
>
> Remove the spamshield to reply... cc if possible... thanks =)
>
> Stephen Bosch
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: firewall with multiple public addresses???
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 17:51:27 GMT
I have a TCI cable modem, with a Linux firewall and several PCs
off a second interface using DHCP in the 192.168.1.X address space.
My primary address is in the 24.1.A.B address space. This all works
fine.
I asked TCI for a second IP address, and they gave me one in the
24.9.C.D address space. I want a PC with a public address to sit
behind the same firewall. Is this possible?
I put in a third network card, and configured it as 24.9.C.1. The PC
has address 24.9.C.D with 24.9.C.1 as its gateway. The PC and linux
box can ping each other, and packets get forwarded out, but packets
don't get returned.
The PC connected to the cable modem works fine with either
address 24.1.A.B or 24.9.C.D. So I'm assuming it's a netmask/routing
problem with the linux box public interface. Does the netmask need
to be set to 255.0.0.0 to allow 24.*.*.* packets in? When I set it
to 255.0.0.0, it doesn't seem to relay any packets.
Any hints? TIA.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "Shane Chrisp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Help with RH6 & Routing Problem
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:16:07 +0800
I am trying to setup a firewall using RH6 and I am running into a problem
where the IP Forwarding is getting to the external ethernet card but then
not being forwarded by the card to the router. My network is as follows.
Router 203.38.93.181 - 255.255.255.252
|
|
Linux external eth0 203.38.93.182 - 255.255.255.252
|
|
Linux Internal eth1 203.38.98.194 - 255.255.255.192
|
All other hosts on this same segment
My problem is that when i set the routing up in RH6 i can ping from say
203.38.98.195 to 203.38.93.182 but not to 203.38.93.181. The linux box does
not appear to be forwarding the request to the router. The routing tables
are setup correctly as i confirmed them by temporarily placing an NT box
where the linux box is and configuring the routing and IP Forwarding. It all
workied well. But with the RH6 box with IP forwarding enabled and running
routed i am unable to get it working.
Does anyone have any ideas?
Thanks in advance, and feel free to email your responses.
--
Shane Chrisp
2000 Computers & Networks
http://www.2000cn.com.au
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ph. 0412 409 856
------------------------------
From: gus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: howto show baudrate?
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 15:34:03 +0100
If you use chat to connect, set the debug level on, and send the results
to a log file. Then parse the log file for the connect speed.
gus
Ari Vaisanen wrote:
>
> How do i see what baudrate i have when i connect to my ISP?
>
> I use slackware 3.6 with kernel 2.2.4 and ppp-2.3.5 with pppsetup-1.98.
>
> Thanks In Advance!
>
> cheers
>
> /A. Vaisanen
>
> ------------------ Posted via SearchLinux ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: RH5.2 and ntwrkng..
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:45:07 +0100
You could try getting an 8-port hub. This will allow them to communicate
using, say TCP/IP which would allow FTP'ing and mail between them.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Windows NT network
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 18:50:00 GMT
www.samba.org
------------------------------
From: "William M. Stockdell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: win95->linux routing
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:28:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Monte Phillips wrote:
> This site has a step by step howto for complete setup of samba. steps
> for both linux and the win machine. (and they really work <G>)
> http://www.sfu.ca/~yzhang/linux/samba/index.html
> and this one as well
> http://home.talkcity.com/MigrationPath/maguai/samba.html
>
Thanks, but I've been to these pages and they don't seem to address my
problem. They seem to assume that the Win95 box just has a NIC, not a
modem connected to an ISP as well as a NIC. The problem is routing. If
I pulled the modem, I could easily configure Win95 to route properly. With
the modem, however, Win95 wants to route all traffic through the modem. Is
there no way to specify which network traffic goes to which device?
Will
------------------------------
From: Weifan Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Setup for LAN with cable modem -- Please help!
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 09:47:41 -0500
Hi,
I used to have an LAN with modem connecting to my ISP. Recently, I
switched it to cable modem
and tried to setup my linux box. Right now, my two networking cards are
working; eth0 is
for my LAN and eth1 for the cable modem. I am using RH5.2 and @home gave
me a static IP.
