- Original Message -
From: dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lorin Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: sendmail configuration - how to route all mail through my ISP
On 26 Jan Lorin Lund wrote:
I
On 25 Jan Chris Phillips wrote:
From: dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, I don't get how your ISP can block *outgoing* connects of
your sendmail. Some isp's block incoming connects on 25.
*** FYI ***
FreeServe, Energis Demon are doing just this.
I am informed that this kind of
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:40:48PM +, Stacey Roberts wrote:
I had a look at the attachment, but could see anything (to my eyes) that
look untoward in there, except the fact that you've got maxusers set
to 0. This value tells the kernel how many new file / processes can be
opened.
This
On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 01:22, Gene Bomgardner wrote:
snipped
thanks for the help.
Now, care to take a shot at this one:
Same machine, when I telnet to it (ie. telnet guardian1), regardless
of kernel, I get the following:
-
and
installed without a hitch. However, any attempt to access the
network (telnet, ping, whatever) results in No route to host. Even
when trying to ping 127.0.0.1 Booting the original kernel back up
restores networking. I get the feeling I've missed something. Any
ideas?
Thanks.
God's
default_to_accept) and the netgraph definitions. All compiled and
installed without a hitch. However, any attempt to access the
network (telnet, ping, whatever) results in No route to host. Even
when trying to ping 127.0.0.1 Booting the original kernel back up
restores networking. I get
Did that. It really is set to accept all.
On 29 Dec 2002 at 10:52, Sarah Woolley wrote:
Someone had this problam a few days ago. It seems that although he
thought his kernal was set default to accept, it really wasn't. You may
want to try ipfw show to check and make sure it really is
Gene Bomgardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did that. It really is set to accept all.
Can you send the output of 'netstat -rn', and perhaps of 'ipfw list'
(just to make sure).
norbert.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
On 29 Dec 2002 at 18:04, Stacey Roberts wrote:
Run an sdiff on both kernels and post the output so that members can
take a look at the actual differences between the two kernels.
sdiff only reports that the two binary files are different. I don't see
any options to force a display. Did
On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 21:20, Gene Bomgardner wrote:
On 29 Dec 2002 at 18:04, Stacey Roberts wrote:
Run an sdiff on both kernels and post the output so that members can
take a look at the actual differences between the two kernels.
sdiff only reports that the two binary files are
Hi Gene,
From what I've just been reading here, maxusers after about FreeBSD
4.5 can be safely left at 0 (as long as there is 64MB RAM), which
replaces the previous default of 32.
Could you post /etc/hosts the output from netstat -rn as well
please?
Cheers,
Stacey
--
Stacey Roberts
B.Sc
Below is the output of ipfw show and netstat -rn
-
ipfw list
65535 allow ip from any to any
netstat -nr
Routing tables
Internet:
DestinationGateway
Hi Gene,
Thanks for that information.
Now, could you try pinging a remote host and 192.168.123.8, then check
/var/log/messages /var/log/security to see if anything is recorded
there, please? You should post any output from both files here.
At the same time, post what is actually returned on
On 30 Dec 2002 at 0:44, Stacey Roberts wrote:
Hi Gene,
Thanks for that information.
Found it.
From the block of ipfw definitions, under ipfilter,
options IPFILTER_DEFAULT_BLOCK #block all packets by
Commented it out, recompiled and voila.
thanks for the help.
Now, care to
#ipnat -l
List of active MAP/redirect filters:
map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 portmap
tcp/udp
4:6
map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32
^^^
Shouldn't that be xl0?
Fer
DOH! Dang fonts!
I guess that ends my short career as a network
I tried to send a message to the list earlier, but my
email server was down. I checked the archives, but I
can't tell if my message has been posted already, so I
apologize if it has. If anyone has already replied,
could you forward your response to this address?
I have a freeBSD machine with
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Adam Lofstedt wrote:
I tried to send a message to the list earlier, but my
email server was down. I checked the archives, but I
can't tell if my message has been posted already, so I
apologize if it has. If anyone has already replied,
could you forward your response to
yes, your message was posted. keppt it easy, it's a
world-wide holiday,
so the answers can take while. :)
Thanks... Sorry about this. I didn't mean to make it
seem hysterical or anything.
