On 22/3/21 5:17 am, Dan Ritter wrote:
ghe2001 wrote:
There are 2 computers on my LAN. I'll call one Fast and the other Slow. When
I, for example, type ping www.cbs.com, Fast pings right away, Slow pauses for
about 5 seconds ('time' says that). When I ping something in /etc/hosts, both
sta
ghe2001 wrote:
> There are 2 computers on my LAN. I'll call one Fast and the other Slow.
> When I, for example, type ping www.cbs.com, Fast pings right away, Slow
> pauses for about 5 seconds ('time' says that). When I ping something in
> /etc/hosts, both start right away. On Slow, 'route'
On 2018-08-16, john doe wrote:
> This configuration assumes that the clients will get "all configuration"
> from the server.
Initially I had a problem importing my VPN settings to network
manager. Now I see it is working and I was able to fill in the gaps so
I got a working VPN connection.
I di
On 8/16/2018 8:53 AM, Piotr Martyniuk wrote:
On 2018-08-16, john doe wrote:
On the vpn client are you getting the proper DNS in '/etc/resolv.conf'
when connected to your vpn server?
It changes (adds nameserver 192.168.2.1 on top), but this does not
seems to be valid as the IP's I got are from
On 2018-08-16, john doe wrote:
> On the vpn client are you getting the proper DNS in '/etc/resolv.conf'
> when connected to your vpn server?
It changes (adds nameserver 192.168.2.1 on top), but this does not
seems to be valid as the IP's I got are from the network 10.8.0.xx and
the one I got is
On 8/16/2018 7:56 AM, Piotr Martyniuk wrote:
On 2018-08-06, Joe wrote:
I believe it should happen by default, this is almost always what you
want. I'm fairly sure I've never had to ask for this.
When the VPN connects, Network Manager should adjust routing so that
the VPN becomes the default ga
On 2018-08-06, Joe wrote:
> I believe it should happen by default, this is almost always what you
> want. I'm fairly sure I've never had to ask for this.
>
> When the VPN connects, Network Manager should adjust routing so that
> the VPN becomes the default gateway. To disable this behaviour, there
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 11:24:21AM +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:48:02 - (UTC)
> zaxonxp wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Debian Stretch I managed to configure VPN connection using network-
> > manager. Now I would like to redirect all traffic to VPN (whenever
> > VPN is available) an
On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 09:48:02 - (UTC)
zaxonxp wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Debian Stretch I managed to configure VPN connection using network-
> manager. Now I would like to redirect all traffic to VPN (whenever
> VPN is available) and revert back to current state (if VPN is not
> available).
>
> The
Paulo Santos wrote:
François TOURDE wrote:
Le 15182ième jour après Epoch, Paulo Santos écrivait:
Plus this routes:
10.0.0.0 /255.0.0.0 - 10.120.43.158 62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 -
10.200.34.158 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
If your syntax is "ip/mask - gateway", then the second
Le 15183ième jour après Epoch,
Paulo Santos écrivait:
>> You can't have 2 gateway lines, because gateway is equiv to "route
>> default", and you can't have 2 default destinations.
>
> Ok. I'll correct that in the end of the day, since it's in production I
> can't restart the network.
You don't ne
Hello,
First of all, than you everyone for the replies.
François TOURDE wrote:
Le 15182ième jour après Epoch,
Paulo Santos écrivait:
Plus this routes:
10.0.0.0 /255.0.0.0 - 10.120.43.158
62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 - 10.200.34.158
192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
If your syn
> Paulo Santos writes:
> Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> Paulo Santos writes:
>>> 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
>> The last one should probably be as follows instead:
>> 192.168.160.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
> Why is that?
> I tried it, though, but I get the sa
Le 15182ième jour après Epoch,
Paulo Santos écrivait:
> Hello list,
>
> We have an Asterisk PBX running on Debian with 1 NIC. We're adding a
> SIP trunk and, for that, the ISP/ITSP installed a router/gateway (I
> think that's what it is).
>
> They've told me I needed to have configuration like thi
Ivan Shmakov wrote:
Paulo Santos writes:
>> ...
192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
The last one should probably be as follows instead:
192.168.160.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
Why is that?
I tried it, though, but I get the same behaviour.
Best regards,
Paulo
> Paulo Santos writes:
[…]
> Plus this routes:
> 10.0.0.0 /255.0.0.0 - 10.120.43.158
> 62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 - 10.200.34.158
> 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
The last one should probably be as follows instead:
192.168.160.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
Hi, Peter:
En fecha Domingo, 15 de Mayo de 2011, peasth...@shaw.ca escribió:
> * From: "Jesús M. Navarro"
> * Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 23:47:48 +0200
>
> > There's neither "carnot" nor "Allied Telesis 3612TR" in your provided
> > diagram so it's a bit difficult to follow you. It would be b
On Sb, 14 mai 11, 22:14:44, peasth...@shaw.ca wrote:
>
> What are the greatest advantages in bridging eth0 and eth1 rather
> than routing through Dalton to Carnot? Bridging will need some
> additional software, bridge-utils; routing should be possible
> without adding software.
