Linux-Networking Digest #578, Volume #12 Mon, 13 Sep 99 20:13:47 EDT
Contents:
Re: IP forwarding from PPP connection (bill davidsen)
Netscape Keyboard Event Problem (Olivier Girard)
Re: Linux VPN (Some Guy)
Re: 3c503 card under SuSE 6.2 (LhD Administrator)
Re: new network interface (midknite)
Connect Linux PPP client using NTRAS's 128-bit RC4 encryption? ("Peter.Olson")
RedHat 6 Tulip Network Freezes (Jonathan Urbach)
Re: Stable DHCP and ADSL Ceased to Work (Wisquatuk)
Re: Sympatico ADSL (PPPoE) problems (Wisquatuk)
Dead port on Cisco Catalyst 1900, help! (Walter Francis)
Re: tulip IRQ woes & tulip-diag (M. Buchenrieder)
Re: redirecting packets w/ IP Masq ("Floydd")
Re: Bay Networks VPN Client (on NT) through Masq - anyone try? (Robert Wein)
PPP Linux and SMB problem (Matt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.palmtops.pilot
Subject: Re: IP forwarding from PPP connection
Date: 13 Sep 1999 21:44:52 GMT
In article <7rjpot$9al$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Neil Weisenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| The setup is that I have a PPP server running on my RedHat Linux (kernel
| 2.2.5) box for the purpose of serving my Palm IIIx over the serial port.
| The PPP server runs fine and the Palm networking connects to it. Once
| it's up, you can ping it from the linux box. The problem is that IP
| forwarding is not working, so that the Linux box is not accepting
| packets destined for the Palm and routing them, nor is the Palm able to
| connect to outside sites (all I've tried is Proxiweb which I've used
| before).
Are you forwarding or masquerading? If you are forwarding you must have
a valid IP address for your palm, not an internal IP, like 192.168.x.x.
You must have your ISP routing packets for the palm to your dialup
machine. In practice this means two fixed IP addresses, one for the
router and one for the palm. You must have forwarding enabled in the
kernel.
If you masquerade you can use any IP you want for the palm, "the world"
only sees the IP of the PPP connection.
Any of this give you an idea?
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
I thought I had forgotten how to throw a boomerang, but it's
all coming back to me...
------------------------------
From: Olivier Girard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,netscape.public.mozilla.general
Subject: Netscape Keyboard Event Problem
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 21:48:12 GMT
Javascript keyboard events (OnKeyPress etc....) are not functionning at
all for my Linux XFree86 x86 version. I guess it is some X setup (key
binding ) file which isn't well configured. However I tried to modify
the /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults/Netscape (RH6.0) file but it didn't fix
the problem. Maybe it is the Gnome configuration (I am using
gnome) which is involved. How knows?
Please Help !!!!!
Olivier Girard
------------------------------
From: Some Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux VPN
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 11:20:50 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I'm just trying to get a VPN client set up, but to answer your
first question, just do a search for "VPN" in this newsgroup and count
how many message headers you hit. There's a lot of demand. :-)
Fortunately, there also seems to be a fair amount of information.
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999 02:23:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>How much demand for VPN is there in the Linux variant of Unix?
>
>I've been thinking about running VPN on my network and am worrying
>about how hard it will be find people to setup, install and maintain it?
>
>Dennis Clark
>d3plan.com
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: LhD Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: 3c503 card under SuSE 6.2
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 19:31:16 GMT
Alan M. McKenney wrote:
> (192.168.1.1), netmask, and broadcast address.
How about making that 192.168.1.3 ?
LhD Administrator
LhD: Linux Hardware Database
http://lhd.datapower.com
================== Posted via CNET Linux Help ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: midknite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new network interface
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:00:38 -0400
tofu wrote:
>
> This topic isn't covered by the networking How-To.
>
> How does one add a new network interface? I've installed a second
> ethernet card identical to the first (3com Etherlink III), set up the
> IRQ and IO so there are no conflicts, and linux recognises them both at
> boot time.
