Linux-Networking Digest #540, Volume #12 Fri, 10 Sep 99 12:13:37 EDT
Contents:
DNS and demand dialing (Dale Pontius)
Samba & PPP connexion (herve hulloux)
Re: Good Book on Firewalling - IPChains ? ("Morris Maynard")
Re: IP Forwarding (QuestionExchange)
SupraMAX 56k PCI Modem and Red Hat 5.2 (Marco Costa)
Re: Pinging second NIC from Linux box (QuestionExchange)
DHCP and printing.. please help...... (Mikey)
Re: POP problem - ERR being read already /usr/spool/mail..... ("Luke Th. Bullock")
Re: connect failure (dunno how to interpret) (Clifford Kite)
Re: PPPD and proxyarp (Clifford Kite)
NICs T/X LEDs stay off (gendro)
Re: Networking (tomislav)
Re: cable modem gateway server ("Tad")
FTP only logs on anonymous ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ip masqerading and icq
Re: nslookup resolves, ping doesn't (Clifford Kite)
Re: SupraMAX 56k PCI Modem and Red Hat 5.2 ("HillBoy")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Pontius)
Subject: DNS and demand dialing
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:14:21 -03-59
About 6-12 months ago, there was a lot of discussion about demand
dialing, with either pppd or diald, and it's interactions with a
local name server. Apparently the DNS generated a lot of spurious
dialing. Looking at my logs, I see that there is periodic activity
from bind, and can readily believe that.
Last I saw, the general concensus appeared to be that this com-
bination just didn't work, and people had given up on it. Is this
still the case, or is DNS+demand dialing now a solved problem?
I run a caching-only nameserver, and recycle it in ip-up and
ip-down to stick in or remove forwarders statements.
Thanks,
Dale Pontius
DEPontius AT usa DOT net
------------------------------
From: herve hulloux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Samba & PPP connexion
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:12:52 +0200
I have a Pc with redhat 6.0 and a USRobotic modem (and a netword card
but not linked to a network).
I 'ld want to call this Pc from a W98 PC and share a directory with
samba in network neighborhood.
the PPP connection is OK (i can do a ftp download) and the samba is well
configured.
How can I see the Linux Pc in the W98 PC ?
Is it a pb of protocol (Netbios) in the PPP ?
( I don't use the ftp access, because I have to get a little part of the
file and not the whole)
thanks
------------------------------
From: "Morris Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good Book on Firewalling - IPChains ?
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:15:33 -0400
It's almost worthless.
Rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> IPChains-HOWTO
>
> Rob
>
>
> daben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:mgZB3.9278$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi all
> >
> > Can anyone recommned some good primers on firewalling and security
> > (specifically on ways of monitoring hacks). Also how about some good
info
> > on ipchains? I have a net up and runnig with firewalling, forwarding
and
> > filtering but am a little shaky on how good the security is.
> >
> > Thanks
> > daben
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: QuestionExchange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IP Forwarding
Date: 10 Sep 1999 13:0:11 GMT
By default, IP forwarding is off.
To enable, do:
echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> I'm trying to setup a Redhat Linux box (Redhat 5.2) as a
gateway machine. I
> have 2 ethernet cards installed, each configured with
separate network
> addresses. Much of the documentation on this subject I've
read states that
> this is easy, just configure both interfaces separately and
give them their
> respective IP addresses and off you go. Unfortunately its
not working for
> me.
>
> I basically have 2 subnets: 192.168.0.0 and 192.168.1.0. I
can ping out
> from the gateway box to machines on either network. I can
ping the gateway
> box (either address) from any machine on either network. I
cannot, however,
> ping from a box on one subnet to a box on the other subnet.
Have I
> forgotten/screwed-up something or oversimplified this?