AFAIK the addi
Thank You for Your time and answer, Jesús:
> Sorry for the long delay.
Please do not worry - I myself am often very busy. :)
That's why I like mail - reply when at ease.
> What's the machine that holds the 10.10.10.10 IP address? My bet is
> that it's some kind of router owned by your ISP; I don
Hi again, Sthu:
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 10:37:09 Sthu Deus wrote:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Jesús:
Sorry for the long delay.
> Excuse me for long respond, please.
>
> > Regarding the questions, you *can* answer most of them, if not all.
> > Here they come again:
> >
> > 0) Just
Thank You for Your time and answer, Jesús:
Excuse me for long respond, please.
> Regarding the questions, you *can* answer most of them, if not all.
> Here they come again:
>
> 0) Just so we both can stablish to be working on known field. Use
> these routing/firewalling rules:
> /sbin/i
Hi again, Sthu:
On Thursday 04 November 2010 18:25:24 Sthu Deus wrote:
> Thank You for Your time and answer again, Jesús:
> > you have *two* hops on
> > your local side; you Internet connection knows about the nearest to
> > it (from its perspective), which is 20.20.20.20, but it doesn't know
> >
Thank You for Your time and answer again, Jesús:
> you have *two* hops on
> your local side; you Internet connection knows about the nearest to
> it (from its perspective), which is 20.20.20.20, but it doesn't know
> about the second hop, the one that goes from 20.20.20.20 to
> 192.168.0.0/24, so
Hi, Sthu:
On Thursday 04 November 2010 08:11:04 Sthu Deus wrote:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Jesús, again:
> > Let's try again:
> > 1) What are the exact iptables rules you are trying?
> > I'd suggest trying this and only this (just for testing; once it's
> > working you can tie up them
Thank You for Your time and answer, Jesús, again:
> Let's try again:
> 1) What are the exact iptables rules you are trying?
> I'd suggest trying this and only this (just for testing; once it's
> working you can tie up them as needed):
> /sbin/iptables -F
> /sbin/iptables -t nat -F
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 01:31:22PM +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, lee:
>
> >> host1 <-> eth <-> host2 <-> ppp
>
> > using eth, just as you have a default route
> > on host2 using ppp0.
>
> Just an addition, on host1 I have this routing table:
>
> ho...@$ /sbin/rou
Hi, Sthu:
On Friday 29 October 2010 10:05:52 Sthu Deus wrote:
> Thank You for Your time and answers, Jesús - I really appreciate it:
> > Two things:
> > 1) Try without a firewall (iptables default rules
> > to "accept", /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward to "1" and anything else).
>
> Still the same:
Thank You for Your time and answers, Jesús - I really appreciate it:
> Two things:
> 1) Try without a firewall (iptables default rules
> to "accept", /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward to "1" and anything else).
Still the same:
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target p
Hi, Sthu:
On Thursday 28 October 2010 07:58:29 Sthu Deus wrote:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Jesús:
> >> host1 <-> eth <-> host2 <-> ppp
> >
> > Why do you think it's wrong? It seems OK to me: you reach
> > 192.168.0.0/24 through eth0 and both 10.10.10.10 and "everything
> > else" throug
Thank You for Your time and answer, lee:
>> host1 <-> eth <-> host2 <-> ppp
> using eth, just as you have a default route
> on host2 using ppp0.
Just an addition, on host1 I have this routing table:
ho...@$ /sbin/route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flag
Thank You for Your time and answer, lee:
> > host1 <-> eth <-> host2 <-> ppp
> >
> > On host2 it seems that the route table is wrong somehow:
> >
> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref
> > Use Iface
> > 10.10.10.10 * 255.255.255.255 UH0
> > 0
Thank You for Your time and answer, Jesús:
>> host1 <-> eth <-> host2 <-> ppp
> Why do you think it's wrong? It seems OK to me: you reach
> 192.168.0.0/24 through eth0 and both 10.10.10.10 and "everything
> else" through ppp0. It sounds sensible.
Because I try w/ pings, apt - it does not work
Hi, Sthu:
On Wednesday 27 October 2010 15:43:17 Sthu Deus wrote:
> Good day.
>
> Could You please help me w/ routing?
>
> I want to make working the following scheme:
>
> host1 <-> eth <-> host2 <-> ppp
>
> On host2 it seems that the route table is wrong somehow:
>
> Destination Gateway
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 07:02:53PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Folk,
>
> I have a tunnel as described in openvpn.man,
> Example 2, between my home 10.4.0.1 and work
> 10.4.0.2 machines.
> "ping 10.4.0.1" from 10.4.0.2
> and
> "ping 10.4.0.2" from 10.4.0.1
> succeed as expected.
>
> Routi
Doug writes:
> Or, just switch to pppconfig and create a button that runs "pon" and
> "poff".
