Linux-Networking Digest #952
Linux-Networking Digest #952, Volume #11 Tue, 20 Jul 99 15:13:50 EDT
Contents:
Re: Detecting my SOHOware NIC (Rod Smith)
How to split a TCP connection ? (Julien Godard)
Linux DNS Windows CE name resolution ("Rod Biagtan")
Re: samba and windows network - incompatible namespaces? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IP masq amd PPPd diald on demad (Anders Svensson)
Re: Local IP addresses ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: are 4 nics practical? (Greg Leblanc)
Re: Linux to Linux PPP links (Clifford Kite)
Re: eth0 ppp0 problem (Clifford Kite)
Re: Help! Alcatel ADSL modem locks up? (Francois Magnan)
TCP Linux queing (buffer chain) ? (Julien Godard)
Re: Detecting my SOHOware NIC ("UCI")
Re: Print on Windows95 from Linux ?? (Daniel Buettner)
Re: Can't talk to modem with ppp (Clifford Kite)
Re: Why are there so many slow modem issues? (Jason Koloseike)
Re: Sending emails over a network ("Holger van Koll")
Print on Windows95 from Linux ?? ("Chow Hoi Ka, Eric")
Re: Sharing NetZero on home network? (Steve Pearce)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith)
Subject: Re: Detecting my SOHOware NIC
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:40:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On installation, NIC is probed as a 'tulip', and is configured as
such. Upon booting, it's not configured thru PCI.
We should try changing to the 3c59x driver ??
Unlikely. I've got an actual SOHOware 10/100 NIC, and it's DEFINITELY a
Macronix Tulip clone board.
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 01:06:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vidar Andresen)
wrote:
Not tulip. Vortex. Newer version.
The '3c59x.c:v0.99H 11/17/98' (shipped with 2.2.0 kernel up to 2.2.?)
dont have it.
The '3c59x.c:v0.99Kb 5/7/99' have it:
{"3cSOHO100-TX Hurricane", 0x10B7, 0x7646, 0x,
PCI_USES_IO|PCI_USES_MASTER, IS_CYCLONE, 128, vortex_probe1},
You (Vidar) haven't stated whether you've actually got an NDC SOHOware
10/100 NIC. It looks from your post as if you've just located a matching
string in the kernel source. These things happen, and don't mean the
products are compatible. If, OTOH, you have evidence that NDC has done a
switch on the design without changing their model number (or if there are
two different models of SOHOware NIC), then please elaborate.
--
Rod Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.channel1.com/users/rodsmith
NOTE: Remove the "uce" word from my address to mail me
Author of _Special Edition Using WordPerfect for Linux_, from Que
--
From: Julien Godard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How to split a TCP connection ?
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:45:32 +0100
Hi again ;-)
I would like to split a TCP connection into two connections using linux.
I have two PC-linux connected through a TCP connection via a network
emulator. For test prupose, I want to have 2 TCP connections, one via 1
Network emulator, 1 via another network emulator.
Of course this is a proxy work, but someone know a software able to do
that ? (open src, if possible...). Will I need three PC's ?
Thank you
julien
--
Please CC your reply to my personal address :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: "Rod Biagtan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux DNS Windows CE name resolution
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 17:48:05 GMT
I'm in a bit of a bind and would appreciate any help on this.
I've got a Windows CE client and a Linux DNS server. When the CE client
fires up and tries to make a connection, it sends a query to the Linux DNS
server asking it who "webserver" is.
The Linux box ignores this request.
After a short period of time, the CE client will send a 2nd request to the
Linux DNS server again asking who "webserver" is.
The Linux box ignores it again.
Finally, on the 3rd request, the CE client will send the FQDN request -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Linux box accepts responds to this with the correct IP address.
My question is:
1) Can the Linux DNS server be configured to respond to just "webserver"
(maybe some kind of wildcard)?
2) Can CE client be configured to send the FQDN from the get go?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Rod Biagtan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: samba and windows network - incompatible namespaces?