>
> Below is the ifconfig -a and netstat -rn outputs from this
box. Any
> suggestions would be welcome at this point.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - John R.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> IFCONIG -a:
>
> 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:47 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:47 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
carrier:0
> collisions:0
>
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:5A:C8:A0:0D
> inet addr:192.168.0.95 Bcast:192.168.0.255
Mask:255.255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:562 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
frame:0
> TX packets:468 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
carrier:0
> collisions:0
> Interrupt:11 Base address:0x1000
>
> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:5A:C8:A0:19
> inet addr:192.168.1.95 Bcast:192.168.1.255
Mask:255.255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:229 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
frame:0
> TX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0
carrier:0
> collisions:0
> Interrupt:3 Base address:0x1080
>
> NETSTAT -rn:
>
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS
Window irtt
> Iface
> 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 1500 0
0
> eth0
> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 1500 0
0
> eth1
> 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 3584 0
0 lo
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.95 0.0.0.0 UG 1500 0
0
> eth0
--
This answer is courtesy of QuestionExchange.com
http://www.questionexchange.com/servlet1/showUsenetGuest?ans_id=3198&cus_id=USENET&qtn_id=2936
------------------------------
From: Marco Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: SupraMAX 56k PCI Modem and Red Hat 5.2
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:29:13 +0100
Hi.
I bought a SupraMax 56k PCI and it works fine under Windows 9x/NT.
I tried to use it under Red Hat Linux 5.2 and I could not get the modem
to work.
Before I bought it, I checked
http://www.redhat.com/corp/support/hardware/intel/52/rh52-hardware-intel-14.html#ss14.3
and it says that the following (among others) are incompatible modems:
- Plug-and-Play (PNP) modems (these may be set up via isapnptools and
setserial).
- Modems that require software drivers for compression, error
correction, high-speed operation, etc.
- PCI Memory Mapped Modems (these do not act like serial ports)
- Internal SupraExpress 56k
- Internal SupraSonic 56k
- ...
But is says nothing about SupraMax. So I assumed it would work.
I have read now "Modems: Traditional, Controller-less and Soft" white
paper
http://www.supra.com/products/white-papers/communications/c-less_paper.html
and now I am afraid that is too late.
Is it possible to get the modem working in a different OS other that
Windows 9x/NT ?
And is it possible to get the modem working under Linux ?
Thank you
Marco Costa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: QuestionExchange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pinging second NIC from Linux box
Date: 10 Sep 1999 13:1:20 GMT
youll need to add a route table (forgive me im not at my box,
so my syntax may be improper) with a command like:
route add 192.168.0.2 eth1
to your linux box. that should take care of it.
> I am having trouble pinging the second network card in my
Linux box.
>
> The first card is at 192.168.0.1 and the second is at
192.168.0.2. They are
> on the same subnet and connected via a 10Mbps hub. My
windows95 machine is
> at 192.168.0.10 on the same subnet.
>
> I have ip masquerading set up and the windows95 machine can
use the Internet
> perfectly. My Linux box also has no trouble using Internet
services.
>
> The problem is that when I try to ping the second card on the
linux bax at
> 192.168.0.2 all the packets are lost. I can ping both
192.168.0.1 and my
> windows95 machine at 192.168.0.10.
>
> I intend to connect a cable modem to the second card on the
Linux box. Will
> this correct the problem when the second card becomes a
gateway to the
> Internet?
>
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
--
This answer is courtesy of QuestionExchange.com
http://www.questionexchange.com/servlet1/showUsenetGuest?ans_id=3180&cus_id=USENET&qtn_id=2965
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mikey)
Subject: DHCP and printing.. please help......
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:12:45 GMT
Hi....
A friend and I just recently set up DHCP on a few Linux machines....
Had no problems with it, worked great.... One little problem, they
can't print now... They were using an lpd remote queue print setup,
and now the print spooler says "cannot find full hostname for machine"
and nothing prints...
And yes, I put the full "name+domain" in the netconf..
Please help... :-)
Thanks
Mike Nichols
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Luke Th. Bullock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: POP problem - ERR being read already /usr/spool/mail.....
Date: 10 Sep 1999 14:05:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc the GURU Guy van Baalen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I know there's going to be an easy answer to this, but.....