>
> but... I still only have the eth0 interface. I've also added an alias
> and the correct options for eth1 to conf.modules. I still only have
> eth0 when I run ifconfig.
try something like
`ifconfig eth1 <ip for eth1> netmask <netmask for eth1> up`
then
`ifconfig` should list both eth{0,1}
> Anyway, assuming I get this to work, what will I use to configure the
> second interface (IP address and such)
I don't know which file (i run slackware), but there are files,
usually rc.something somewhere under the /etc dirctory (commonly
things like rc.d or init.d) that configure your system at boot time.
one of these files configures the local interface (lo) and eth0 (eth0
might be done in its own file). just add the appropriate lines after
eth0 for eth1. use eth0 as a model.
then, either reboot, or just run the script and see what the
configuration becomes. (ie use the `route` command to see the routing
table)
--
brian kowolowski
gpg key / infos http://www.cryogen.com/midknite/gpg.html
gpg print: F6B6 076D 4BFC CD14 7C14 1A2F 61DA BDE5 7A88 D6C3
------------------------------
From: "Peter.Olson" <@Chi.Frb.Org>
Subject: Connect Linux PPP client using NTRAS's 128-bit RC4 encryption?
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 14:00:59 -0500
Hello those smarter than I,
I know that most linuxes support PPP with MSChap so that linux clients can
use NT RAS servers to connect remotely. I am interested if anyone knows of a
linux client that is able to use the strong encryption specified in NT RAS,
currently RC4-128?
Thanks!
--Peter
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Urbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RedHat 6 Tulip Network Freezes
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 20:57:27 +0000
Hello folks!
I just upgraded a linux box from RedHat 5.2 to RedHat 6. Now, I'm
having problems with the incoming services failing. It's like this:
I telnet to the linux box after booting. Everything seems ok. Then,
a few minutes later, my telnet session freezes and I can no longer
telnet into the linux box. If go to the linux box and do ifcfg-eth0 or
even just start a telnet session on it, my telnet session from the other
machine unfreezes. So then I can work remotely for a little bit until
my connection dies again. So basically all the server functions are
hosed after a few minutes. /var/log/messages doesn't say anything about
this problem.
The ethernet card is a PCI DEC21140 NIC on IRQ 9 (which it shares
with the Adaptec SCSI controller and the Matrox Millennium.) This
doesn't sound like other folks' IRQ problems to me because the card
works initially, but could that be the issue here? An IRQ problem?
Thanks for any help...
Jonathan
------------------------------
From: Wisquatuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stable DHCP and ADSL Ceased to Work
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:12:12 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
Pablo Checo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had been running a Linux 2.2.5 kernel with dhcpcd version
> 2.0b1p16-6. The system ran perfectly for 4+ months. Last week it
> stooped working. The ADSL (GTE for the West LA area) provider says
> that they have made no changes on their end. I know I've made no
> changes to my box. This problem follows a black out from the
> provider for 24+ hours.
Well, I really don't know how much this'll help; I'm going out on a
limb here, cos I think this is just *my* problem, and prolly not
yours. On the other hand, any answer is better than nothing, and
maybe mine denotes a trend or whatnot. I'm prolly way off base,
though.
Has your ISP been advocating the use of Lose95 software to manage your
link? If so, they might have been anticipating a switchover to PPPoE
rather than standard DHCP-Ethernet. Mine did that, and I suppose,
technically, for *most* users, nothing really was 'changed'.
'Changed' in the doublespeaking manner of the industry, that is. :)
But it was sure changed for me, and I'm still trying to recover.
Ugh.
Anyway, hope this gives a possible venue for further investigation.
If not, then okay, I'm just assuming that all providers are as evil as
mine. :) (I mean, they provide me with Linux software, but no
documentation or official support. I'm supposed to guess? Arggh.
I'm lucky I've gotten as far as I have.)
- --
- Wisq ([EMAIL PROTECTED] to email)
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/CC/M d-(--) a--- C++(+++)>$ UL++++>$ P+++ L+++ E>++ W-(+>++) N+++
!o>++ K- w--- O- M- !V PS++(+++) PE- Y+ PGP+++@ t+@ 5 X+++@ R+ tv b+
DI+@ D+ G>+++ e- h!(++) !r z
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQA/AwUBN92EyP8wZ8HVeo8aEQILQACg75/hWlqmojkJ0Ekc8+3aWffMNWoAoK7x
bOoEhmKYf9O9XRcy73cfaPMz
=aQnR
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Wisquatuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sympatico ADSL (PPPoE) problems
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:01:15 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
Clifford Kite <kite@nospam.%inetport.com> wrote:
>
> Here you ask the ISP to authenticate itself to you using PAP. Do
> you really expect it to do so? - most ISPs don't. The pppd option
> that causes this isn't on the command line but could be in an option
> file. If you are using ppp-2.3.9 then this *might* be triggered by
> an existing default route on your box, but I'm not sure about that.
