On 2/4/24 09:03, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 04.02.2024 um 07:12:50 Uhr schrieb Gremlin:
I also slay all the mDNS non sense.
mDNS works fine if the host names are properly set and no other way of
setting the addresses (Unicast DNS, /etc/hosts) is being used.
It is not needed if the network is se
Am 04.02.2024 um 07:12:50 Uhr schrieb Gremlin:
> I also slay all the mDNS non sense.
mDNS works fine if the host names are properly set and no other way of
setting the addresses (Unicast DNS, /etc/hosts) is being used.
--
kind regards
Marco
Spam und Werbung bitte an ichschickerekl...@cartoonie
On 2/4/24 02:39, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 02.02.2024 um 17:12:06 Uhr schrieb Gremlin:
On 2/2/24 16:28, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 02:03:46PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
root@hawk:~# host samba
samba.localdomain is an alias for hawk.localdomain.
hawk.localdomain has address 192
On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 16:47 -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:52:41 -0700
> Charles Curley wrote:
>
> > But I don't think that will solve the routing problem.
>
> Well, I was wrong. That did solve the routing problems.
>
> I moved the apt-proxy line for the VMs' benefit into
Am 02.02.2024 um 17:12:06 Uhr schrieb Gremlin:
> On 2/2/24 16:28, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 02:03:46PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> >> root@hawk:~# host samba
> >> samba.localdomain is an alias for hawk.localdomain.
> >> hawk.localdomain has address 192.168.100.6
> >
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:52:41 -0700
Charles Curley wrote:
> But I don't think that will solve the routing problem.
Well, I was wrong. That did solve the routing problems.
I moved the apt-proxy line for the VMs' benefit into a VM's /etc/hosts
and took it out of hawk's /etc/hosts. samba is now an a
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:52:48 -0500
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Well, we don't know what's "right" or "wrong" on your networks. These
> are private (non-routable) addresses with no meaning to anyone but you
> and your fellow network denizens.
Agree.
>
> If you need different name resolution dependin
On 2/2/24 16:28, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 02:03:46PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
root@hawk:~# host samba
samba.localdomain is an alias for hawk.localdomain.
hawk.localdomain has address 192.168.100.6
host(1) looks in DNS only. It doesn't do the standard name resolution
th
> > > # For the benefit of virtual machines.
> > > 192.168.100.12 apt-proxy
> > > 192.168.122.1 samba samba.localdomain
> >
> > And that's where it came from (/etc/hosts). If this IP address is
> > wrong, then it shouldn't be in here.
>
> Gnrrr. It's right for the virtual network (192.168.122.
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:10:19 +0100
Marco Moock wrote:
> Sorry for the first post.
> Your problem is located in the name resolution.
>
> Show /etc/nsswitch.conf
I have not touched this.
root@hawk:~# cat /etc/nsswitch.conf
# /etc/nsswitch.conf
#
# Example configuration of GNU Name Service Switch
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:28:06 -0500
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > However, when I try to ping samba by host name:
> >
> > root@hawk:~# ping samba
> > PING samba (192.168.122.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
>
> Note that this is a *different* IP address.
Good catch, thank you.
>
> > # For the benefit of
On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 02:03:46PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> root@hawk:~# host samba
> samba.localdomain is an alias for hawk.localdomain.
> hawk.localdomain has address 192.168.100.6
host(1) looks in DNS only. It doesn't do the standard name resolution
that applications do.
> root@hawk:~#
Am 02.02.2024 um 14:03:46 Uhr schrieb Charles Curley:
> root@hawk:~# host samba
> samba.localdomain is an alias for hawk.localdomain.
> hawk.localdomain has address 192.168.100.6
> root@hawk:~# ping samba
> PING samba (192.168.122.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
Sorry for the first post.
Your problem
Am 02.02.2024 um 14:03:46 Uhr schrieb Charles Curley:
> From apt-proxy (192.168.100.12): icmp_seq=2 Redirect Host(New
> nexthop: hawk.localdomain (192.168.100.6))
Check the routing table on apt-proxy.