>My POP server / mail host is returning the error message:
>-ERR being read already /usr/spool/mail/mymailfilename
delete the lock:
rm /usr/tmp/.pop/<username>
--
/Luke
------------------------------
From: kite@NoSpam.%inetport.com (Clifford Kite)
Subject: Re: connect failure (dunno how to interpret)
Date: 10 Sep 1999 08:15:54 -0500
Aaron ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I cannot dial in to a certain number to my server. below is the log
> recorded by kppp :
> Sep 10 20:40:15 vortex pppd[1657]: pppd 2.3.7 started by root, uid 0
> Sep 10 20:40:15 vortex pppd[1657]: Using interface ppp0
> Sep 10 20:40:15 vortex pppd[1657]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS1
> Sep 10 20:40:19 vortex pppd[1657]: Remote message: ^F
> Sep 10 20:40:21 vortex pppd[1657]: Unsupported protocol (0x8029)
> received
> Sep 10 20:40:21 vortex pppd[1657]: Unsupported protocol (0x802b)
> received
> Sep 10 20:40:22 vortex pppd[1657]: BSD-Compress (15/12) compression
> enabled
> Sep 10 20:40:22 vortex pppd[1657]: Could not determine remote IP address
There are other reasons for not determining the remote IP address but one
that is becoming common is for the ISP to operate dumbed-down and not
supply one for pppd to use. A solution is (usually) to supply a reserved
IP address, e.g., add the pppd option
:192.168.0.1
Almost any reserved address should work.
Otherwise, add the pppd option debug to see just what is happening to
cause this. I can't tell you how to do this with the kppp frontend to
pppd.
> Sep 10 20:40:22 vortex pppd[1657]: Connection terminated.
> Sep 10 20:40:22 vortex pppd[1657]: Connect time 0.2 minutes.
> Sep 10 20:40:22 vortex pppd[1657]: Sent 528 bytes, received 457 bytes.
> Sep 10 20:40:22 vortex pppd[1657]: Exit.
> Does anybody know what '^F' means?
It probably signifys that you were authenticated. Again the pppd debug
option will provide context, some ISP PPP implementions are stupid and
send binary in this message.
> also, my loopback interface lo disappears after every reboot. how do I
> set it permanent?
Something else dumb and unnecessary. Look at the kppp FAQ on whatever
appropriate web site.
--
Clifford Kite <kite@inet%port.com> Not a guru. (tm)
/* Editing with vi is a lot better than using a huge swiss army knife.
Use =} to wrap paragraphs in vi. */
------------------------------
From: kite@NoSpam.%inetport.com (Clifford Kite)
Subject: Re: PPPD and proxyarp
Date: 10 Sep 1999 08:32:43 -0500
Jeremy Impson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward"). And I chose to turn on proxy
> arp for all interfaces (by doing
> "echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/proxy_arp"). Does anyone know if
> this is bad? I did it because the config directory for ppp0
You could put it in /etc/ppp/ip-up so it is executed when the PPP interface
comes up. Thanks for the comment - I didn't know the proxy_arp disappeared
when the interface comes up.
--
Clifford Kite <kite@inet%port.com> Not a guru. (tm)
/* On occasion you'll run into an attidude on usenet. They contribute
nothing, but vitriolicly criticize those that do. They relish the
replies that this generates. Please do not feed the attidudes. */
------------------------------
From: gendro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NICs T/X LEDs stay off
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:47:52 GMT
Goal:
Conigure an old 486 as Internet routeur/firewall for my ADSL
internet connection.
Facts:
1)I just completed the configuration of my firewall/routeur-to-be
machine.
2)I have succeeded in installing two NICS (ifconfig/modprobe stuff)on
this
machine. Both cards are running ok when querying ifconfig.
One card is config'd as DHCP.
The other card has ip 192.168.1.1 config'd.
Other facts:
3)My other is a P200 pro (with Linux/Win98) which plays the workstation
role . This machine also has a NIC properly configured on both Win98 and
(eg IP 192.168.1.2 ......).
4)These two machines are connected using a twisted pair type of RJ45
cable. This wired used to "net"work well a while ago between two Win95
machines.
Problems:
Can't telnet, ping or anything between machines.
LEDs transmit/receive (T/X) on both static IP config'd NICs never come
on when both machines are running Linux.
But When my P200 runs Win98 (and 486 still runs linux), both cards LEDs
T/X then come ON .............
Can this be caused by misconfiguration in my linuxconf network config ?
Or hardware problem (would be surprised ref above fact 4)?
Or else ?
Thanks to all !