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:52:42 GMT
In article 7n1emi$mrv$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having a severe problem with samba. I'll try to explain it
all; I apologize for the wordiness, but I'm hoping to supply enough
info here to get a solution back, assuming one actually exists. So:
I'm trying to make samba work on a new redhat 6 s
Linux-Networking Digest #952
Linux-Networking Digest #952, Volume #10 Sat, 24 Apr 99 06:13:37 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, Win95/98, Samba and "Dial-up Networking" (Pekka Savola)
Re: Linux/98/NT Network (mist)
Re: Subnet question (mist)
Re: hacked (mist)
Drivers for 100Mbps Ethernet Cards ("Anthony M. Spencer")
Switch (Pavel Greenfield)
Re: [?]Dial in to my Linux box from the outside (Bob Tennent)
Bandwidth Watcher/Monitor Help/Info Needed ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What does this ICMP means? (EVILjosh)
Re: ipchains configuration (Pekka Savola)
TIS FWTK Compilation Problems (Dennis)
Re: Kernel 2.2.6 netwoking bug? (Randy Sandberg)
Re: Kernel 2.2.6 netwoking bug? (Randy Sandberg)
Re: NFS update delay (Andrew Richards)
HELP!! FILE System error ("Fenton Mok")
Re: Two network cards (Vidar Andresen)
Re: Samba vs. NFS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Network unreachable, cable modem, 2 NICs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pekka Savola)
Subject: Re: Linux, Win95/98, Samba and "Dial-up Networking"
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 05:49:32 GMT
... in other words, I specify the local IP address in Window's TCP/IP
configuration. I was just concerned, because the ISP's directions said
to choose Dynamic allocation there. If dial-up adapter can still assign a
dynamic address and route most packets that way, then it should
work. Is this correct?
You specify local IP address in Windows TCP/IP configuration for
_ethernet card_. For dial-up adapter, you can still choose either
dynamic IP assignment or static IP assignment. For every adapter, you
can choose a different IP.
Only possible problem might be that unlike IP addresses, default
gateways, etc., there can be only on DNS configuration. If you need
to use internal DNS, this might cause problems if you don't know what
you're doing.
Anyway, it will work.
If what I wrote above is true, then I have another question: does Win
have a routing table? If not, how can I tell it to talk to the linux box
when it sees its IP address but send everything else via the dial-up
adapter?
Yes, it does. Try 'route print' in a dos prompt.
Pekka Savolapekkas at netcore dot fi
---
Across the nations the stories spread like spiderweb laid upon spiderweb,
and men and women planned the future, believing they knew truth. They
planned, and the Pattern absorbed their plans, weaving toward the future
foretold. -- Robert Jordan: The Path of Daggers
--
From: mist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux/98/NT Network
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:38:44 +0100
Reply-To: mist new$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribed to us that -
I am a newbie to Linux (less than a week on this OS)
I want to basicly do the same thing but i have a stupid winmodem in my
win98
machine that i want to use to dial the internet and then use a proxy
app to
have linux connect to and be able to see the internet. Is this
possible??
I believe so, but it's far more complex and involved than getting a real
modem, putting it in the linux box and then connecting with that.
Also I would like to do printer shareing from the WIN98 machine to allow linux
to print to this printer. Can I also do this??
You need to use SAMBA.
snip
--
Mist.
--
From: mist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Subnet question
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:43:07 +0100
Reply-To: mist new$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Luca Filipozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribed to us that -
Am I correct that only traffic with an address on the other subnet gets
routed?
Trafic on one subnet will not pass to the other unless you have
masquerading active on the Linux box.
I would not use .255, as this is a special address, use something like
192.168.1.* and 192.168.0.* for the two different subnets. Then you can do
something like
ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.0.255 up
ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 up
route add -net 192.168.0.0 eth0
route add -net 192.168.1.0 eth1
Or whatever.
--
Mist.
--
From: mist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: hacked
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:47:11 +0100
Reply-To: mist new$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribed to us that -
Does this mean that I've been hacked???
I should say so.
Coul;d have this person have done any damage??
More than likely. Unless they were just playing around.
And am installing kernel 2.2.6 with ip chains, will this help to ensure
that I'm safe???
If I were you, I would re-install this box, and change the passwords.