ICMP redirect happens if you have 2 routers on the same ethernet link
and the router you try to
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 12:53, Lee wrote:
> On 10/6/21, David wrote:
> > But others here are vastly more knowledgeable than I am about
> > networks, so additions or corrections are welcome, as always :)
> It's Classless Inter-domain Routing (CIDR) now and network masks are
> no longer supported [
On 10/6/21, David wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 10:53, wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 06, 2021 11:15:11 AM Brian wrote:
>> > On Wed 06 Oct 2021 at 14:09:23 +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
>>
>> > >netmask 255.255.255.0
>> > >gateway 192.168.1.1
>> >
>> > Just in passing: The line with net
On Wed 06 Oct 2021 at 14:09:23 (+0200), Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> please note that the main problem is
> "why the /etc/network/interfaces" is not used?"
> I have the following problem on my laptop.
> my /etc/network/interfaces file contains:
>auto enp0s1
>iface enp0s1 inet static
>ad
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 10:53, wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 06, 2021 11:15:11 AM Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 06 Oct 2021 at 14:09:23 +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
>
> > >netmask 255.255.255.0
> > >gateway 192.168.1.1
> >
> > Just in passing: The line with netmask 255.255.255.0 can be deleted.
On Wednesday, October 06, 2021 11:15:11 AM Brian wrote:
> On Wed 06 Oct 2021 at 14:09:23 +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> >netmask 255.255.255.0
> >gateway 192.168.1.1
>
> Just in passing: The line with netmask 255.255.255.0 can be deleted.
> It is a deprecated option, as is broadcast. See
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 at 23:09, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
>
> please note that the main problem is
>"why the /etc/network/interfaces" is not used?"
Ok. Noted.
Several knowledgeable and helpful people have already
made an effort trying to help you answer exactly this.
You can find those efforts in
On Wed 06 Oct 2021 at 16:40:55 +0100, Thomas Pircher wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > Just in passing: The line with netmask 255.255.255.0 can be deleted.
> > It is a deprecated option, as is broadcast. See #912220.
>
> Crikey, it is indeed deprecated. Just removing the line will probably
> not be a goo
Brian wrote:
Just in passing: The line with netmask 255.255.255.0 can be deleted.
It is a deprecated option, as is broadcast. See #912220.
Crikey, it is indeed deprecated. Just removing the line will probably
not be a good idea. I guess it can be deleted only when the address line
contains the
On Wed 06 Oct 2021 at 14:09:23 +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
[...]
> I have the following problem on my laptop.
> my /etc/network/interfaces file contains:
>auto enp0s1
>iface enp0s1 inet static
>address 192.168.1.10
>netmask 255.255.255.0
>gateway 192.168.1.1
Just in passin
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 02:09:23PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> please note that the main problem is
> "why the /etc/network/interfaces" is not used?"
Please show us the information you've been asked to show, by multiple
people:
ip addr
ip route
Hi.
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:00:45PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> hi,
> I have the following problem on my laptop.
> my /etc/network/interfaces file contains:
>auto enp0s1
>iface enp0s1 inet static
>address 192.168.1.10
>netmask 255.255.255.0
>gateway 192.168.1.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:00 PM, Pierre Frenkiel
wrote:
> hi,
> I have the following problem on my laptop.
> my /etc/network/interfaces file contains:
> auto enp0s1
> iface enp0s1 inet static
> address 192.16
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 10:00:45PM +0200, Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> hi,
> I have the following problem on my laptop.
> my /etc/network/interfaces file contains:
>auto enp0s1
>iface enp0s1 inet static
>address 192.168.1.10
>netmask 255.255.255.0
>gateway 192.168.1.1
>
>but a
Pierre Frenkiel wrote:
> hi,
> I have the following problem on my laptop.
