Hi,
On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 08:01:09 -0400
staticsafe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:57:59AM +0100, Paul Macdonald wrote:
> >
> > On doing some updates this morning, am seeing a routing issue beyond
> > bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org...
> >
> > Updating Index
> > fetch: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ports/
Paul Macdonald schreef:
On doing some updates this morning, am seeing a routing issue beyond
bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org...
Updating Index
fetch: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ports/INDEX-9.bz2: No route to host
www.freebsd.org.513 IN CNAME wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org.
wfe0.ysv.freebsd.org.
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:57:59AM +0100, Paul Macdonald wrote:
>
> On doing some updates this morning, am seeing a routing issue beyond
> bgp1-ext.ysv.freebsd.org...
>
> Updating Index
> fetch: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ports/INDEX-9.bz2: No route to host
>
> www.freebsd.org.513 IN
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Monkeyfoahead wrote:
>I have a question that I thought that you could probably answer. I
> have setup a freebsd seedbox in my apartment. This box has two internet
> connections (multi-homed server.). One is an ethernet connection behind a
> firewall that is
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:17:40PM +1000, Daniel Marsh wrote:
What you need to verify is the default routes on the client hosts. It's very
likely your packets and your initial route add commands on your dual host
machine are correct, yet the return route on the other clients are
incorrect.
I ha
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 06:43:11PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Sorry, it _is_ impossible.
:(
simply put, to communicate _on_ a network, you have to be *ON* that
network, i.e., 'have an address in that network's address-space'.
I don't quite see why this would be required, as long as packets
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 08:50:53PM -0400, David Scheidt wrote:
On Apr 24, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Lionel Fourquaux wrote:
em0 has addresses fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abc and 2001:db8::1
em1 has address fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abd
Network 2001:db8::/64 is directly attached to em0, and network
2001:db8:0:1::
On Apr 24, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Lionel Fourquaux wrote:
> Dear FreeBSD users,
>
> Consider an IPv6 router with two interfaces, e.g. em0 and em1.
> em0 has addresses fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abc and 2001:db8::1
> em1 has address fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abd
> Network 2001:db8::/64 is directly attached to
As mentioned before, this is already solved.
On Nov 12, 2010, at 3:08 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> ff02::%lo0/32 fe80::1%lo0 U
>> lo0
>>
>> ifconfig_em0="inet 70.89.123.5 netmask 255.255.255.248"
>> ifconfig_em1="inet 70.89.123.4 netmask 255.25
ff02::%lo0/32 fe80::1%lo0 U lo0
ifconfig_em0="inet 70.89.123.5 netmask 255.255.255.248"
ifconfig_em1="inet 70.89.123.4 netmask 255.255.255.248"
defaultrouter="70.89.123.6"
hostname="se**.somehtingelse.biz"
I tried to add the gateway for link2
It didn't work until I bridged the connections.
[r...@server /usr/home/ryan]# ifconfig bridge create
bridge0
[r...@server /usr/home/ryan]# ifconfig bridge0
bridge0: flags=8802 metric 0 mtu 1500
ether 0a:df:a2:b3:3e:96
id 00:00:00:00:00:00 priority 32768 hellotime 2 fwddelay 15
What exactly isn't working? You don't have two L3 nets, but two ips on the same
net - nothing to route, except the default.
- Original Message -
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
To: Free BSD Questions list
Sent: Thu Nov 11 21:41:40 2010
Subject: Routing issue?
I'm trying to ge
On 8/27/2010 9:09 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
On 27 August 2010, at 05:07, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:17:19 -0700, Doug Hardie a
écrit :
PF's route_to will return the packets to the proper router, but I
have not been able to figure out which ones those would be. The
source
On 27 August 2010, at 05:07, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
> Le Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:17:19 -0700,
> Doug Hardie a écrit :
>
>> PF's route_to will return the packets to the proper router, but I have not
>> been able to figure out which ones those would be. The source IP
>> address can be any on eith
Le Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:17:19 -0700,
Doug Hardie a écrit :
> PF's route_to will return the packets to the proper router, but I have not
> been able to figure out which ones those would be. The source IP
> address can be any on either network and its highly likely that we
> will see packets from
but WHAT are external IP's of these routers. this is important.
if the "problem" host is A.B.C.255 check if routers external IP isn't
A.B.C.something
No, I just checked again with DynDNS update logs and all three routers had
very different IP addresses at the time I was trying.
try freebsd
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
i don't think it's freebsd version dependent, unless developers made
a bug.
all these systems are behind ADSL routers and use NAT. Their internal
addresses are in the 192.168.0.X range.