>
Ah, thank you; I'm certain my ISP doesn't support this, and thusly, I
suppose I must be one step closer to some sort of solution. (I
pondered this briefly as a possibility while reading the manfile, I
think, but didn't believe it would be set by default.)
Unfortunately, the problem remains, except that my first request lacks
the <auth pap> part in the debug output. Any further solutions would
be much appreciated, although I'm also quite glad that when I find a
solution, I'll be able to use it now that I've got 'noauth' set.
- --
- Wisq ([EMAIL PROTECTED] to email)
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/CC/M d-(--) a--- C++(+++)>$ UL++++>$ P+++ L+++ E>++ W-(+>++) N+++
!o>++ K- w--- O- M- !V PS++(+++) PE- Y+ PGP+++@ t+@ 5 X+++@ R+ tv b+
DI+@ D+ G>+++ e- h!(++) !r z
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQA/AwUBN92CE/8wZ8HVeo8aEQIoFgCfZveBVHtdV4LtCg6T7brthlbMdV4AoKIj
7riMEhCCjjUqf0a+G1hA+DtO
=kG4B
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Walter Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Dead port on Cisco Catalyst 1900, help!
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:38:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am trying to prove to Mindspring that a port on their router for my
POP is dead. I occationally connect to this assumed-dead ip,
209.86.59.98. Once connected, PPP goes up, but nothing goes through the
connection. Pings, traceroutes, etc.. all fail.
If you do a traceroute to the IP, it succeeds. However, pings, nmap
scans, all come back with nothing.
They think it's working fine, and I might have a setup problem. This
only happens maybe once a week, but it's kinda irritating because it's
always the same IP, and I would really like to help them fix it, and
maybe learn something about routers in the process.. :) It's worse than
a dead modem, you think everything is working.. :(
Any suggestions on how to troubleshoot this (including anything they
would have to do) would be appreciated.
--
Walter Francis
http://wally.hplx.net Powered by RedHat 6.0
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: tulip IRQ woes & tulip-diag
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 19:40:30 GMT
QuestionExchange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Original ID of poster lost]
[...]
>> tulip-diag.c:v1.12 7/31/99 Donald Becker
>([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>> Index #1: Found a Lite-On 82c168 PNIC adapter at 0x1400.
>> This chip has not been assigned a valid IRQ, and will not
>function.
>> This must be fixed in the PCI BIOS setup. The device driver
>has no way
>> of changing the PCI IRQ settings.
[...]
Your BIOS didn't assign an IRQ to this card. Bad, very bad.
If your BIOS doesn't provide a setting for NON-PNP OS (which
would force the BIOS to be assigning IRQs to the card(s) ),
then you'll either need a BIOS update or a different card
(ISA) - or a better board.
>you may have to setup isapnp, and the easy way of doing that is
>pnpdump -c >/etc/isapnp.conf
Rubbish. This is a PCI card.
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't munge your address.
------------------------------
From: "Floydd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: redirecting packets w/ IP Masq
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 19:42:24 GMT
colvin, you're correct in your analysis of ipchains and the syntax that he's
using
roger et all,
do a man on ipmasqadm, this is the replacement i'm using for ipportfw (for
2.0 kernels). I used it to do exactly what you are, basic example would be
ipmasqadm portfw -a -P tcp -L 209.135.132.45 102490 -R 192.168.1.55 21
ipmasqadm portfw -a -P udp -L 209.135.132.45 102490 -R 192.168.1.55 21
give it a try (haven't done it in a while, may need minor brushing up, but
that's basically it)
-jerm
Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7rj136$r5c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Roger: Your rule specifies that the source address is any address;
however,
> that the source port is 10240. When you establish an FTP session, the
souce
> port is dynamically chosen by your ftp client. You are specifying the
> destination port at the destination ip address when you establish your ftp
> session.
> What you want to do is map any incoming tcp session with the
> destination port of 10240 to be redirected to port 21 on machine
> 192.168.0.4. Although this seems perfectly reasonable, when I read the
> ipchains howto, I don't get the feeling this is possible. It states the
> following:
>
> "The other major special target is REDIRECT which tells the kernel to
> send a packet to a local port instead of wherever it was heading. this
can
> only be specified for rules specifying TCP or UDP as their protocol.
> Optionally, a port (name or number) can be specified following '-j
REDIRECT'
> which will cause the packet to be redirected to another port."