> my /etc/network/interfaces file contains:
>auto enp0s1
>iface enp0s1 inet static
>address 192.168.1.10
>netmask 255.255.255.0
>gateway 192.168.1.1
>
>but after boot, ifconfig gives
>
>address
On 28 April 2016 at 18:23, NightC Core wrote:
>
> The card works in 32 but not under debian 64, when looking around on
> google I find many similar cases to mine.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=debian%208%20marvell%2088E8056&rct=j
> Nightcore
>
>
I see here(
http://www.linuxquestions.org/quest
Hello,
Thank you for your reply.
What makes me say this is his because I install debian on 8 pc in 32
everything worked, and during installation in 64 unable to configure the
network ... or after installation!
If I specify my nationnalité is to avoid the problems linked to language.
If I need 64 de
Le decadi 10 floréal, an CCXXIV, NightC Core a écrit :
> I am a French user
I fail to see how your nationality is relevant to the issue, but no matter.
>and I have a big problem, I created a debian server on
> an old pc except that I need 64bit debian and my network card is a
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:16:05AM +0200, NightC Core wrote:
> Hello,
> I am a French user and I have a big problem, I created a debian server on
> an old pc except that I need 64bit debian and my network card is a Marvell
> 88E8056 is that it only works in 32? Can not you do a 64 with the driver o
On Sun 08 May 2011 at 12:33:00 +0200, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
> I believe, /etc/resolv.conf is at first installation a symlink to another
> file.
I don't think so. If resolvconf is installed the symlink may be made.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subje
On 08/05/11 12:19, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:52:56 +0100, AG wrote:
On 08/05/11 11:41, Camaleón wrote:
Hum... may I suggest you to disable the NetworkManager service at all?
Not unistalling it but getting rid of it (avoid the service to be
started on boot). If you are not using a
On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:52:56 +0100, AG wrote:
> On 08/05/11 11:41, Camaleón wrote:
>> Hum... may I suggest you to disable the NetworkManager service at all?
>> Not unistalling it but getting rid of it (avoid the service to be
>> started on boot). If you are not using a laptop nor need a dynamic
>
> Thanks for the info. How do I trace the symlink back to the original
> (i.e. the file that it is linked from)?
Look where the symlink is pointing to, and do not forget it.
Then you can delete it.
To restore the link, use the command "ln". The syntax is:
ln -s source_file symlink_name
for e
On 08/05/11 11:41, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:08:38 +0100, AG wrote:
On 08/05/11 10:40, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
Back to your setup, now you are using an external set of DNS resolvers
(87.194.255.154/87.194.255.155) and before you had setup your local
router as a DNS resolver (192.1
On 08/05/11 11:33, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
I believe, /etc/resolv.conf is at first installation a symlink to another file.
Try to delete the sysmlink, create a file /etc/resolv.conf, edit it to your
needs and make it only writable by root.
Hi Hans
Thanks for the info. How do I trace the sy
On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:08:38 +0100, AG wrote:
> On 08/05/11 10:40, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> Back to your setup, now you are using an external set of DNS resolvers
>> (87.194.255.154/87.194.255.155) and before you had setup your local
>> router as a DNS resolver (192.168.1.254). Both forms are ok
issues, not getting around them :-)
>
> Fair point. It's just really difficult working with a system one cannot
> log into :-)
>
> Thanks for your continued help and patience.
>
> AG
I believe, /etc/resolv.conf is at first installation a symlink to another file.
Try to delete the sysmlink, c
On 08/05/11 10:40, Camaleón wrote:
I'm now running squeeze from the Feb netinst i386 iso.[1] This is a
fresh install using graphical expert install.
You should have not installed by scratch>;-P
No doubt. Except, given I had tinkered around so much with the previous
installation, I wanted
On Sun, 08 May 2011 08:49:37 +0100, AG wrote:
> On 07/05/11 19:10, AG wrote:
> I'm now running squeeze from the Feb netinst i386 iso.[1] This is a
> fresh install using graphical expert install.