I could easily consider this a problem of the (cheap) ADSL routers,
but 6
very l
i don't think it's freebsd version dependent, unless developers made a bug.
all these systems are behind ADSL routers and use NAT. Their internal
addresses are in the 192.168.0.X range.
I could easily consider this a problem of the (cheap) ADSL routers, but 6
very likely. yesterday i config
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
I have two home servers, on different locations, on two ADSL lines
using
dynamic DNS. One is running Debian, the other FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE.
I usually ssh from one to the other. Today, the debian server had a
public (internet) IP ending in 255. The FreeBSD 7.0 system ref
I have two home servers, on different locations, on two ADSL lines using
dynamic DNS. One is running Debian, the other FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE.
I usually ssh from one to the other. Today, the debian server had a
public (internet) IP ending in 255. The FreeBSD 7.0 system refused to
communicate with i
Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
On Friday 16 May 2008 12:32:35 Manolis Kiagias wrote:
I had this weird problem today, and I would like to know what caused it:
I have two home servers, on different locations, on two ADSL lines using
dynamic DNS. One is running Debian, the other FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE.
On Friday 16 May 2008 12:32:35 Manolis Kiagias wrote:
> I had this weird problem today, and I would like to know what caused it:
>
> I have two home servers, on different locations, on two ADSL lines using
> dynamic DNS. One is running Debian, the other FreeBSD 7.0-RELEASE.
>
> I usually ssh from o
Laszlo Nagy írta:
- ping from pc on 0.0 network to 192.168.2.138
Well, I cannot do this from here. Those computers are X terminals,
they do not run inetd nor sshd. I cannot login from here and I cannot
leave now, but I can do it later if necessary.
- sysctl -a net.inet.ip.forwarding (on
- ping from pc on 0.0 network to 192.168.2.138
Well, I cannot do this from here. Those computers are X terminals,
they do not run inetd nor sshd. I cannot login from here and I cannot
leave now, but I can do it later if necessary.
- sysctl -a net.inet.ip.forwarding (on the GatewayComp)
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Internet -> [Hw Router] (LAN1: 192.168.2.0/24) -> [
192.168.2.138 GatewayComp 192.168.0.1 ] -- (LAN2: 192.168.0.0/24)
I would like to access a computer from LAN1 to LAN2.
Perform the following and post the results of:
- ping from GatewayComp to
> Internet -> [Hw Router] (LAN1: 192.168.2.0/24) -> [
> 192.168.2.138 GatewayComp 192.168.0.1 ] -- (LAN2: 192.168.0.0/24)
>
> I would like to access a computer from LAN1 to LAN2.
Perform the following and post the results of:
- ping from GatewayComp to pc on 0.0 network and
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> 2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > No I didn't mean that; use your own favourite packet filter, any of them
> > can handle what you've described. Bill suggested pf - lots of people
> > seem to like it a lot - and I u
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:41:51 -0200
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > No I didn't mean that; use your own favourite packet filter, any of
> > them can handle what you've described. Bill suggested pf - lots of
> > people
2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> No I didn't mean that; use your own favourite packet filter, any of them
> can handle what you've described. Bill suggested pf - lots of people
> seem to like it a lot - and I use ipfw because I (mostly) know how to.
I always had linux servers, so I
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> 2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > ipfw works fine too for these sorts of network policy separation :)
>
>
> So ipfilter is not recommended by you guyz?
No I didn't mean that; use your own favourite packet filter,
2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> ipfw works fine too for these sorts of network policy separation :)
So ipfilter is not recommended by you guyz?