I have a freeBSD machine with two NICS that I am
using
as a NAT gateway. No matter what I do,
- Original Message -
From: Adam Lofstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:24 AM
Subject: Can't route past gateway
I tried to send a message to the list earlier, but my
email server was down. I checked the archives, but I
can't tell if my
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Adam Lofstedt wrote:
yes, your message was posted. keppt it easy, it's a
world-wide holiday,
so the answers can take while. :)
Thanks... Sorry about this. I didn't mean to make it
seem hysterical or anything.
I have a freeBSD machine with two NICS that I am
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Adam Lofstedt wrote:
#ipnat -l
List of active MAP/redirect filters:
map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp
4:6
map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32
^^^
Shouldn't that be xl0?
Fer
List of active sessions:
Could somebody please confirm that the place to add a static route at
boot time is rc.conf? For instance
static_routes=192.168.1.0/24 192.168.0.1
Is there a way to ensure that the route is added before all network
daemons are started?
Thanks,
/per olof
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, at 00:44 [=GMT+0100], Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
Could somebody please confirm that the place to add a static route at
boot time is rc.conf? For instance
static_routes=192.168.1.0/24 192.168.0.1
Maybe that works. This worked for me (just in case the above doesn't
work
Josh Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
route_route3=10.20.30.1 198.78.1.1
So i have added another alias, and another route. Now, here's the
question - in the past when I have done this, I have just rebooted the
machine and let these settings in rc.conf do everything. This time
ifconfig_fxp1_alias1=inet 10.20.30.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
static_routes=route1 route2 route3
route_route1=10.10.10.193 198.78.1.1
route_route2=10.10.20.1 198.78.1.1
route_route3=10.20.30.1 198.78.1.1
So i have added another alias, and another route. Now, here's the
question - in the past when I have done
I'm trying to get linux-igd working. The INSTALL says to add a route using:
route add -net 239.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 [int_if]
Where int_if is my internal interface (xl1). I get:
route: bad address: netmask
How might I modify this to get it to work?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
I created an alias.
Perhaps this will work :)
Quoting James [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'm trying to get linux-igd working. The INSTALL says to add a route
using:
route add -net 239.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 [int_if]
Where int_if is my internal interface (xl1). I get:
route: bad address
On 11/22/02 3:43 PM, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
route add -net 239.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 [int_if]
Where int_if is my internal interface (xl1). I get:
route: bad address: netmask
How might I modify this to get it to work?
use -netmask
For future reference, I recommend reading the man
I recommend not assuming the least of individuals who ask for help.
-netmask doesn't work either :)
Quoting Paul A. Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/22/02 3:43 PM, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
route add -net 239.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 [int_if]
Where int_if is my internal interface (xl1
I recommend not assuming the least of individuals who ask for help.
-netmask doesn't work either :)
The error you reported was due to the fact that you specified 'netmask'
rather than '-netmask'. Since you didn't mention that you also tried the
latter, I could only assume you didn't try.
for your time.
For anyone who reads the linux-igd documentation. Their route add line is
incorrect (at 'netmask') for FreeBSD, and the corrected route add line (with
'-netmask' - thanks Paul) does not work either.
The method I've found to work is to use an ifconfig alias (See Virtual Hosts
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:56:55 + (UTC) in lucky.freebsd.questions, Karl Timmermann
wrote:
Hello,
I'm new to the list and was hoping maybe someone could help me. These
commands work in Linux (and in this order), but not in FreeBSD/Mac OS X
as the arp and route commands are different
Hello,
I'm new to the list and was hoping maybe someone could help me. These
commands work in Linux (and in this order), but not in FreeBSD/Mac OS X
as the arp and route commands are different:
arp -s 10.10.10.0 00:00:ca:13:4b:54 -i eth1
arp -s 10.10.10.0 00:00:ca:13:4b:54 -i eth1
route add
the link goes down, within five or ten minutes the
router's network services become unreponsive. I can't SSH in, can't ping, the
DHCP and interal DNS services are non-repsonsive - nothing. Not only does is
not route, it does not communicate with any hosts on the LAN. Is it trying to
reverse DNS
-- the link has gone down several times.
