Nemeth Gyorgy a écrit :
>>
> Yes, it can work as a short go-nogo test. But the suggestion was not
> mentioned it, that it is only for that. And it is very likely that when
> the OP tries this and it 'works' (I mean the Windows machine behind the
> Linux works well), then the rules will remain.
I w
I adopted Mr. Gyorgy's suggested iptables rules with only a
couple of additions based on nmap's report that port 411 was open
because it passed with flying colors nmaps tcp and udp scan of the
first 1056 ports, grc.com tests and pcflank.com tests.
For a single user system running no service
2014-08-10 22:30 keltezéssel, Joe írta:
> Why is it unresolvable? A DROP/REJECT policy is fail-safe, ACCEPT
> isn't. If the rest of the rules are correct, (and more importantly,
> guaranteed always to stay that way in the face of editing, sometimes
> rushed) an ACCEPT policy is redundant, and if th
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:19 AM, Joe wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:53:51 -0400
> Tom H wrote:
>>
>> And you've proven my point...
>
> Agreed, I just can't see why there is any controversy.
You misunderstand. The fact that you can't accept that there may be
others who have good reason (whatever
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 04:53:51 -0400
Tom H wrote:
>
> And you've proven my point...
>
>
Agreed, I just can't see why there is any controversy.
--
Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Joe wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:07:01 -0400
> Tom H wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Nemeth Gyorgy
>> wrote:
>>> 2014-08-10 11:33 keltezéssel, Pascal Hambourg írta:
sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
iptables -t nat -P ACCEPT
iptabl
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:06:28PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Mike McClain a ?crit :
> >
> > Clearly DNS lookup is working and I have a problem with the
> > configuration of IE.
>
> Check in its network settings whether a proxy is defined, and remove it.
Hi Pascal,
Nope, no proxy.
Mike McClain a écrit :
>
> Clearly DNS lookup is working and I have a problem with the
> configuration of IE.
Check in its network settings whether a proxy is defined, and remove it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:44:52 +1000
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>
> I give another vote for IPCop btw that or pfsense, but IPCop is
> simpler.
>
Yes, but it's a distribution in itself, which means you need to
dedicate an entire computer to it. (No, I don't think there is any point
in running
On 10/08/2014 10:06 AM, Mike McClain wrote:
>> Please describe your network topology. Where's the Win2k box ?
> __
> | Debian| LAN| Windows 2000 |
> Inet|Linux|-
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:07:01 -0400
Tom H wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Nemeth Gyorgy
> wrote:
> > 2014-08-10 11:33 keltezéssel, Pascal Hambourg írta:
> >>
> >> Nemeth Gyorgy's ruleset is too complicated. Use the bare minimum :
> >>
> >> sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
> >> iptables -
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote:
> 2014-08-10 11:33 keltezéssel, Pascal Hambourg írta:
>>
>> Nemeth Gyorgy's ruleset is too complicated. Use the bare minimum :
>>
>> sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
>> iptables -t nat -P ACCEPT
>> iptables -t filter -P ACCEPT
>
> This is really
2014-08-10 11:33 keltezéssel, Pascal Hambourg írta:
> Nemeth Gyorgy's ruleset is too complicated. Use the bare minimum :
>
> sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
> iptables -t nat -P ACCEPT
> iptables -t filter -P ACCEPT
This is really a big sechole.
> iptables -t mangle -P ACCEPT
> iptables -t nat -
2014-08-10 01:49 keltezéssel, Mike McClain írta:
>> It's a rather complicated, sometimes overcomplicated script. But some
>> rules are missing and/or not in the correct order.
>
> I've little doubt you are correct, admittedly I'm flailing a bit.
> Trying this and that with little luck.
> I'd appre
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:33:27AM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>
> Nemeth Gyorgy's ruleset is too complicated. Use the bare minimum :
>
> sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
> iptables -t nat -P ACCEPT
> iptables -t filter -P ACCEPT
> iptables -t mangle -P ACCEPT
> iptables -t nat -F
> iptables -t fi
On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 10:30:53PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Mike McClain wrote:
> > Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > > Please describe your network topology. Where's the Win2k box ?
> >
> > __
> > | Debian|
Mike McClain a écrit :
>
> from a zsh prompt:
> Mike zsh:~> nslookup
> Default Server: resolver1.opendns.com
> Address: 208.67.222.222
>
> Didn't return.