If that wasn't a typo, this is a non-contiguous netmask. I suspect you
> want 255.255.255.224, assuming the default router is in the sam
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:33:26 -0200
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
> > > > > em0 external world XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
> > > > > rl0 adm 192.168.1.80
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I'm going to the server room to test the command. And yes, the DNS is
> > working properly. I just came from the room and I did the command dig @
> > 192.168.1.1 google.ca and it said no server reached, then I did dig @
> > 127.0.0.1 google.ca and i
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > First off, what's the output of "sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding"? If
> > it is 0, then reboot and see if it starts working.
>
> The return was: net.inet.ip.forwarding 1
OK. That's not the problem then ... did you disable ipfil
>
> First off, what's the output of "sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding"? If
> it is 0, then reboot and see if it starts working.
The return was: net.inet.ip.forwarding 1
Routed is running, named is running, the server itself can ping to any
network, I don't know what else to test.
__
>
> By ping, mean ping. I don't know what "have access" means, but I know
> what
> "ping" means.
Well I say have access because the icpm would be blocked, but I would still
have communicationwith the network even if I didn't ping. But yeah, for
meright now ping and have access is the same once t
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, I have IPFIlTER installed, but if I would want t
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I have IPFIlTER installed, but if I would want to everybody ping to
> > > everybody and then block the thing
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, li
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, like you said, it's a
> > > config problem with the routes, I
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, like you said, it's a
> config problem with the routes, I thought the routed daemon would care of it
> for me but it seems like it don't. Please I ask you to forget the scenario I
> said
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, like you said, it's a
> > config problem with the routes, I thought the routed daemon would care
> of it
> > for me but it seems like
OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, like you said, it's a
config problem with the routes, I thought the routed daemon would care of it
for me but it seems like it don't. Please I ask you to forget the scenario I
said before, now what i have is:
The dns server is now with the IP 192.16
Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> Sorry,
> searchdomain ...
> nameserver 192.168.1.2
>
> not 192.168.1.1 as I've said before.
What about:
# dig @192.168.1.2 google.ca
Also, I don't know if it has any impact, but my resolv.conf shows just
'search mydomain.com' as opposed t
The nameserver is the 192.168.1.2 in the resolv.conf, sorry my fault. I'm
gonna copy the rc.conf and paste here. But the routes are OK and still OK
for any time when the machine is not the main gateway and have some few
clients using it as gateway, if it was a config problem it wouldn't work
never,
In response to "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry my english skills, I'm brazilian and I'm not very familiar with the
> language, but I'm gonna try to explain it clearly:
>
> LINUX SERVER
> private network 192.168.1.1
> external network x.x.x.x
>
> FREEBSD SERVER
> pri
Sorry,
searchdomain ...
nameserver 192.168.1.2
not 192.168.1.1 as I've said before.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTE
Sorry my english skills, I'm brazilian and I'm not very familiar with the
language, but I'm gonna try to explain it clearly:
LINUX SERVER
private network 192.168.1.1
external network x.x.x.x
FREEBSD SERVER
private network 192.168.1.240
external network x.x.x.x
DNS SERVER
private network 192.168.
Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> If I turn off linux and set the rl0 to 192.168.1.1 it
> stop resolving names but can ping to anywhere. Help!!!
> in the rc.conf
> gateway_enable="YES"
> defaultrouter="X.X.X.X"
I don't know if I quite understand on which machine things are breaking,
but if i
Neo, good day.
Fri, May 04, 2007 at 07:27:20PM +0200, Neo [GC] wrote:
> Config at home (deleted all unnessesary):
>
> Output of ifconfig:
> fxp0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> options=8
> inet 192.168.2.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.2.255
> tun0: flags=8051 mtu 1500
> ine
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:10:07PM +0200, George Vanev wrote:
> I have FreeBSD 6.2 box with 1 NIC and 2 IPs.
> The first IP is to access internet, the second
> is for the ISP's LAN.
> Unfortunately I have internet, but no access to
> the other network.
We need network IP configuration details; ie
Nothing? You're able to arp 192.168.64.1 and 192.168.64.3, can you ping
them?
Since you have an RFC-1918 address on both the inside and the outside, I
assume you're running nat on this machine to translate internal machine
traffic. It looks like you have all the routes you need, so my _guess_
In response to "George Vanev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2/8/07, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In response to "George Vanev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > I have FreeBSD 6.2 box with 1 NIC and 2 IPs.
