Linux-Networking Digest #108, Volume #12 Wed, 4 Aug 99 14:13:36 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dial-On Demand with RH 5.2? (Clifford Kite)
Re: Sendmail: Network is unreachable (Jeff Peterson)
showmount command is missing on RH6.0 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Compiling ipportfw.c (Jerome Kaidor)
Re: DFE-530TX D-Link NIC ("Bruno Prior")
Re: help! Network is unreachable ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 486 to linux box? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Networking with linux ("Charles")
Re: Samba or NFS? (Frederic Woodbridge)
Re: "illegal port command" error when ftping over a linux router (Monte Phillips)
Too many collisions? ("Brandon W. Beasley")
Re: Update: RedHat 6.0, Can't FTP into server ("Tad")
Re: squid administartion ("Greg Boes")
Re: win95->linux routing ("Cliff")
Re: I can't ping myself!!! (Tim Meals)
ssh2 cannot allocate pty ("Rafal")
Major Problems with PPP - ISP and RedHat out of ideas (Pete Foley)
Re: 486 to linux box? (Alex Yung)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kite@NoSpam.%inetport.com (Clifford Kite)
Subject: Re: Dial-On Demand with RH 5.2?
Date: 4 Aug 1999 10:21:48 -0500
Dan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I have tried to use pppd, like in the man page, but it says 'dial on
: demand not available with v2.2.1 kernel driver' or something along
: those lines, indicating that I might need a newer kernel than my
: 2.0.37...
This means that the kernel support code doesn't support demand dialing.
To get it you'll need to get a ppp source package and follow the
intallation instructions carefully. The demand dialing kernel code and
other new pieces are copied to the kernel source tree. Then you'll have
to recompile the 2.0.37 kernel.
Get ppp-2.3.8 at cs.anu.edu.au/pub/software/ppp/
--
Clifford Kite <kite@inet%port.com> Not a guru. (tm)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Peterson)
Subject: Re: Sendmail: Network is unreachable
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 14:21:33 GMT
Do you pay for this service? I get the same service for free from:
www.justlinux.com
>ppp connection with a dynamic dns server (dynip.com)?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: showmount command is missing on RH6.0
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:29:34 GMT
Hi all,
I am currently using RedHat 6.0 and realize that showmount command is
missing in this version. Does anyone know what is the replacement of
showmount command in this version? I'm particularly interesting in try
to find what exported filesystems from other machines; what I mean is
'showmount -e <hostname>'.
Alan Watt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerome Kaidor)
Subject: Compiling ipportfw.c
Date: 4 Aug 1999 07:14:42 -0700
*** Hello,
I'm trying to get an IPsec host working through my Linux IP-masquerade
server. Have applied the ipportfw patches to kernel 2.2.10, and compiled
it with all the appropriate options. The base server distribution is
Slackware 4.0.
Apparently, run-time configuring of the VPN support is done with a tool
called "ipportfw" - OK, I got ipportfw.c off the writer's website. Tried
to compile it.
Got a slew of compile errors:
============================ snip ===========================
ipportfw.c:100: warning: `struct ip_portfw_edits' declared inside parameter
listipportfw.c:100: warning: its scope is only this definition or
declaration,
ipportfw.c:100: warning: which is probably not what you want.
ipportfw.c: In function `main':
ipportfw.c:111: storage size of `pfw' isn't known
ipportfw.c:125: `IP_PORTFW_ADD' undeclared (first use this function)
ipportfw.c:125: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
ipportfw.c:125: for each function it appears in.)
ipportfw.c:130: `IP_PORTFW_DEL' undeclared (first use this function)
ipportfw.c:135: `IP_PORTFW_FLUSH' undeclared (first use this function)
ipportfw.c: In function `parse_addressport':
ipportfw.c:222: `IP_PORTFW_PORT_MIN' undeclared (first use this function)
ipportfw.c:222: `IP_PORTFW_PORT_MAX' undeclared (first use this function)
ipportfw.c: At top level:
ipportfw.c:252: warning: `struct ip_portfw_edits' declared inside parameter
listipportfw.c:253: conflicting types for `do_setsockopt'
ipportfw.c:100: previous declaration of `do_setsockopt'
======================= endsnip =====================================
....the real killers seem to be the undefined #defines. They define fields
for the input parameter to "do_setsockopt()" which, I suppose, is part of
glib.