Can someone please tell me how to setup the eth1 to make it work?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: "Trevor Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Telnet on Second NIC
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:53:31 -0230
Hi Folks,
I'm running RH6.0 and had it set up fine with one NIC. This has a real IP
and I can telnet to it no problem.
I've added a second NIC and put it on my internal network. It works fine
(can ping all around through it and can ping it from other wkstns) but it
seems like telnet isn't listening on that IP. Is this possible? Again, I
can telnet to one, but not to the other.
Suggestions?
Thanks,
Trevor
------------------------------
From: kite@NoSpam.%inetport.com (Clifford Kite)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Program to find optimal MTU?
Date: 3 Aug 1999 10:10:32 -0500
Floyd Davidson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Clifford Kite <kite@NoSpam.%inetport.com> wrote:
: >Floyd Davidson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I would assume that if he meant Path MTU that he would have
: mentioned Path MTU instead of asking about the optimal MTU for a
: given interface, which indicates Link MTU. Path MTU certainly
: would be appropriate if he is writing networked applications.
: But he is more likely setting up pppd options.
I think you're right that he want's to set MTU for the PPP interface.
: >: For rough idea of what differences you might find, think in
: >: terms of efficiency and timing for PPP packets. A PPP packet
: >: has 40 bytes of overhead (addressing, etc.), so whatever the mtu
: >: is set to, that amount minus 40 bytes is the actual payload.
: >
: >Actually it's the TCP-IP headers in IP packets riding on PPP that occupy
: >the 40 bytes.
: Actually... The TCP header is 20 bytes, the IPv4 header is 20
: bytes and the PPP frame header is 4 bytes. However, no matter
: how one looks at the distribution, the point is that there are
: 40 bytes of overhead per packet fed to the PPP interface (which
: adds 4 more that I was ignoring).
Actually... I count 6 bytes more than are in the headers and IP data
including the CRC that (A)HDLC framing uses. Plus the frame delimiter
7E, if used, and any escapes. :)
: >: For example, if you set the mtu to 128 there will be almost 1/3
: >: of each packet that is overhead and does not contribute to data
: >: transfer. If you do only large ftp transfers, that would cause a serious
: >: increase in the time it takes to transfer each file.
: >
: >But if the other side accepts Van Jacobson header compression as a PPP
: >link option then the header information can be reduced to as few as
: >3 bytes.
: There are other considerations too. The minimum reassembly
: buffer size for IPv4 is 576 bytes. Also, while TCP has a Maximum
: Segment Size (MSS) of up to 65535, it defaults to 536 (the 576
: minimum buffer minus 40 bytes of overhead for IP and TCP
: headers) if none is specified.
: TCP applications restrict packets to the MSS size, but UDP do
: not automatically limit packets in that manner.
That's interesting, I've often wondered about the origin of the 576
MTU for a PPP interface that's often seen. I've always used 552 on the
theory that IP data would likely be sent in chunks that are a power of
two, and that 512 would be a reasonable compromise between larger data
chunks and smaller control chunks. Oh well.
: It seems obvious where the common value of 576 for the MTU
: derives its value from, and why that would be considered a
: maximum setting for MTU. (The minimum link MTU for IPv4 is 68
: bytes; however, with normal usage patterns that is not a
: practical value.)
: However, IPv6 has 40 byte headers (plus the 20 from TCP
: headers). IPv6 has a minimum link MTU of 576.
So the header overhead load factor for IP datagrams will, in general,
be worst with IPv6 if I'm reading this right. The price of backwards
compatibility.
: The above suggests that in the immediate future, when IPv4 and
: IPv6 are both commonly implemented, a MTU value of 576 will be
: the best compromise to fit both versions?
All choices involve a trade-off and best is relative at best. :^ I'm
pretty sure that I'm not qualified to answer that. :|
--
Clifford Kite <kite@inet%port.com> Not a guru. (tm)
/* The wealth of a nation is created by the productive labor of its
* citizens. */
------------------------------
From: "Andrew Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: win95->linux routing
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 19:54:58 +0100
Can't you not just change the tcp/ip which is bound to the nic to be the
default protocol? Then when it can't reach its destination it will ask if
you want to dial a connection?
Andy
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