Of course not. If you don't provide a domain name to query in the
command line, nslookup just sits there and waits for a command or a name
to
Mike McClain a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 09:13:23PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>
>> Same as Nemeth Gyorgy : restart without any filtering, just the IP
>> forwarding and masquerading. If it does not work, it's not due to
>> filtering. Then when everything works add the filtering.
>
> Al
Bob Proulx a écrit :
> Mike McClain wrote:
>> __
>> | Debian| LAN| Windows 2000 |
>> Inet|Linux|-| S40 |
>> (ppp) | 192.168.1.2 |
Mike McClain wrote:
> Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > Please describe your network topology. Where's the Win2k box ?
>
> __
> | Debian| LAN| Windows 2000 |
> Inet|Linux|
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 09:13:23PM +0200, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Mike McClain a ?crit :
> > I've been trying to get my hand rolled iptables firewall to
> > masquerade traffic on the LAN to/from a Win2K box.
>
> Please describe your network topology. Where's the Win2k box ?
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 08:24:11PM +0200, Nemeth Gyorgy wrote:
> 2014-08-08 09:04 keltez?ssel, Mike McClain ?rta:
> > I've been trying to get my hand rolled iptables firewall to
> > masquerade traffic on the LAN to/from a Win2K box. I've gotten it to
> > the point that I can ping from the boxes
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 09:16:05PM -0700, Matt Ventura wrote:
> On 8/8/2014 12:04 AM, Mike McClain wrote:
> > I've been trying to get my hand rolled iptables firewall to
> >masquerade traffic on the LAN to/from a Win2K box. I've gotten it to
> >the point that I can ping from the boxes both ways
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 07:05:28PM -0700, David Christensen wrote:
> On 08/08/2014 12:04 AM, Mike McClain wrote:
> > I've been trying to get my hand rolled iptables firewall to
> >masquerade traffic on the LAN to/from a Win2K box.
>
> I used to write my own firewall/ router rules, but then disc
On 8/8/2014 12:04 AM, Mike McClain wrote:
I've been trying to get my hand rolled iptables firewall to
masquerade traffic on the LAN to/from a Win2K box. I've gotten it to
the point that I can ping from the boxes both ways, smbclient can move
files both ways and the Win2K box can ping Google'
On 08/08/2014 12:04 AM, Mike McClain wrote:
I've been trying to get my hand rolled iptables firewall to
masquerade traffic on the LAN to/from a Win2K box.
I used to write my own firewall/ router rules, but then discovered
purpose-built firewall/ router FOSS distributions. I used IPCop fo
Hello,
Mike McClain a écrit :
> I've been trying to get my hand rolled iptables firewall to
> masquerade traffic on the LAN to/from a Win2K box.
Please describe your network topology. Where's the Win2k box ?
What's S40 ?
> I've gotten it to
> the point that I can ping from the boxes both way
2014-08-08 09:04 keltezéssel, Mike McClain írta:
> I've been trying to get my hand rolled iptables firewall to
> masquerade traffic on the LAN to/from a Win2K box. I've gotten it to
> the point that I can ping from the boxes both ways, smbclient can move
> files both ways and the Win2K box can
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:15:53 +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
>
> have a look at /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/
Thanks. I linked my port-forwarding start script to /etc/sbin/ipmasq.
It should stay up now if 00ipmasq actually gets executed when ppp0 comes up.
-- hendrik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 01:28:19AM +, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:03:09 -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:11:55AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I have my network front end running Debian sarge (yet, it's time to
> >> upgrade at lest t
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:03:09 -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:11:55AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I have my network front end running Debian sarge (yet, it's time to
>> upgrade at lest to etch). It's connected to the rest of the net by a
>> DSL line. I've
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:11:55AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have my network front end running Debian sarge (yet, it's time to
> upgrade at lest to etch). It's connected to the rest of the net by a
> DSL line. I've set up port-forwarding to selected machines on my LAN
> for the conve
Never mind, I found my mistake. Sorry to bother people.
It turns out routing table on the 10.0.0.2 host was wrong, and it was
causing the return packets to be lost.
When I made the configuration agree with what I describe below,
everything works as expected.
-David
David Zelinsky <[EMAIL PR
David Zelinsky wrote:
>With this setup, I expect to be able to ping 10.0.0.2 from 192.168.0.2
>(and vice versa), with packets routed through the firewall, but it
>doesn't work.