Anyway, before I go through the exercise of getting and digging through
the glibc source and, no doubt, the kernel net/ipv4 source, could somebody
tell me the secret? Other folks seem to have compiled this guy already.
Thanks in advance,
- Jerry Kaidor ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
------------------------------
From: "Bruno Prior" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DFE-530TX D-Link NIC
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 16:28:10 +0100
Place the via-rhine.c file in the /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/ directory. Now
do "make menuconfig" from the /usr/src/linux directory to re-configure your
kernel setup. You should see via-rhine as an option in the "Network device
support" section. Select it. Now rebuild your kernel in the normal way, and
point lilo at the new kernel (you do know how to do these, don't you?). You
will probably also need to add an "alias eth0 via-rhine" line in
/etc/conf.modules. Now reboot. You should see lines about via-rhine.c and
eth0 in the messages which flash past at bootup ("dmseg | less" to read them
after bootup if they flashed past too fast). These messages should tell you
if there were problems. If not, your card should be working. If there are no
such messages, this hasn't worked.
I'm doing this off the top of my head, so I could be wrong, but there are a
variety of D-link cards with similar names and different drivers. I suspect
that you are right that you need the via-rhine driver, and the other guy is
wrong about the tulip driver, but if the via-rhine doesn't work, give the
tulip a go.
Cheers,
Bruno Prior [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom wrote in message <7o896h$6ne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hey, anyone know how I can get this PCI card to work in RedHat Linux 6.0?
>I've managed to gather that it needs a Rhine driver of some sort, and even
>managed to download the source code for it, but I don't seem to have gcc
>installed to compile the driver. Even then, I'm not sure what to do with
it.
>Thanks...
>
>
>Just another Windows expert trying to learn a superior OS.....
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: help! Network is unreachable
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:57:48 GMT
First of all, you need to find out if the 151.201.0.0 address has been
subnetted. If it is true, then your default gateway on your machine sure
point to the router which routes the traffic between 151.201.19.0 and
151.201.20.0.
Remember you cannot use any netmask in the network. The
netmask should be determined when the network was installed. You need to
find out what is actually going on your network, then you set your
netmask to match your network.
If not subnetted, check your connection or cable etc.
Alan Watt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <7nlb1k$q7d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have the linux machine on my network and I can telnet to it, but
> whenever I try to add the default gateway, it bombs. I get the same
> error message if my netmask is 255.255.255.0 or 255.255.0.0.
>
> I changed the netmask because my ip address is 151.201.19.84 and my
> gateway is 151.201.20.1. So if my gateway is in a different subnet, I
> changed my netmask to help, but it has not.
>
> I included the output of progs arp and route...Any help would be MUCH
> appreciated!
>
> Phillip
>
> [root@rhodespc phillip]# /sbin/route add default gw 151.201.20.1
> SIOCADDRT: Network is unreachable
>
> [root@rhodespc phillip]# /sbin/route
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref
Use
> Iface
> 151.201.19.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
4
> eth0
> 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
2
> lo
>
> [root@rhodespc phillip]# /sbin/arp
> Address HWtype HWaddress Flags
> Mask Iface
> rhodespc.bellatlantic.n ether 00:50:04:A3:24:D3
> C eth0
> 151.201.19.86
> (incomplete) eth0
> 151.201.19.87
> (incomplete) eth0
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 486 to linux box?
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:40:45 GMT
Well, I don't see this setup will work for you because Win3.11 does not
have TCP/IP in it. Even though it has netbios running on Win3.11 but it
is geared to file sharing only. If you need to browse from your 486
machine, you need to get a TCP software in Win3.11 in order to setup a
TCP network which you need for Internet browsing.
Or it might be easier to up your Win3.11 to Win98 which has TCP/IP built
in.
I think this is the first step you need to solve before setting your
pentium box as a firewall.