> > > The first IP is to access internet, the second
> > > is for the ISP's LAN.
>
On 2/8/07, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In response to "George Vanev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have FreeBSD 6.2 box with 1 NIC and 2 IPs.
> The first IP is to access internet, the second
> is for the ISP's LAN.
> Unfortunately I have internet, but no access to
> the other network.
>
>
In response to "George Vanev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have FreeBSD 6.2 box with 1 NIC and 2 IPs.
> The first IP is to access internet, the second
> is for the ISP's LAN.
> Unfortunately I have internet, but no access to
> the other network.
>
> I made a test. I assigned to the NIC only the local
FIXED, ignore this email..
However no one has answered.
Hello Gurus,
This is an Urgent help, as everything pending, waiting.. a FreeBSD
Solution.
and I appologize if I will explain in details, please be patient with
me.
Just yesterday, our ISP installed 2 routers (bot
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Office of the CIO-rithy4u.NET
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 2:17 AM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Routing
>
> I try to do dual routing on my freebsd box but its was
On 1/1/07, Office of the CIO-rithy4u.NET <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I try to do dual routing on my freebsd box but its was not
sucecssfull. any one can help?
Not with the information that you've provided. Perhaps you could
explain what you tried, and what you mean by "not successful"? Details
a
* On 01/01/07 17:17 +0700, Office of the CIO-rithy4u.NET wrote:
| I try to do dual routing on my freebsd box but its was not
| sucecssfull. any one can help?
Explain what is dual routing. What exactly are you trying to achieve?
-Wash
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
DISCLAIMER
In response to "Bret J Esquivel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I have a cable modem at my office with a /28 allocated. I have a FreeBSD 6.1
> firewall/router in between the cable modem and the switch to other nodes. My
> question is how could I add static routes to say my web server having an
> externa
Bret J Esquivel wrote:
Hi,
I have a cable modem at my office with a /28 allocated. I have a FreeBSD 6.1
firewall/router in between the cable modem and the switch to other nodes. My
question is how could I add static routes to say my web server having an
external IP address but still going th
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 09:49, Bret J. Esquivel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have a cable modem at my office with a /28 allocated. I have a FreeBSD 6.1
> firewall/router in between the cable modem and the switch to other nodes. My
> question is how could I add static routes to say my web server h
Yousef Adnan Raffah wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I have a FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE box that has two network cards (Dual
Homed?). Each card is on a different network, as following
(from /etc/rc.conf):
ifconfig_fxp0="inet 192.168.20.36 netmask 255.255.255.0"
ifconfig_rl0="inet 192.168.210.6 netmask 255.255.
Martin Turgeon wrote:
You're right on this, the filtering rules aren't written with the brackets.
But isn't pf routing the packets to an interface instead of an IP address.
I can't tell you if this affects your setup since I have't seen the
ruleset.
You're going to tag then nat and then fil
1
À : Martin Turgeon
Cc : freebsd-pf@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Objet : Re: Routing with external interface doesn't work after a while
Martin Turgeon wrote:
> The NAT rules are already written that way:
>
> nat on $wan_if tag LAN_WAN_NAT tagged LAN
Martin Turgeon wrote:
The NAT rules are already written that way:
nat on $wan_if tag LAN_WAN_NAT tagged LAN_WAN -> ($wan_if)
nat on $wan_if tag WLS_WAN_NAT tagged WLS_WAN -> ($wan_if)
nat on $wan_if tag AP_WAN_NAT tagged AP_WAN -> ($wan_if)
nat on $wan_if tag VPN_WAN_NAT tagged VPN_WAN -> ($wan_
Martin Turgeon wrote:
I've been reading the mailing list for a while, but it's my first post. I'm
not sure what is causing the problem so I'm posting to multiple lists. I'm
running FreeBSD 6.1 on a Celeron 2.8GHz with 512Mo of RAM. It looks likes
after a while (a couple of weeks) the routing isn
hanks anyway
Martin
-Message d'origine-
De : Erik Norgaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 18 octobre 2006 10:30
À : Martin Turgeon
Cc : freebsd-pf@freebsd.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Objet : Re: Routing with external interface doesn't work after a while
Erik Norgaard wrote:
There is some trick to handle that, IIRC something like this would do:
ext_if=fxp0 # external interface
nat on $ext_if from to ! -> ($ext_if)
The () means that pf will lookup the ip on that interface, and update
dynamically when the ip changes.