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tomislav)
Subject: Re: Networking
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:49:07 +0200
In article <7r922n$t11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I have just started using Linux, and my wife runs windows98. I was
> wondering where I could find info on what I need to hook these two
> together to share printers, and hard drives etc. I want to do this
> mostly as a learning experience. Any help is appreciatred,
Samba. http://www.samba.org
------------------------------
From: "Tad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cable modem gateway server
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 07:26:35 -0700
Just checking, but did you enable IP Forwarding?
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
this can also be enabled at boot time by editing the /etc/sysconfig/network
file.
FORWARD_IPV4=yes
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: FTP only logs on anonymous
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:11:24 GMT
I am new to linux, "just wanted to get that out of the way" I recently
installed Mandrake 6.0, everything is great, and am on my way to
kissing Microsoft goodbye. I am having a slight problem with my ftp
server. It says by default if you have a user account you can log on,
but it seems only ftp and anonymous logs on. When I added myself as a
user I added the ftp group to my supplemental groups. I am still
getting an error when I log on invalid username "dont get it" didnt
have this problem with Redhat 5.2. I have read the book and understand
what files are being called on when the server is activated. Anyone
have any Idea's for me. I am lost and would like to get my ftp to work
again.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ip masqerading and icq
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 23:31:13 GMT
Did you check your ICQ firewall settings. "Select does not use a socks
fire wall" and Dynamic port options.
Tony Green wrote:
> You need to recompile the kernel with the appropriate modules. There
> are ones for irc etc
>
> Chan Ching Yu wrote:
>
> > the computers in the LAN use private IP and
> > access the internet via the ip-masquerading running linux box
> >
> > when the users use icq,
> > they cannot accept the files requested by the people outside
> > why?
>
================== Posted via CNET Linux Help ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: kite@NoSpam.%inetport.com (Clifford Kite)
Subject: Re: nslookup resolves, ping doesn't
Date: 10 Sep 1999 10:13:34 -0500
Ludger Solbach ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I can connect to most hosts on the internet through my SuSE 6.2
> ppp-connection flawlessly. But I found a few that can be resolved via
> nslookup, while I cannot use any other tool to connect to them (ping,
> netscape etc., you name it). When I telnet to a host beyond the ppp
> link, I can reach those hosts with no problem. Does anyone have an idea
> where to look for the root of this strange problem?
This might be caused by the wicked PMTU discovery being used by some
router along the way to the sites. If you have the mru option set for
pppd then try removing it.
--
Clifford Kite <kite@inet%port.com> Not a guru. (tm)
/* Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword. */
------------------------------
From: "HillBoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: SupraMAX 56k PCI Modem and Red Hat 5.2
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:54:53 GMT
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but your SupraMax modem is a software
modem and will not work under Linux. If you'll look under Windows, it's
loading an HCF serial driver. There is no Linux equivalent for this driver.
To get a modem working, you'll need to either switch to an external modem or
get an ISA V.90 modem that has jumpers that enable you to set Com Port/Irq.
These modems are still around and are very cheap. I suggest looking for the
Hayes Accura modems which are being liquidated since Hayes is no more.
Beware PCI modems. Except for the newest Lucent CallerID modems, they are
not Linux friendly.
Marco Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi.
>
> I bought a SupraMax 56k PCI and it works fine under Windows 9x/NT.
> I tried to use it under Red Hat Linux 5.2 and I could not get the modem
> to work.
>
> Before I bought it, I checked
>
http://www.redhat.com/corp/support/hardware/intel/52/rh52-hardware-intel-14.
html#ss14.3
>
> and it says that the following (among others) are incompatible modems:
>
> - Plug-and-Play (PNP) modems (these may be set up via isapnptools and
> setserial).
> - Modems that require software drivers for compression, error
> correction, high-speed operation, etc.
> - PCI Memory Mapped Modems (these do not act like serial ports)
> - Internal SupraExpress 56k
> - Internal SupraSonic 56k
> - ...
>
> But is says nothing about SupraMax. So I assumed it would work.
>
> I have read now "Modems: Traditional, Controller-less and Soft" white
> paper
>
http://www.supra.com/products/white-papers/communications/c-less_paper.html
>
> and now I am afraid that is too late.
>
> Is it possible to get the modem working in a different OS other that
> Windows 9x/NT ?
> And is it possible to get the modem working under Linux ?
>
> Thank you
> Marco Costa
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