Alan Watt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Markus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure if somebody will read this...but I read NET-3-HOWTO, however,
I
> feel like I need a little more basic help...
> I have 1 3Com NIC in the 486 and 2 in my pentium. I also have the RJ45
> cable in between, so it seems like I have all hw I need to get the two
> computers to interwork. But now is where my bother begins. What are
the
> apps that I need to allow the 486 (win 3.11) to browse the net using
the
> pentium as the provider of the information from the net?
>
> Cheers,
> Markus
>
> Gerhard Schwarzer wrote:
> >
> > You will need a second NIC for the Pentium.
> > Maybe you try a crossed RJ45 cable to connect.(works only with two
pcs)
> > Then things as you like firewall,smb,proxy etc. on the Pentium
> >
> > B
> >
> > Markus schrieb:
> > >
> > > I am wondering what is the easiest way to connect an old 486
(33MHz)
> > > running windows 3.1 to a pentium pc running Redhat 6.0 so that I
will be
> > > able to browse the internet on the 486 using the pentium as the
gateway
> > > to the net. I still want to be able to browse the internet with
the
> > > pentium. My pentium has a catv connection to the net.
> > > Is there some cable that I can connect the 2 pcs by, and then some
free
> > > software?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Markus
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,redhat.networking.general
Subject: Re: Networking with linux
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:12:03 GMT
You could get a media converter.... I know that there are places still
selling them...
Dave Cotterill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7o9mar$9o3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm currently managing a small 10mbps bus network and have recently been
> given the task of upgrading a section of it to 100mbps star network. All
> machines must still be able to communicate with each other and I am
> therefore looking for help on the subject. The best method I could come
> up with due to lack of hubs allowing a 10mbps BNC bus network to be
> connected to them is to use a linux machine with a 100mbps and a 10mbps
> card to forward all networking data to/from. While installing a 100mbps
> hub for the upgraded machines.
>
> a) would this work?
> a2) if so how would I setup the linux box?
> b) Any better ideas of experiences would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks for any information
> PS: The network is completely internal and the linux box currently is set
> up with IP Masqurading for internet access with an ISDN modem so that the
> windows boxes can access the net on demand.
>
> ------------------ Posted via SearchLinux ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Frederic Woodbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Samba or NFS?
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:08:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> NFS is for Linux/Unix systems
> Samba is by far the best way to communicate with Windoze machines.
> Not sure about the internet, depends what you want to do.
>
> Lindoze 2000 wrote:
>
> > which is better Samba or NFS?
> >
> > which is better for windoze + Linux?
> >
> > which is better for Linux + Linux + Internet?
> >
[snip]
I've heard and read it said that SAMBA is faster than NFS.
Take this for what it's worth :)
--
Frederic Woodbridge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Monte Phillips)
Subject: Re: "illegal port command" error when ftping over a linux router
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:31:07 GMT
insmod ip_masq_ftp
>The FTP port command tells the server to open a port on your machine to
>send data to. e.g the result of an ls command or a get command.
>Your machine is saying open port n on host a.b.c.d, but because the packets
>are masqueraded the address in the port command is not the same as the
>source address of the request. Most FTP servers will not allow this as it
>is a security risk (as you could try and connect to any port on any machine
>with the FTP server as the source)
>You will need to either a) use a ftp proxy server or b) use FTP passive mode
------------------------------
From: "Brandon W. Beasley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Too many collisions?
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 09:57:42 -0500
ifconfig reports a number of collisions occuring on my NIC.
There are two in the linux box doing a ip masquerading task.
Question: what is the threshhold for too many collisions?
------------------------------
From: "Tad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Update: RedHat 6.0, Can't FTP into server
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:06:25 -0700
Matthew J. Hellman wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>hmmm...done. Thanks. Seems to have helped a lot, expecially with
>telnet. FTP still takes a little longer than I would like. Anyway, why
>is this necessary? I don't have to do this with my SVR4 box.
>Matt
It is a reverse DNS lookup problem. The ip of your SVR4 box can probably be
resolved.