The problem is that when the link goes down, within five or ten minutes the
router's network services become unreponsive. I can't SSH in, can't ping, the
DHCP and interal DNS services are non-repsonsive - nothing. Not only does is
not route, it does
Yep that's it. It was resolving LAN IPs via the default route, which when
down, caused it to take a long time to time out.
I did not properly configure the router to consult the internal DNS server: my
IPF rules were blocking it. Once I modified them, it works like a charm, with
or without
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:33:31 + (UTC) in lucky.freebsd.questions, Christian M?nk
wrote:
Hello FreeBSD Team.
My name is Christian and I have a problem.
I looked through the FAQ and the docs about the prob. when you get the No route to
host reply when trying to ping. But my nic is intact. I
Hello FreeBSD Team.
My name is Christian and I have a problem.
I looked through the FAQ and the docs about the prob. when you get the No route to
host reply when trying to ping. But my nic is intact. I made some Kernel
configurations cause I want this one PC act as a router. So I thought
Maybe I didn?t explain it enough. My Prob. is that I can?t ping in my LAN or anywhere
else. When I wanna go online i do ppp and dial and i get the PPP. But that?s it.
Network interface is o.k. Worked fine yesterday and works fine in an M$ environment.
Normal realtek chipset.
Any other ideas
Charles Pelletier
Tech. Coordinator
St Luke's School
- Original Message -
From: Christian Münk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:33 AM
Subject: No route to host
Hello FreeBSD Team.
My name is Christian and I have a problem.
I looked through
one default route, and both /24s use that
single
10.10.10.10 as the default router. But, because I have simply added the
192.168.1.1 IP as one more plain old alias, I now get this in my logs:
/kernel: arplookup 10.10.10.10 failed: host is not on local network
So, how do I add
netmask 255.255.255.255
So, as you can see I have one default route, and both /24s use that single
10.10.10.10 as the default router. But, because I have simply added the
192.168.1.1 IP as one more plain old alias, I now get this in my logs:
/kernel: arplookup 10.10.10.10 failed: host
255.255.255.255
ifconfig_fxp0_alias1=inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.255
So, as you can see I have one default route, and both /24s use that
single
10.10.10.10 as the default router. But, because I have simply added the
192.168.1.1 IP as one more plain old alias, I now get this in my logs:
/kernel
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:40:54PM +0800, Craig A. Beasland typed:
Hi there,
I mistakenly typed in the wrong route command...
route add -net 203.33.30.96 255.255.255.224 203.33.30.1
And now I have this entry in the netstat -rn output...
203.33.300xcb211e01 255.255.255.224UGSc
Nathan,
If you know what your other routes are you can flush the whole route
table by using
#route flush
James
- Original Message -
From: Nathan Kinkade [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: bad route add command
On Thu, Oct
Hi there,
I mistakenly typed in the wrong route command...
route add -net 203.33.30.96 255.255.255.224 203.33.30.1
And now I have this entry in the netstat -rn output...
203.33.300xcb211e01 255.255.255.224UGSc148006 fxp1
And I cant delete it. It fills up my log files
I'm running 4.6 release on a pc that I have configured as
a router. The problem occurs when an app on this router
establishes a tcp connection to some other app several hops
away. The route caching code adds a static host route to the
forwarding table. This is fine as long as nothing changes
Hi,
I am currently trying to get a route dump in
freebsd4.4 using sysctl with NET_RT_DUMP.
I am running into problems while parsing the returned
rt_msghdr structures.
The sockaddr structures returned after the rt_msghdr
are messed up and it is not giving correct gateway or
netmask.
For ex
mountd: here we go
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to send; errno = No route to host
What's wrong? I can ping 192.168.0.2 and the firewall is completely open
towards 192.168.0.0/24. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Daniel
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd
is that to get data to flow over the T1
circuit, I have to change the static default route from the DSL connection
to the T1. This is fine since all connections on the T1 then operate as
expected. But after switching the default gateway, the incoming connection
(example SMTP) no longer work
301 - 350 of 350 matches
Mail list logo