You should have not installed by scratch >;-P
When there is a problem is better to solve to know
On 07/05/11 19:10, AG wrote:
I'm going for the "nuclear" option and am downloading the
netinstall.iso and will install from scratch and see if I run into the
same problems again in the future. So far, the only successes have
been when I enable the dhcp option in the /etc/network/interfaces
fi
On 07/05/11 18:43, Brian wrote:
On Sat 07 May 2011 at 17:48:31 +0100, AG wrote:
[Snip]
May 7 17:30:28 valhalla NetworkManager[1542]:SCPluginIfupdown:
guessed connection type (eth0) = 802-3-ethernet
May 7 17:30:28 valhalla NetworkManager[1542]:SCPlugin-Ifupdown:
update_connection_sett
On Sat, 07 May 2011 17:48:31 +0100, AG wrote:
> On 07/05/11 17:26, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>>> The IP address is now consistent.
>>>
>>> Now is this likely to hold when I reboot so that I can access the Net?
>> (...)
>>
>> Sure, and if not something is very badly broken. Restart the machine to
>>
On Sat 07 May 2011 at 17:48:31 +0100, AG wrote:
[Snip]
> May 7 17:30:28 valhalla NetworkManager[1542]:SCPluginIfupdown:
> guessed connection type (eth0) = 802-3-ethernet
> May 7 17:30:28 valhalla NetworkManager[1542]:SCPlugin-Ifupdown:
> update_connection_setting_from_if_block: name
On Sat 07 May 2011 at 15:39:27 +, Camaleón wrote:
> 1/ Restart the network service: /etc/init.d/networking restart
Which may or not work. It doesn't here on one machine with a hotplugged
wlan0 interface. Which is why a warning is given. ifdown/ifup should be
sufficient. Also, the command /etc
Dne, 07. 05. 2011 18:48:31 je AG napisal(a):
/etc/network/interfaces:
# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
# The primary network interface
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet static
#iface eth0 inet dhcp
address 192.168.1.40
netmask 255.255.255.0
network 1
On 07/05/11 17:26, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:49:07 +0100, AG wrote:
On 07/05/11 16:39, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
Let's see... on a running system, once you edit the "/etc/network/
interfaces" file you also have to:
1/ Restart the network service: /etc/init.d/networking restart
2/ U
On Sat 07 May 2011 at 16:06:30 +0100, AG wrote:
> # The primary network interface
> allow-hotplug eth0
> iface eth0 inet static
> #iface eth0 inet dhcp
> address 192.168.1.40# I have manually specified this
> netmask 255.255.255.0
Something and nothing. From interfaces(5)
> Lines st
On Sat 07 May 2011 at 17:40:42 +0200, Klistvud wrote:
> Dne, 07. 05. 2011 17:06:30 je AG napisal(a):
>
>> # dns-* options are implemented by the resolvconf package, if
>> installed
>> dns-nameservers 158.43.240.4
>
> Can the above line from your /etc/network/interfaces be conflicting
On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:49:07 +0100, AG wrote:
> On 07/05/11 16:39, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> Let's see... on a running system, once you edit the "/etc/network/
>> interfaces" file you also have to:
>>
>> 1/ Restart the network service: /etc/init.d/networking restart
>> 2/ Up the network interfac
On 07/05/11 16:39, Camaleón wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:06:30 +0100, AG wrote:
On 07/05/11 15:49, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
Copy/paste what does your "/etc/network/interfaces" look like
# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
# The primary network interface
allow-hotp
On Sat, 07 May 2011 16:06:30 +0100, AG wrote:
> On 07/05/11 15:49, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
>> Copy/paste what does your "/etc/network/interfaces" look like
>
> # The loopback network interface
> auto lo
> iface lo inet loopback
>
> # The primary network interface
> allow-hotplug eth0
> iface eth
Dne, 07. 05. 2011 17:06:30 je AG napisal(a):
# dns-* options are implemented by the resolvconf package, if
installed
dns-nameservers 158.43.240.4
Can the above line from your /etc/network/interfaces be conflicting
with the:
nameserver 192.168.1.254
in your /etc/resolv.conf ?