Tad
------------------------------
From: "Greg Boes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: squid administartion
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 10:16:30 -0500
Have you read the comments in the squid.conf file? These are
verbose.
greg
devrim baris acar wrote in message <7o8tkn$ent$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi,
>Is there a better document on configuring squid than that of the document
>comes within the application?
>I want to find more detailed info on the variables and settings?
>Thanks in advance...
>baris
>
>feel the flow.............
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Cliff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: win95->linux routing
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 17:27:22 GMT
Yeah Bill, Win95 networking leaves a lot to be desired. I didn't see
your original post but let me offer a couple of tools that can help you
troubleshoot. The command "winipcfg" in Windoze is equivalent to ifconfig
in Linux. It will bring up a dialog box where you can click on the More
button to get all your IP configuration data. It will show all interfaces
also. The "route" and "route print" commands in Windoze will display
routing information. Look at what the default gateway for 0.0.0.0 network
is. Your dialup adapter, right? You need to change that to make the
traffic head for the LAN instead. You may also need to change the IP data
for the dialup adapter in the Network icon of the Control Panel since that
is where the default gateway gets set. If this doesn't help then please
post a screen scrape of the route print command. We'll get you working.
HTH.
--
-Cliff
Views expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer
Concordia Net, Inc. When replying via email please use; cwheat at concordia
dot net not
root@localhost
William M. Stockdell wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Meals)
Subject: Re: I can't ping myself!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:51:10 GMT
Flavio --
The question on my mind is "what's your routing table look like?" From
a shell prompt, type the command:
netstat -nr
It will output something along the lines of:
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
The default route will depend on how your gateway is configured.
There are of course, other issues that could be at work. Are you using
IP Chains or firewalling? If so, are you blocking all ICMP packets.
There's an excellent IP-CHAINS HOWTO in the LDP. You might also take a
quick read through the network-related HOWTO's.
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 18:44:18 +0200, Flavio Poletti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
> I have a weird problem to solve. I run on a machine whose IP number
>(within the LAN) is 194.30.30.52. I assigned it some days ago.
>
> Today, I tried to ping myself:
>
> $ ping 194.30.30.52
>
> but I'm not able to 'see' myself:
>
> ping: sendto: Network is unreachable
--
Tim Meals
Systems Engineer
ECbridges, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Rafal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ssh2 cannot allocate pty
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:43:08 +0200
Hi all,
I have RH6.0 running on a normal PC ( a bit old P133 32mb). There is a sshd2
installed. The attempts of log in via ssh2 failed with the message:
garntpty no such a file or direct.
cannot allocate pty
By the way I can't use telnet as well ( probable the same problem with
pseudoterminal). In this case I receive a message : All network ports in
use.
Have any one had the same problem?
Thanks,
Rafal Chyzy
------------------------------
From: Pete Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,redhat.networking.general
Subject: Major Problems with PPP - ISP and RedHat out of ideas
Date: 4 Aug 1999 17:30:36 GMT
Hello,
I am having serious proplems with attempting to connect to my ISP using
PPP. I will attempt to provide as much information as possible, so if
anyone who can help me on this it would be GREATLY appreciated... So here
it goes...
I have RedHat 6.0 installed, and all of my hardware works fine in it.
However, I cannot get a PPP connection. Now, If I dial into my ISP ( a
UNIX box) via a terminal (such as minicom) I can log into the shell and do
anything I want there (pine, lynx, ftp -> all fine). So I CAN get a
connection. However, if i set it up (using linuxconf or the redhat netcfg
tool) it will connect and stay online, but if I try to do anything over
PPP (web browsing, ping, telnet) nothing happens -> basiacally the PPP
connection deos not do anything if it exists. I have talked to RedHat and
they said that they do not support PPP connections. Great. So I have
been working with my ISP for about a week and they are basically stumped
also (I have been working with their UNIX admin). So, here is ahwat i
have sent them...
This is my var/log/messages file with ifconfig output based on how I
connected. The first entry is by connecting using usernet, the secong by
using linuxconf...
-- PPP Test - Using Usernet--
Aug 3 08:10:18 localhost pppd[2373]: pppd 2.3.7 started by root, uid 0
Aug 3 08:10:51 localhost pppd[2373]: Serial connection established.