They could have left trojan programs and/or taken all your passwords
(including your dial-up password if you have it on the box.)
in.telnetd[12023]: connect from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 17 11:14:22 jack telnetd[12023]: ttloop: peer died: Success
Apr 17 11:14:23 jack imapd[12024
Linux-Networking Digest #952
Linux-Networking Digest #952, Volume #9 Wed, 20 Jan 99 18:13:44 EST
Contents:
Re: Connect without hub (Robert Yoder)
Re: Linux, Cablemodems and static ips ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Todd Knarr)
Re: smaba win98 (Raymond Doetjes)
Re: What is pppd doing to my poor modem? ("Stu")
Re: DOES LINUX SUCK (Bernd Eckenfels)
Re: Linux server on small network ("Robin Malton")
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Crystal CS8920 driver needed. (Terrelle Shaw)
Re: DHCP Client not working with ADSL and Bellsouth.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Transmit time out ("Daren Jacobs")
Re: Disk size req'd for Linux cable modem server (Nikhil Sharma)
Re: forwarding, masquerading, firewalling?? (Andrew Pickin)
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Satch)
Long UsersIds (Francisco Ruiz)
Reading from serial port --- PLEASE HELP! (Jussi Kuikka)
Re: Why Does Linux Networking Suck So Badly ? (Reinder)
Minimum call timer on diald? (Martin)
From: Robert Yoder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.dcom.lans.ethernet,comp.sys.sun.admin,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.win95
Subject: Re: Connect without hub
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 23:34:58 -0700
Paul Gress wrote:
If the machines are connected direct, there cannot be any collisions. Two wires
are for transmit and two wires are for receive. This is why you need a crossover
in the wires. So the computers can be connected:
Computer "A" Computer "B"
Xmit ---Rec
Rec---Xmit
There cannot be a collision. One computer the Xmit is connected directly to the
Rec and the Rec is connected directly to the Xmit.
With a Hub, all the Xmit's are connected on the same side, and all the Rec's are
connected on the same side. It's up to the Hub to allow only one Xmit or Rec at
a time between one set of computers. If two sets of computers try to communicate
to the same computer at the same time, there is a possibility of a collision.
From: http://www.lantronix.com/htmfiles/mrktg/catalog/et.htm
"A hub takes any incoming signal and repeats it out all ports."
That is, a hub is just a multi-port repeater.
It makes _NO_ decisions about the communication going on between
machines.
Chris Cappuccio wrote:
What about the situation where you are connecting together two machines
via RJ45 ? Don't ethernet cards with 10bT interfaces rely on the hub
for collision detection? If a hub detects a collision, it sends out a signal
which causes the cards to retransmit...Otherwise packets are lost?
In comp.dcom.lans.ethernet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rob Wiltbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, a hub is designed to to take packets and distribute them as best as
is can to their destination. You're more likely to have packets collide
on a peer to peer than through a hub.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought a hub simply made the appropriate
electrical connections. That is, to my knowledge, a hub does not
deal with packets, only with electronics. (If it deals with packets
and distributes them to their destinations appropriately, then it
is probably a switch. Granted, one could say "hub" and mean
"switching hub", but in those context (microhubs) that's probably
not the idea.)
So, in my understanding, you're *just* as likely to have packets
collide on a two host network whether or not you have a hub.
- Logan
---== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==--
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
--
More people have died in the last five minutes from alcohol and tobacco use
than have died from LSD and MDMA use in the history of the world.
Robert Yoder
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Unix: The Solution to the W2K Problem."
.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux, Cablemodems and static ips
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:33:39 GMT
Well, I'm having a problem getting DHCP to work. I have Red Hat 5.2 and I've
read both HOWTO's on dhcpcd and cablemodems. I've gone as far as rewriting the
scripts and still nothing works...if I set the modem as a static IP (which I'm
really stealing use of an IP) it works just fine. And I can get dhcpcd to work
if I manually set -h switch to my host name.
If any one has any answers than send me an e-mail.
Thanks
Jake
In article 75mtev$779$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it works when I enable DHCP, and doesn't work when I change it to manual.
Any other ideas?
Jay
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
I'm