That is correct.
__
Martin Turgeon wrote:
I've been reading the mailing list for a while, but it's my first post. I'm
not sure what is causing the problem so I'm posting to multiple lists. I'm
running FreeBSD 6.1 on a Celeron 2.8GHz with 512Mo of RAM. It looks likes
after a while (a couple of weeks) the routing isn
In answer to my own question. When I disable the firewall on the server
the routing issue is instantly resolved. However for 90% of the time
the firewall runs without any apparent problems... I will start a new
thread of conversation and ask my now firewall related problem. Sorry
for my apparent
Patrick Lindholm wrote:
[ ... ]
But the 192.168.0.6 Does´nt appear to be available for other computers
on my LAN
So i checked out some manuals and used command: ARP -Ds 192.168.0.6 sl0
pub and 92.168.0.6 came visible to other computers on my LAN.
So now i thought that all i have to do is to
In the last episode (Apr 14), Kurt Buff said:
> Dan Nelson wrote:
> >In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
> >>I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
> >>postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
> >>entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1,
> >>the o
In the last episode (Apr 14), Kurt Buff said:
> Dan Nelson wrote:
> >In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
> >>I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
> >>postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
> >>entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1,
> >>the o
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1, the
other is a PC running Win2k and Winproxy, serving our DSL line. The
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1, the
other is a PC running Win2k and Winproxy, serving our DSL line. The
In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
> I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
> postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
> entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1, the
> other is a PC running Win2k and Winproxy, serving our DSL line. The
> PC is st
W> I need a way of routing all udp & http traffic on ports 6881-6999 that hit
W> machine A to be passed through to machine B on the same ports .. how do i go
W> about doing this with as much simplicity as possible.
-
Install pf,ipfw or ipf (I prefer p
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
I know it "can" be done. I have a feeling that the FreeBSD TCP
stack lacks the capability.
If you are looking for multiple routes to the same destination, you are
correct. I believe that if you see the thread on net@ from 03/01/04
with the subject "My planned work on net
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 5:02 AM
Subject: RE: Routing Problem
Thomas (and John too),
Let me clarify a little bit.
What I have is this:
A single FreeBSD web server with a single NIC in it
Two T1 routers, each with a different subnet.
My FreeBSD box has two IP addresses assigned to it,
Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(516) 379-0001 Office
(516) 480-1870 Mobile/Emergencies
(516) 908-4185 Fax
http://www.meitech.com/
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 7:57 AM
To: Gustafson, Tim
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Routing Pr
case? I guess I am not fully understanding your
configuration ...
T.
- Original Message -
From: "Gustafson, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Thomas Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 4:06 AM
Subject
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Routing Problem
Im confused.. if you have two T1s, then are using /30s dor the ranges?
If
so.. what about not giving a default gateway for either one and just add
routes...
Are you attempting utilize this as just a router.?
Theres a section that covers setting
Im confused.. if you have two T1s, then are using /30s dor the ranges? If
so.. what about not giving a default gateway for either one and just add
routes...
Are you attempting utilize this as just a router.?
Theres a section that covers setting up routing on interfaces in the
handbook:
http:/
You should add on your router the following routes
192.168.1.0/24
192.168.2.0/24
with gateway 192.168.0.2 (interface firewall)
Your router doesn't know where to return the packets to.
And your firewall needs to route 0.0.0.0 to 192.168.0.1 (router interface)
Your CIDR is good.
These changes sh
* Frank Bonnet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [1236 11:36]:
> Hi
>
> I've installed an old PC ( PII 350 Mhz ) as a router
> it works like a charm ;-) I wonder which tool I could install
> on it to monitor a bit the routing process.
cricket kicks the ass.
built on perl and rrdtool, really powerful config sy
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 12:35:38 +0100, Frank Bonnet wrote
> Hi
>
> I've installed an old PC ( PII 350 Mhz ) as a router
> it works like a charm ;-) I wonder which tool I could install
> on it to monitor a bit the routing process.