On 07/05/11 15:49, Camaleón wrote:
(...)
Okay, let's forget momentary the "hosts" file and go on with the network
issue which I think is more important here.
So, I have just done the following:
(1) I altered the /etc/hosts IP address to *.64
(2) ensured that the /etc/network/interface file r
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Yazad Khambata wrote:
Please find output of the above commands and file:
more /etc/network/interfaces
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
# The primary network interface
allow-hotplug eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 10.40.35.35
netmask 255.255.255.0
network 10.40.35.0
broa
For our broadband connection we enter a static IP Addr but we also enter a
primary and secondry dns too.
On 9/1/07, Yazad Khambata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Please find output of the above commands and file:
>
>
> more /etc/network/interfaces
>
> # This file describes the network interfaces
Please find output of the above commands and file:
more /etc/network/interfaces
# This file describes the network interfaces available on your system
# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).
# The loopback network interface
auto lo
iface lo inet loopback
# The pr
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:13:16PM +0530, Yazad Khambata wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>I'm relatively new to Linux... I installed Debian 4.0 on my PC (I also have
> XP and 2000) on my system. Today morning I could finally configure things
> right
> and could connect to the internet(I'm using a broadband
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:13:16PM +0530, Yazad Khambata wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>I'm relatively new to Linux... I installed Debian 4.0 on my PC (I also
> have XP and 2000) on my system. Today morning I could finally configure
> things right and could connect to the internet(I'm using a broadband
> c
Faheem Mitha wrote:
> I'm having some odd networking problems with my router, The D-Link
> DGL-4300
> (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006TIA02/002-4711104-7484852).
Problems with your router? Or problems with your kernel?
> Incoming ssh connections through the router using port forwarding
Thilo Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> William Xu wrote the following on 10.04.2007 07:09:
>
>
>
>> | net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 1
>
> this might be worth a try.
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/
YES ! That's it !
After setting net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling to zero, everything just works
no
William Xu wrote the following on 10.04.2007 07:09:
> | net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling = 1
this might be worth a try.
http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/
Do the working machines have the same value in net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling?
> Oh, his machine is unreachable for me currently..
>
>> ...and just
Thilo Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Folkert wrote the following on 09.04.2007 20:27:
>
>
>
>>> you said you can ping google.com?
>>> -> name resolution works
>>
>> I doubt it. Unless he has a /etc/hosts entry for it.
>>
>> I believe his /etc/resolv.conf is screwed.
>
> After thinking abo
Thilo Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> hmm
> let us summarize
>
> you are able to establish http connections via telnet?
> (you received the plain html code in terminal?)
http is only possible when i use a proxy. Currently i've set http_proxy
to a neighbour machine, namely http://192.168.60.111:
Greg Folkert wrote the following on 09.04.2007 20:27:
>> you said you can ping google.com?
>> -> name resolution works
>
> I doubt it. Unless he has a /etc/hosts entry for it.
>
> I believe his /etc/resolv.conf is screwed.
After thinking about it that would explain this curiosity but then he
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 16:33 +0200, Thilo Six wrote:
> William Xu wrote the following on 09.04.2007 14:22:
>
> > This doesn't work for me.
> hmm
> let us summarize
>
> you are able to establish http connections via telnet?
> (you received the plain html code in terminal?)
>
> you said you can pin
William Xu wrote the following on 09.04.2007 14:22:
> This doesn't work for me.
hmm
let us summarize
you are able to establish http connections via telnet?
(you received the plain html code in terminal?)
you said you can ping google.com?
-> name resolution works
your mtu looks fine
..but yo
Thilo Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> quote from first mail:
> <---
> The problem is that i'm unable to connect to the internet
> directly (execpt for google, weird..)
> --->
>
> so it seems t
William wrote the following on 08.04.2007 06:11:
> This looks fine too.