>What am I overlooking?
It looks like that 10.0.0.2 does not have a route to 192.168.0.0/24 or
that 192.168.0.2 does no
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 03:37:54PM -0500, David Zelinsky wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a firewall/gateway, and I can't seem to get
> ip forwarding to work. I'm using linux kernel 2.6.23 with iptables
> enabled. Here's what happens.
>
> The firewall machine has two interfaces (both on private net
Hi, thanks everyone, I had forgotten about the route back so I set the default
gateway.
andrew.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> Subject: RE: ip forwarding> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:52:59 -0800> > > Hi
> everyone
> Hi everyone, I am having some problems either understanding ip forarding
or configuring it?
>
> My set up is:
>
> XP1 - Debian/Server - XP2
>
> XP1 IP = 10.251.134.20
> Debian/Server eth0 = 10.251.134.10
> Debian/Server eth1 = 172.16.0.50
> XP2 IP = 172.16.0.10
>
> I want XP1 to be able t
Andrew Critchlow wrote:
Do I have to do anything else to enable the Debian/Server to act as a
simple router?
Does either XP1 or XP2 know that they can find the other subnet by
sending packets to the Debian machine? i.e. is the Debian machine set as
the default gateway?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
On 2/12/07, Andrew Critchlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everyone, I am having some problems either understanding ip forarding or
configuring it?
My set up is:
XP1 - Debian/Server - XP2
XP1 IP = 10.251.134.20
Debian/Server eth0 = 10.251.134.10
Debian/Server eth1 = 172.16.0.50
XP2 IP =
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 14:52 +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Can anyone help with this network problem, please?
>
> This machine is an internal router, with two network cards. iptables is
> not configured in the kernel, since masquerading and filtering is not
> required. (There is a separate firew
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 21:01 +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 12:31 -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 14:52 +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > > Can anyone help with this network problem, please?
> > >
> > > This machine is an internal router, with two networ
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 12:31 -0600, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 14:52 +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > Can anyone help with this network problem, please?
> >
> > This machine is an internal router, with two network cards. iptables is
> > not configured in the kernel, since masqu
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 14:52 +, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Can anyone help with this network problem, please?
>
> This machine is an internal router, with two network cards. iptables is
> not configured in the kernel, since masquerading and filtering is not
> required. (There is a separate firew
Ok. You need a NAT. Example:
Old IP: 200.20.20.20
New IP: 201.21.21.21
Use the rule on machine at your office:
# iptables -t NAT -A INPUT -d 200.20.20.20 -j DNAT 201.21.21.21
It works fine with one nic.
[]s
Eriberto - www.eriberto.pro.br
HOGWASH - IPS invisível em camada 2. http://www.eribe
- Original Message -
From:
Matt
Zagrabelny
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:29
PM
Subject: Re: IP Forwarding
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 12:48 -0400, theal wrote:> I am
trying to forward all ports from one ip address to another us
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 12:48 -0400, theal wrote:
> I am trying to forward all ports from one ip address to another using
> iptables. can this be accomplished using a single network adaptor?
> anyone know what syntax to use?
do you mean:
a.b.c.d:e -> w.x.y.z:e
a.b.c.d:f -> w.x.y.z:f
or
a.b.c.d:*
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 10:05 -0500, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
> hello,
>
> simple firewall problem:
>
> 1 external nic (eth0)
> 1 internal nic (eth1)
>
> i do not need to do any snat or masquerading, i am just looking to
> forward the traffic from the internal to the external.
>
> so far:
>
> # ec
hi there, i dont use ssh, BUT, i was getting timeout problems when i
masqed an oracle database, oracle uses port 1521, and similar to you we
were loosing connections when we went through the ipchains firewall, the
solution was to set the timeout - i have included the ipchains rules
here just fo
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 01:14:48AM -0500, Gregg C wrote:
> What is the minimum I need to do to enable my gatway system to do NAT for my
> local lan? It is a fresh 2.2 install.
>
> I'm reading the ipchains howto (among other things), so I can build a proper
> firewall, which is a steep learning c
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 01:06:45AM -0500, Aaron Solochek wrote:
> Here is the situation: I have a laptop with wireless, and a desktop
> with wireless and regular ethernet.
>
> Lets call the desktop machine A. A has eth0 (ethernet to the rest
> of the world), and eth1 (10.0.10.1, in an adhoc wire
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000, Aaron Solochek wrote:
[snip description of machines]
> What I want to do is get machine B's packets through to machine C.