Aug 3 08:10:51 localhost pppd[2373]: Using interface ppp0
Aug 3 08:10:51 localhost pppd[2373]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS1
Aug 3 08:10:55 localhost pppd[2373]: local IP address 208.9.153.51
Aug 3 08:10:55 localhost pppd[2373]: remote IP address 205.246.208.227
Aug 3 08:10:55 localhost modprobe: can't locate module
Aug 3 08:11:27 localhost pppd[2373]: Terminating on signal 15.
Aug 3 08:11:28 localhost pppd[2373]: Connection terminated.
Aug 3 08:11:28 localhost pppd[2373]: Connect time 0.7 minutes.
Aug 3 08:11:28 localhost pppd[2373]: Sent 371 bytes, received 198 bytes.
Aug 3 08:11:28 localhost modprobe: can't locate module
Aug 3 08:11:28 localhost pppd[2373]: Exit.
Aug 3 08:11:30 localhost modprobe: can't locate module
-- IF Config File Using Usernet--
ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
inet addr:208.9.153.14 P-t-P:205.246.208.227
Mask:255.255.255.255
UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:5 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:5 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:10
--- PPP Test - Using Linuxconf --
Aug 3 08:13:26 localhost ifup-ppp: pppd started for ppp0 on /dev/ttyS1 at
115200
Aug 3 08:13:26 localhost pppd[2505]: pppd 2.3.7 started by root, uid 0
Aug 3 08:13:59 localhost pppd[2505]: Serial connection established.
Aug 3 08:13:59 localhost pppd[2505]: Using interface ppp0
Aug 3 08:13:59 localhost pppd[2505]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS1
Aug 3 08:14:32 localhost pppd[2505]: IPCP: timeout sending Config-
Requests
Aug 3 08:14:33 localhost pppd[2505]: Modem hangup
Aug 3 08:14:33 localhost pppd[2505]: Connection terminated.
Aug 3 08:14:33 localhost pppd[2505]: Connect time 0.6 minutes.
Aug 3 08:14:34 localhost pppd[2505]: Exit.
-- IF Config File Using Linuxconf--
ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
inet addr:208.9.153.23 P-t-P:205.246.208.227
Mask:255.255.255.255
UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:5 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:5 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:10
Now, I have changed the settings a bit so no matter what the connection is
established and does not drop unless I force it to, but there is still now
PPP activity. I have tried everything I have though of. I even sent my
ISP my routing tables and they said everything was fine there. The only
recommendation they can give me now is that I may have a hardware
problem. So I am going to attempt to change the modem and see what that
does (even though my current one will connect). Also If that fails I am
going to take my linux Hard Drive and put it in another computer to see if
I can connect there. My ISP also told me to try to add a static rout to
my routing configs, and I will also try that this evening. Also I have
not attempted to ping my ISP (destination IP in the routing table), but I
will try that tonight again.
Does anyone have any idea what is happening? I have read through 3 linux
books and they all say to get ppp you just install linux and setu up the
ppp and you are fine. Unfortunatly that is not working for me. I have
really tried everything I can think of besides replacting hardware, and I
have been working at this for over a week and I am not getting anywhere.
Any help on this will be greatly appreciates, because no matter what I
cannot get a PPP connection. Thank you very much.
-Pete Foley
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Yung)
Subject: Re: 486 to linux box?
Date: 4 Aug 1999 17:17:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Markus ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Not sure if somebody will read this...but I read NET-3-HOWTO, however, I
: feel like I need a little more basic help...
: I have 1 3Com NIC in the 486 and 2 in my pentium. I also have the RJ45
: cable in between, so it seems like I have all hw I need to get the two
: computers to interwork. But now is where my bother begins. What are the
: apps that I need to allow the 486 (win 3.11) to browse the net using the
: pentium as the provider of the information from the net?
You have 2 options of networking Win 3.11 to Linux. Your basic need
is the TCP/IP stack and winsock. I tried the Trumpet winsock and the
Novell TCP/IP. Trumpet 2.0 is free but anything after that is not.
Novell TCP/IP stack is free (at least up to 4.1). I am not sure about
the current version.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