>
> ,
> | ~$ telnet google.com 80
> | Trying 64.233.167.99...
> | Connected to google.com.
> | Escape character is '^]'.
> | GET / HTTP/1.1\r
> | GET / HTTP/1.1\r
> | ^D
> |
> | ^Z
> |
> | Connection closed by foreign h
> Exactly. If ping works, then internet works. Looks to me like it is a
> firewall or router problem. Blocking port 80 perhaps?
also could be a problem with mtu. so an output of /sbin/ifconfig would be
interesting.
Here are the outputs of ifconfig:
,[ sudo ifconfig ]
| eth0 Link e
2007/4/6, Joe Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Jollans wrote:
> William Xu wrote:
>> The problem is that i'm unable to connect to the internet
>> directly(execpt for google, weird..). ping, dns, traceroute, netstate
>> all look fine.
>
> this paragra
2007/4/6, Thilo Six <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
basically to test if http is possibly from this machine someone could do:
$ telnet google.com 80
GET / HTTP/1.1\r
This looks fine too.
,
| ~$ telnet google.com 80
| Trying 64.233.167.99...
| Connected to google.com.
| Escape character is '^]'.
| GE
Thilo Six wrote the following on 06.04.2007 13:30:
> Joe Hart wrote the following on 06.04.2007 13:08:
>
>
>
>>> this paragraph is self-contradictory; Are your problems limited to the
>>> world wide web ? If so, have you tried using a different web browser ?
>
> maybe ipv6 activated in browser
Joe Hart wrote the following on 06.04.2007 13:08:
>> this paragraph is self-contradictory; Are your problems limited to the
>> world wide web ? If so, have you tried using a different web browser ?
maybe ipv6 activated in browser config?
>> Thomas
>
> Exactly. If ping works, then internet wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Jollans wrote:
> William Xu wrote:
>> The problem is that i'm unable to connect to the internet
>> directly(execpt for google, weird..). ping, dns, traceroute, netstate
>> all look fine.
>
> this paragraph is self-contradictory; Are your probl
William Xu wrote:
> The problem is that i'm unable to connect to the internet
> directly(execpt for google, weird..). ping, dns, traceroute, netstate
> all look fine.
this paragraph is self-contradictory; Are your problems limited to the
world wide web ? If so, have you tried using a different we
On Sunday 16 February 2003 09:20 pm, Pigeon wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 05:39:05PM +0100, Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf)
wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 18:10, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> Yes, just stick 'nameserver a.b.c.d' in /etc/resolv.conf where
> a.b.c.d is the address of your local nameserver.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 05:39:05PM +0100, Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 18:10, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> > something i do that you may or may not be able to use in your
> > situation is to have different a records for the same hostname.
> >
> > internally, my network uses th
> > internally, my network uses the main.gaddis.org. subdomain,
> > which doesn't exist outside of the internal network. i run
> > nameservers on the internal side which are authoritative for
> > main.gaddis.org. subdomain. any machine inside the network that
> > looks up (for example) www.main.ga
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 18:10, Jeremy Gaddis wrote:
> something i do that you may or may not be able to use in your
> situation is to have different a records for the same hostname.
>
> internally, my network uses the main.gaddis.org. subdomain,
> which doesn't exist outside of the internal network.
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 19:13, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) said on Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:41:12AM +0100:
> > > Your gateway/router is working as designed. The internal (LAN) and
> > > external (WAN/Internet) are kept separated. This means that no WAN IP
> > > can try to connect
Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) said on Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:41:12AM +0100:
> > Your gateway/router is working as designed. The internal (LAN) and
> > external (WAN/Internet) are kept separated. This means that no WAN IP
> > can try to connect directly with an internal address. Nor is it allowed
> >
www.gaddis.org>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 4:41 AM
> To: Gary Turner
> Cc: Debian-User
> Subject: Re: network problem: configuration/DNS? cannot
> access internalmachine using our
Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) wrote:
>On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 20:20, Gary Turner wrote:
>> Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) wrote:
>>
>> >Summary: If I try to connect to an internal server given its dyndns.org
>> >hostname, it works from the outside world, but fails if I try from
>> >within our intranet.