> Ideally, machine B would have a realworld ip -- a setup where
> machine A listened for 2 real ips, and forwarded all packets for one
> out over its eth1
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:48:36PM +0200, Richard wrote:
> I'm trying to configure the kernel 2.2.16 to do ip forwarding. Currently, I
> have installed the 2.0.38 and there is no
> problem (I know, the configuration is different).
>
> I've done everything I think I have to:
>
> Check the /proc
Richard wrote:
>
> Hi to all.
>
> I'm trying to configure the kernel 2.2.16 to do ip forwarding. Currently, I
> have installed the 2.0.38 and there is no
> problem (I know, the configuration is different).
>
> I've done everything I think I have to:
>
> Check the /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 09:29:40PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> It does the "echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward", but it doesn't
> do the ipchains bit, I think.
Then put a script that calls ipchains in /etc/ppp/ip-up.d
--
Pedro
Stan Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I can make it work by doing the following by hand:
> >
> > # ipchains -A forward -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j MASQ
> > # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> >
> > But is there a neat way of making it happen automatically by putting
> > something in /etc/network
Nate Duehr wrote:
>
> Aw, bloody hell. Somehow I never noticed this and had been running my
> own little script on the box that has an mgetty dial-in modem set up on
> it so things would be happy.
>
> Now I have "yes" in there, and don't have to call that script at
> boot... which of course, isn
On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 08:44:06AM -0700, Stan Kaufman wrote:
> Edit /etc/network/options to change the line
> ip_forward=no
> to
> ip_forward=yes
Aw, bloody hell. Somehow I never noticed this and had been running my
own little script on the box that has an mgetty dial-in modem set up
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
>
> I can make it work by doing the following by hand:
>
> # ipchains -A forward -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j MASQ
> # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
>
> But is there a neat way of making it happen automatically by putting
> something in /etc/network/ or in /etc/ppp/?
Nick wrote:
>
> i have a 2.1 debain system w/ 2.215 kernel
>
> i want to have a webserver inside my firewall. Therefore i need to forward
> the requests for port 80 to the inside machine. So far it is set up to do
> ipmasq w/ ipchains
>
> i installed the ipportfw and ipmasq packages and trie
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:24:09AM -0600, Dwayne C . Litzenberger wrote
> I have a box that I want to do IP forwarding. But, I can't ping outside
> hosts through it. The firewall sends packets from me, but it doesn't
> re-forward the ICMP echo replies (although you can see them with iptraf in
> p
Well, I figured it out. I needed the firewall to intercept ARP requests for
my hosts from the cable modem.
The two commands (both needed) that got it working were:
arp -i eth0 -Ds 24.x.x.190 eth0
arp -i eth0 -Ds 24.x.x.190 eth0 pub
Thanks for the help.
--
Please always Cc to me when replying
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 04:44:53PM -0600, Dwayne C . Litzenberger wrote:
>
> Here's the problem: I don't *want* to do masq'ing. The ethernet card/network
> subsystem is not picking up that it's supposed to forward packets from the
> cable modem (that's what it is) to the computers on my home netw
> In english:
> append to forward chain that on interface ppp0 from our internal network to
> any destination jump to Masq'ing.
>
>
Here's the problem: I don't *want* to do masq'ing. The ethernet card/network
subsystem is not picking up that it's supposed to forward packets from the
cable modem
> As soon as I do an "ipchains -P MASQ" (yes, I know that's
> evil), the pings
> work. So, I can do masquerading.
(lightning bolt to head) As stated in the IPMasq Howto, "Ja, you do have to
state masq'ing packets. Forwarding chain doesn't mean outside all the time."
Besides all the other chains
> I know. But I'm saying it doesn't even work with that.
oh... O.K.
> I know. If you noticed, after the cat command was listed "1"
> -- it was
> already enabled.
Duh...I was looking at a followup message that didn't display that. Sorry.
Maybe not enough coffee. :)
Could you please state kernel
Some more information about my problem:
As soon as I do an "ipchains -P MASQ" (yes, I know that's evil), the pings
work. So, I can do masquerading.
It seems the routing code isn't telling my 3c509 (or tulip card, I swapped
them) card to recognize IP addresses of other nodes in the
network. Am I
So to sum it all up: "RTFM" is your answer. I did. What I have seems very
odd (almost flaky). Read my original post for the problem.