MRTG, Nagios or RRDtool would do the trick. I would prefer the latter.
so the answer to myself
If I would like to connect two physical nets without subnetting
I must use bridging. The following commands solve the problem:
sysctl net.link.ether.bridge=1
sysctl net.link.ether.bridge_cfg=fxp0,fxp1
> 2004-11-29, h keltezéssel 17:02-kor Feczak Szabolcs ezt írta:
> > Hi
Hello,
In using FreeBsd 5.2.1-Release I am running into some trouble. I have successfully
recompiled the kernel with support for atheros based wireless cards. I have also been
able to setup the card into access point "Hostap" mode correctly. I have tried the
bridging recommend in the FreeBSD wi
Hello,
In using FreeBsd 5.2.1-Release I am running into some trouble. I have successfully
recompiled the kernel with support for atheros based wireless cards. I have also been
able to setup the card into access point "Hostap" mode correctly. I have tried the
bridging recommend in the FreeBSD wi
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:55:45PM -0500, Web Walrus (Robert Wall) wrote:
> > > > > ifconfig_dc0 inet 1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.248
> > > > > ifconfig_dc0_alias0 inet 2.3.4.5 netmask 255.255.255.248
> > > > > defaultrouter="1.2.3.1"
> > >
> > > It's not on the same network; that's the problem. T
> > > > ifconfig_dc0 inet 1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.248
> > > > ifconfig_dc0_alias0 inet 2.3.4.5 netmask 255.255.255.248
> > > > defaultrouter="1.2.3.1"
> >
> > It's not on the same network; that's the problem. Two complete separate
> > networks, same interface card. The issue is that one of th
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:31:36AM -0500, Web Walrus (Robert Wall) wrote:
> > > ifconfig_dc0 inet 1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.248
> > > ifconfig_dc0_alias0 inet 2.3.4.5 netmask 255.255.255.248
> > > defaultrouter="1.2.3.1"
> >
> > You need to change your netmask for the alias to 255.255.255.255 if
On Jul 19, 2004, at 02:12, Web Walrus (Robert Wall) wrote:
That network card has a config roughly like
ifconfig_dc0 inet 1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.248
ifconfig_dc0_alias0 inet 2.3.4.5 netmask 255.255.255.248
defaultrouter="1.2.3.1"
Excuse me why I interject that it's a royal PITA when people post
> > ifconfig_dc0 inet 1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.248
> > ifconfig_dc0_alias0 inet 2.3.4.5 netmask 255.255.255.248
> > defaultrouter="1.2.3.1"
>
> You need to change your netmask for the alias to 255.255.255.255 if it's
> on the same network.
It's not on the same network; that's the problem. Two
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 11:12, Web Walrus (Robert Wall) wrote:
> I just installed a secondary internet connection at my office, and I'm
> having a bizarre issue...
>
> I have a network card - dc0
>
> That network card has a config roughly like
>
> ifconfig_dc0 inet 1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.248
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:24:36 -0400 (EDT)
"Steve Bertrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > After many years of waiting my company has a position opening up that I
> > can fill. I spoke with the Net Admin and asked if there were any one
> > skill that would be of a great benefit to my company and his
Thank you Jimi this is going to be a perfect start. My family thanks you.
Well they will when I get home and tell them the good news.
Thank you,
Joshua Lewis
Thompson, Jimi
> Josh,
>
> I found several on google that look sensible. See if these don't help
> you. Your employer should probably
> After many years of waiting my company has a position opening up that I
> can fill. I spoke with the Net Admin and asked if there were any one skill
> that would be of a great benefit to my company and his response was
> Routing, IP and subnetting (ok so more then one. But I swear he can
> count)
Here are a couple of books I have read and would suggest. They are not free
but they are worth it...
Routing TCP/IP Volume I (CCIE Professional Development)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1578700418/qid=1089749604/sr=1
-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0916091-2402328?v=glance&s=books
Routing TCP
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
