Freeco wrote:
>
> Maybe i made some cabling loop, becauce my internet stoped to work. In the
> beginning everything was ok, but after some time when all 3 pc's who was
> connected to switch it stopped to work. Why?
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-t
I suspect that you've created a cabling loop of some sort again.
Maybe i made some cabling loop, becauce my internet stoped to work. In the
beginning everything was ok, but after some time when all 3 pc's was
connected to switch it stopped to work. Why?
--
View this message in context:
http://ww
Freeco wrote:
> My gateway gave me a message: "gateway kernel: arp: x.x.88.17 is on fxp0 but
> got reply from 00:0c:42:11:15:a8 on rl0
That MAC address is that of a Mikrotic router.
I suspect that you've created a cabling loop of some sort again.
Steve
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptograp
My gateway gave me a message: "gateway kernel: arp: x.x.88.17 is on fxp0 but
got reply from 00:0c:42:11:15:a8 on rl0
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25513518.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
After some time, when all 3 pc's was connected to switch inet lost. I
couldn't open any web page. I didn;t try to ping anything.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25513318.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Freeco wrote:
> Ok, thanks for advice about switch. You really helped me so much. Now i'll
> get with my ipf and nat rules.
I'm glad I could help. So many people here and on other lists have
helped me significantly over the years, so I try to give back whenever I
can/have time.
> What ports u rec
Ok, thanks for advice about switch. You really helped me so much. Now i'll
get with my ipf and nat rules.
What ports u recomend to keep open and how to block gateway ping?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25512314.html
Sent from the freebsd-ques
Freeco wrote:
> Thanks man!
>
> Everything works when i connected a cable directly to the gateway. Till this
> there was two cables connected because inet cable was too short. But i want
> my gateway to bring to another room so i'll need to connect 2 cables and
> inet will doesn't work again?
>
Freeco wrote:
> Thanks man!
>
> Everything works when i connected a cable directly to the gateway. Till this
> there was two cables connected because inet cable was too short.
I kind of figured something along those lines.
> But i want
> my gateway to bring to another room so i'll need to conn
Thanks man!
Everything works when i connected a cable directly to the gateway. Till this
there was two cables connected because inet cable was too short. But i want
my gateway to bring to another room so i'll need to connect 2 cables and
inet will doesn't work again?
I could ping all IP's when
Freeco wrote:
> - What is connected to the switch in your room?
> There is connected ISP cable from my home switch and 3 pc's
So, like this:
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
fxp0 is integrated NIC. In this NIC connects a cable from ISP. rl0 is PCI NIC
the cable connets to switch with all other 3 pc's.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25510880.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Ok. Lets start with the basics.
- What is connected to the switch in your room?
There is connected ISP cable from my home switch and 3 pc's
- what is connected to the switch in your home?
I'm not sure, but i think there is connected a cable to my switch ( i plan:
my gateway -> switch)
And my neig
Freeco wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> In the diagram above, you need two NICs in the gateway. One goes to the
> ISP, and the other 192.168.1.2 goes to the switch. The rest of the
> computers also plug into the switch. If all of the devices have
> 192.168.1.x, they are all in the same subnet.
>
> If the
A 'subnet' is a term used to describe a portion of an IP address space,
where each device in that space can communicate with one another without
using a router:
Steve wrote:
192.168.1.0/24 is a subnet, so hosts 192.168.1.1 through 192.168.1.254
can 'speak' to each other without using a router. I
Freeco wrote:
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>
> |-
> |
> ISP>--
> | \ |
> | \ |_
> | \
>
>
> So i'll need 2 more NIC's fo
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> map fxp0 192.168.0.0/24 -> 0/32
>
> Aside from that, are you sure that this entry shouldn't be:
>
> map rl0 192.168.0.0/24 -> 0/32
>
> ? Again, I don't know ipnat, but to me, in the fxp0 entry, it looks like
> you are trying to map the 192 space coming INTO fxp0 (which i
Steve Bertrand wrote:
[ snip ]
> Freeco, let us know how things are connected physically. Your best bet
> would be:
>
> |-
> |
> ISP>-
> |
> |
Freeco wrote:
> So it means that i will need 2 more NIC's in my gateway?
>
> |-
> |
> ISP>-
> |
> |_
>
> Why all pc's can't be in one subnet?
So it means that i will need 2 more NIC's in my gateway?
|-
|
ISP>-
|
|_
Why all pc's can't be in one subnet? I'll be happy with one
Steve Bertrand wrote:
[ snip ]
> Freeco, let us know how things are connected physically. Your best bet
> would be:
>
> |-
> |
> ISP>-
> |
> |___
Freeco wrote:
> What does it look like?
>
> ISP>---Pc
> Or
> ISP>-Pc
>
...are you sure that by accident that you don't have the following
*physical* setup?
---
| Gateway |
---
| |
| |
|---
In the beginning when gateway starts the web page opens, but after that no
one web doesn't open. The same is in first 5min ping reach my ISP gateway,
but then it's gone. Same from my gateway with ping.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25507722.
What does it look like?
ISP>---Pc
Or
ISP>-Pc
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25507235.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebs
> How to change the interfaces to not to be on same physical subnet?
Hummm, subnet is virtual, it is not physical.
To have interface on different phisical network, plug your interfaces
to different switchwes that are not interconnected one to the other.
To have a different subnet used on differe
How to change the interfaces to not to be on same physical subnet?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/IPF%2C-NAT-or-NIC-tp25491958p25504647.html
Sent from the freebsd-questions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
freebsd-quest
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 08:27:45AM -0700, Freeco typed:
>
> I'm new in BSD, I installed FreeBSD 7.2 and want to use as gateway with IPF
> and NAT. I have 2 NIC's fxp0 and rl0. When i booted up my pc i got a message
> "gateway kernel: arp xxx.xxx.88.17 is on fxp0 but got reply from rl0". My
> confi
I'm new in BSD, I installed FreeBSD 7.2 and want to use as gateway with IPF
and NAT. I have 2 NIC's fxp0 and rl0. When i booted up my pc i got a message
"gateway kernel: arp xxx.xxx.88.17 is on fxp0 but got reply from rl0". My
configuration files looks like this:
rc.conf
clear_tmp_enable=
28 matches
Mail list logo