--
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
"Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very
bright, and object that be
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 05:05:42PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > I have a box that I want to do IP forwarding. But, I can't ping outside
> > hosts through it. The firewall sends packets from me, but it doesn't
> > re-forward the ICMP echo replies (although you can see them with iptraf in
>
> I have a box that I want to do IP forwarding. But, I can't ping outside
> hosts through it. The firewall sends packets from me, but it doesn't
> re-forward the ICMP echo replies (although you can see them with iptraf in
> promiscuous mode) back.
just an idea to make it easier to spot the error
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Dwayne C . Litzenberger wrote:
>
> I have a box that I want to do IP forwarding. But, I can't ping outside
> hosts through it. The firewall sends packets from me, but it doesn't
> re-forward the ICMP echo replies (although you can see them with iptraf in
> promiscuous mode)
On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 08:31:42PM -0700, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 1999 19:39:07 Debian project development discussion wrote:
> >Is there some magic involved with IP forwarding for the 2.2.x kernels?
> >
> > # CONFIG_IP_MASQUERADE is not set
>
> IP MASQ should be set to y.
But I
On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 11:18:23PM -0400, Will Lowe wrote:
> > Is there some magic involved with IP forwarding for the 2.2.x kernels?
>
> Are you using IPCHAINS at all? Are you trying to do NAT?
Yes to ipchains. No to NAT.
David
> Is there some magic involved with IP forwarding for the 2.2.x kernels?
Are you using IPCHAINS at all? Are you trying to do NAT?
Will
--
| [EMAIL PROTECT
Bal K. Paudyal wrote:
>
> Hi Friends,
>
> I just installed ppp server in one of my machines. When I connect from
> Win95, the ppp connection between the server and win95 is established. But
> I can't connect from another Linux. It could be a chat script problem. I
> have used almost the same scri
Subject: IP Forwarding
Date: Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 05:07:34PM +0100
In reply to:Ries van Twisk
Quoting Ries van Twisk([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Currently I'm working with my linux box
> learning about proxy's and firewalls.
>
> How do I tell if IP_Forwading is turned off?
> I do h
G'day debianers,
I have now tried both kernel-image 2.0.29-7 and 2.0.30-7 in the stable
distribution for Debian 1.3.1, and neither have a kernel config file in
/boot, and neither seem to support IP forwarding. IP forwarding worked
fine with the old Debian 1.2 kernel image 2.0.27.
I notice ipx su
Hi,
>>"Donovan" == Donovan Baarda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you can find /usr/src/linux/.config it will tell you all the
>> things compiled into the kernel.
>>
Donovan> but /usr/src/linux/.config only exists if you have installed
Donovan> and compiled the kernel your self. I am using the
On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Lindsay Allen wrote:
>
> This might help:-
>
> elm# ls /proc/net
> alias_typesdevip_input ip_output rt_cache tcp
> aliasesip_autofw ip_masq_apprawsnmp udp
> arpip_forward ip_masquerade route so
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Lalovic, Drazen wrote:
: I have set up a Linux host with two ethernet cards. IP forwarding is
: enabled in the kernel and it is in its default state (accept and forward
: everything). Both ethernet segments, eth0 and eth1 are alive.
: 1. From the Linux machine I can ping h
> I have set up a Linux host with two ethernet cards. IP forwarding is
> enabled in the kernel and it is in its default state (accept and forward
> everything). Both ethernet segments, eth0 and eth1 are alive.
> 1. From the Linux machine I can ping hosts on both subnets an
> vice-versa.
> 2. From t
On 8 Aug 1996, Kai Grossjohann wrote:
> Type `route' and see what kinds of routes you have. I had to add the
> following command to my /etc/ppp/ip-up script:
>
> route add -net default ippp0
Putting `default' in /etc/ppp/options should also work.
Guy
> James D LaPlaine writes:
Jamie> I'm still struggling to get my PPP connection working
Jamie> properly. Although the chat script is making the connection,
Jamie> I can;t send any packets to any machine other than the one I
Jamie> am dailing in on. Even then it only works a little, I c
--
> From: N. Salwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: IP forwarding and/or Masquerading
> Date: Monday, July 23, 2096 4:46 AM
>
>
> > I'm still struggling to get my PPP connection wor
83 matches
Mail list logo