[...]
On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 20:20, Gary Turner wrote:
> Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) wrote:
>
> >Summary: If I try to connect to an internal server given its dyndns.org
> >hostname, it works from the outside world, but fails if I try from
> >within our intranet.
> >
> >I have this network configuration
> >
Dear Jerome,
looks like you have two problems :
First : Ping works - tracroute not
Are using your Wxx and Linx-Boxes same DNS? If yes, try "traceroute -n EXT-IP"
on your Linux boxes. (Ping doesn't a try to get the name for the given
ip-address, but traceroute does - and DNS-timeouts are rather
Jerome Lacoste (Frisurf) wrote:
>Summary: If I try to connect to an internal server given its dyndns.org
>hostname, it works from the outside world, but fails if I try from
>within our intranet.
>
>I have this network configuration
>
> E
> |
>Internet
> |
> | (EXT-IP)
>** R ** (Firewall)
>
10./24 for my subnet. I can't get this to work
properly. I was told that the w2kas is running
something that keeps the shares hidden but allows
mapping the other windows clients to the shares,
however, I'm still unable to do this. I think it
may be a w2k specific problem. I've tried compiling
Ron Johnson wrote:
> So the rest of the company needs to see win2000server?
Yes. I was issued this box, instructed to plug it in and
then don't touch it. This should get interesting as a
windows setup administered from the Company side. It has
one shared directory with some database files tha
The entire operation is behind a company firewall but
the local management doesn't want other company locations
browsing our LAN. (Updated drawing below). I have a few
more days to make this work, at which time the whole location
will be changed to the assigned subnet (10.x.x.x).
thanks,
tony
On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 02:11, tony mollica wrote:
> To answer your question, on the WAN side, the router and
> the win2000server have static addresses assigned by the
> maintainer of the WAN. The IP of eth1 on the Linux box is
> assigned from the same subnet by me.
>
> I'm using ipchains on the Li
To answer your question, on the WAN side, the router and
the win2000server have static addresses assigned by the
maintainer of the WAN. The IP of eth1 on the Linux box is
assigned from the same subnet by me.
I'm using ipchains on the Linux box and I'm still somewhat
unclear on what you propose be
On Mon, 2002-05-20 at 00:34, tony mollica wrote:
> No misunderstanding. For the purpose of this discussion,
> what you've written is true. However, while I can ping
> from one side to the other, what I need to do is have the
> share on the win2000server show up in the browse list(s) on
> the LAN
No misunderstanding. For the purpose of this discussion,
what you've written is true. However, while I can ping
from one side to the other, what I need to do is have the
share on the win2000server show up in the browse list(s) on
the LAN side clients. Samba 2.0.7 is running on the Linux
masq and
On Sun, 2002-05-19 at 22:42, tony mollica wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. What I need to do is
> have the windows clients on the LAN side
> (192.168.100.0/24) be able to access a shared
> directory on a win2000server box on the WAN
> side (10.x.x.0/24) and still preserve my Linux masq.
> I canno
Thanks for the reply. What I need to do is
have the windows clients on the LAN side
(192.168.100.0/24) be able to access a shared
directory on a win2000server box on the WAN
side (10.x.x.0/24) and still preserve my Linux masq.
I cannot change the IP's on the WAN side with
the exception of the m
May 9, at 18:26, tony mollica sent through the Star Gate:
>Hello. I have a mixed network of Linux (Debian) and windows
>machines in the arrangement below.
> ___ __ __
>| || || |
>--->|router || Linux||switch|---(192.168.x.x network)
>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 03:42:13PM +0200, Alwyn Schoeman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have this problem where my box cannot talk through a pix firewall which
> allows everything through, but can talk to any box on the local network. On
> closer investigation with tcpdump it appears that it initiates tcp
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