>
> The key here is that it says that only a port number can follow
> REDIRECT. It does not say IP Address and Port Number. The fact that you
> put the -d parameter after the REDIRECT probably has no significance. It
is
> probably interpreted as if you put it before the REDIRECT, in other words,
a
> TCP packet from any source IPaddress with a source port of 10240 with
> destination address of 192.168.0.4 and destination port of 21 then
redirect
> it. This is essentially what your status message is saying. Your ftp
> session establishment will probably have a destination ip address of
> 192.168.0.1 and a destination port of 10240 and a source port of who knows
> what. Effectively your rule will never match the session establishment.
>
> Regards
> Bill Colvin
>
>
> Roger wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >I have a question about redirecting packets w/ IP masquerade.
> >
> >I'd like to be able to have tcp packets going to a certain port on my
> >linux machine to be redirected to a port on another computer in my small
> >home lan..
> >
> >lich - linux machine 192.168.0.1
> >pete - win98 machine 192.168.0.4
> >
> >I'd like to have the ability to ftp to a port, say 10240, on my linux
> >machine and have those packets redirected to a machine on my interal
> >lan.
> >
> >I've read up on ipchains and have tried to get this to work but have
> >been unsucessful. I tried using this rule but it didn't work. For the
> >life of me I can't figure out whats wrong with this..
> >
> >ipchains -A input -s 0/0 --sport 10240 -p tcp -j REDIRECT -d 192.168.0.4
> >--dport 21 -b
> >
> >From my understanding, this rule will take any incoming tcp packets
> >going to port 10240 and redirect them to 192.168.0.4 port 21 and the -b
> >will employ this rule to work in both directions
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Robert Wein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bay Networks VPN Client (on NT) through Masq - anyone try?
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:24:14 -0400
i have the bay networks software and RH5.2, and it doesn't work. it
uses IPSEC with the AH protocol (i am probably saying it wrong, but the
terms are right).
anyway, it relies on a routable source IP and masq doesn't seem to do it
fully correctly. i have had suggested to me to install a SOCKS server,
but haven't tried yet. i finally gave in right now, and have a 2nd IP
address for my laptop that uses bay VPN.
Some Guy wrote:
>
> I've got IP Masq'ing set up but I need to know whether Bay Networks
> VPN works through ipchains-style masquerading (not HOW, necessarily--I
> assume if it's possible, there's documentation out there). I'm
> encouraged by the fact that it does work through SyGate on an NT
> server (which works on the same principle as IP masquerading).
>
> Thanks for any advance knowledge ;-)
>
> Cory
>
> P.S. John Hardin - I already tried your ftp link, it didn't work :-(
------------------------------
From: Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PPP Linux and SMB problem
Date: 13 Sep 1999 19:44:29 GMT
Hi all ... I figured I'd ask this here since there are so many Linux
guru's who read this forum.
I've got a LAN here at work running Netbeui and TCP/IP using fake IP
addresses (10.*.*.*).
I've got a linux box which has samba running on it. All of the
win95 computers on the LAN can connect to the linux box for TCP/IP file
sharing.
I have set up two modems on the linux box for incoming PPP connections so
remote users can dial-in and also use file sharing.
I have been testing this using a lap top using Win95 and a modem. When I
connect, I can ping every computer on the network and every computer can
ping me. But file sharing will not work at all.
Symptoms: I can't see anyone in network neighborhood.
when I do 'find computer' I can't find anyone.
When I try to map a network try using such syntax as:
\\10.*.*.*\myshare
it can't mount.
The only thing I have been able to successfully do, is mount one of the
laptop's shares using smbclient from the linux box. If I do something
like:
smbclient -I <laptop's IP> \\\\<laptop's name>\\<laptop's share>
then it will work. (notice I am forcing the IP)
But not vice versa.
Here is how I am initiating the PPP connection. Right now it's kind of a
hack hehe. I am using mgetty to answer the modem on the linux box.
With the laptop, I dial in and log in manually to an account I
have created. I am _not_ using PAP. Once the login is completed, the
account on the linux box executes pppd instead of a shell such as bash.
Here is the script that it executes:
#!/bin/sh
exec /usr/sbin/pppd -detach debug proxyarp \
asyncmap 20A0000 escape FF 10.?.?.?:10.?.?.? \
netmask 255.255.255.0
(note I blanked out the IP's.. the first IP is the linux box, the second
IP is the IP I assign to the laptop)
As I say, TCP/IP itself works fine. I can ping, telnet, ftp, etc. But
file sharing won't work =( =( =(.
Any ideas?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
