James,
There is a document describing SNMP and RRD:
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/doc/guide/bucu-rrdtool.html
Eric
James Neave wrote:
Looks good,
I don't suppose you know where a Bering-SNMP for dummies HOWTO is? :)
That's not really Bering specific, any net-snmp HOWTO will do. Although
Thanks Eric Erich!
This is definitely a contender for cool-thing-of-the-month.
I installed smnpd and it at least seems to spit out default bps values
as it is, but it does need config.
I got MRTG working and I've temporarily just bodged a scheduled task to
run every minute on my pc and graphs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Neave wrote:
snip
Question:
I have lots of remote sites with some business ADSL routers that have
SNMP (SNMP v1/v2 agent MIB-II and ADSL Line MIB). Does SNMP work
cross-subnet and is it secure?
SNMP uses IP, so it's routable and can work
To back up Tom Eastep's remarks.
I run LEAF Bering , currently at uClibc 2.3, and have had ssh
dictionary attacks just about every day for the last 2 years. I also use
ssh port forwarding to an internal client, using RSA keys to stop
successful attacks and have never yet been cracked. I
Hello,
I might be missing something here, but after digging up through
lists/faq's/howto-s I still have no idea what's wrong.
I have regular installation on HDD with /lib/modules/... on it (and
modules.o files inside).
After editing /etc/modules file (and backing up it) I have during boot
Hello Patryk,
The message:
BusyBox v1.00 (2005.12.18-14:57+) multi-call binary
Usage: insmod [OPTION]... MODULE [symbol=value]...
means that you are calling insmod with a wrong argument.
What is the contents of your /etc/modules file?
Eric
Hello,
I might be missing something here, but
James
James Neave wrote:
Thanks Eric Erich!
This is definitely a contender for cool-thing-of-the-month.
I installed smnpd and it at least seems to spit out default bps values
as it is, but it does need config.
I got MRTG working and I've temporarily just bodged a scheduled task to
Jim,
No sweat!
I'm not certain on the rejected packets. My gut says that shorewall logs
would not be generated because of dropped packets, but my gut has been wrong
before!
This is what I did. I'll bet this will make your firewall happy if you have
the RAM:
First, I followed this advice from
Hi,
I posted yesterday a question relative to tinydns.
I guess what I really need is tinydns + axfr-get in order to get a secondary
nameserver running.
I've searched around but have not found an LRP that contains both.
Does anyone know where I can get an lrp with both, or at least an lrp with
Hello Ricardo,
AFAIK there isn't a package which contains axfr-get, but if you like I can
send you the binary.
Eric
Hi,
I posted yesterday a question relative to tinydns.
I guess what I really need is tinydns + axfr-get in order to get a
secondary nameserver running.
I've searched
Certainly, thank you!
- Original Message -
From: Eric Spakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ricardo Kleemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: leaf-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [leaf-user] Repost... axfr-get for Bering uClibc?
Hello Ricardo,
AFAIK there
Thanks again, Eric.
Who's the package maintainer for the tinydns lrp? Maybe we could request
that axfer-get gets added to the lrp?
Ricardo
- Original Message -
From: Eric Spakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ricardo Kleemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:24 AM
Subject: Re:
Who's the package maintainer for the tinydns lrp? Maybe we could request
that axfer-get gets added to the lrp?
Please don't add the axfer-get package to tinydns.lrp because that would
increase the size of tinydns.lrp unnecessary, as I am still using one single
/dev/fd0u1680 floppy to boot
Hello Kwon,
Who's the package maintainer for the tinydns lrp? Maybe we could
request that axfer-get gets added to the lrp?
Please don't add the axfer-get package to tinydns.lrp because that would
increase the size of tinydns.lrp unnecessary, as I am still using one
single /dev/fd0u1680
It's working beautifully!
However, an user is using a noncommon port for p2p sharing- namely the TCP
52525 port. He claims that common BT ports are blocked by some BT users. I
assume I should include that port in a lower priority TC class on top of
ipp2p?
Thanks for the assistance, Eric!
~D
I've got a server proxy-arped in a DMZ. I've specified this machine's IP
address in the /etc/shorewall/proxyarp file. I've also specified that the
dmz zone be masqueraded. There I would think it stands to reason that I
could cvsup the server to an external web site. But the shorewall logs show
16 matches
Mail list logo