Gpppon provides just such a button.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 04:31:40PM -0600, Walt L. Williams wrote:
> I have been successful in getting Debian onto the internet
> using Gnome PPP. (I have dailup) the one small quirk is
> I have to manually add a default route to ppp0 to get it to
> work.
>
> Is there a way to include the command t
"Matías Palomec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Does the VPN server have a static IP?
Yes.
If so, you can route the VPN on the eth1 and leave de 0/0 GW to ppp1
(I had something like these at home).
I just tried like this,
,
| route add vpn_ip gw eth1
| route add default dev ppp1
`--
On 5/24/07, William Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I have got some problem setting up the routing table. Currently, the
table is,
,[ netstat -nr ]
| 10.1.1.10.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp1
| 166.111.210.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 U
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:27:40 -0400
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 03:54:24PM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm fairly certain that you know enough to keep it from being a
> > > problem, but the schemen y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:48:35 -0400
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:58:27AM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like you don't have your routing setup properly. I use a
> > vpn regularly for work and
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 03:54:24PM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
> >
> > I'm fairly certain that you know enough to keep it from being a
> > problem, but the schemen you describe is a hair's breadth away from
> > makig your company's VPN open to the public Internet. I just thought
> > I'd point that out.
On Thursday 19 October 2006 12:31, Matt Price wrote:
> On 10/19/06, Jacob S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:03:20 -0400
> >
> > "Matt Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > hi,
> > >
> > > i'm wondering whether it's po
On 10/19/06, Jacob S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:03:20 -0400
"Matt Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi,
>
> i'm wondering whether it's possible to route only certain internet
> traffic through a vpn, or to exclude certain ip
On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:58:27AM -0500, Jacob S wrote:
>
> This sounds like you don't have your routing setup properly. I use a
> vpn regularly for work and only traffic going to their range of ip
> addresses goes through the vpn.
>
Hi Jacob,
I'm fairly certain that you know enough to keep i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:03:20 -0400
"Matt Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi,
>
> i'm wondering whether it's possible to route only certain internet
> traffic through a vpn, or to exclude certain ip addresses/ranges from
> the vpn.
>
> my situati
On 19.10.06 11:03, Matt Price wrote:
> i'm wondering whether it's possible to route only certain internet
> traffic through a vpn, or to exclude certain ip addresses/ranges from
> the vpn.
>
> my situation is as follows: I work mostly from home and rely on the
> university's vpn to be able to acc
I thing the better way is your load-balancing using iproute2 (like your
exemple),
but you will need make nat using SNAT, not MASQUERADE in your iptables.
Abraços
Gilberto
On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:59:48 -0300
"Tom Lobato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> My ADSL provider in Brazil give
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
wim wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 08:43:35PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Hi all I have dth fallowing problem.. I have a router with public ip (for
>>example 194.10.8.1/30) and my Debian whit eth1 public ip 194.10.8.2/30.
>>Everything work
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 08:43:35PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi all I have dth fallowing problem.. I have a router with public ip (for
> example 194.10.8.1/30) and my Debian whit eth1 public ip 194.10.8.2/30.
> Everything works fine I can ping outside no problem.. but my Debian also fa
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 20:43 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi all I have dth fallowing problem.. I have a router with public ip
> (for example 194.10.8.1/30) and my Debian whit eth1 public ip
> 194.10.8.2/30. Everything works fine I can ping outside no problem..
> but my Debian also fas eth0
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all I have dth fallowing problem.. I have a router with public ip
(for example 194.10.8.1/30) and my Debian whit eth1 public ip
194.10.8.2/30. Everything works fine I can ping outside no problem.. but
my Debian also fas eth0 interface with ip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi all I have dth fallowing problem.. I have a router with public ip
> (for example 194.10.8.1/30) and my Debian whit eth1 public ip
> 194.10.8.2/30. Everything works fine I can ping outside no problem.. but
> my Debian also fas eth0 interface with ip 192.168.1.1 and i
Problem solved! Worked out that what I was really trying to do was use the
linux box as a bridge, installed brudge-utils and now everything works.
- Joe
I have got a bit further with my networking problem, using a linux box as a
router, now I have a different problem.
I have five machines
In shorewall you generaly define one ZONE for each interfacace like
this:
/etc/shorewall/interfaces
##
#ZONEINTERFACE BROADCAST OPTIONS
VPN tun0detect dropunclean,blacklist,tcpflags
N
I have OpenVpn instaled on my Debian firewall. I use Shorewall to manage
firewall. I have 3 interfaces eth0, eth1, eth2 in firewall host (Zones:
LAN, DMZ, NET). OpenVPN make 4-th interface tun0 (Zone: VPN).
Than I have set up policies and rules for trafic betwen Zones. It is
easy to set up and and
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 12:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 13:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your network looks like this:
>
> .--. .---. .---.
> | A | | B | | C|
> | .2.2 +---+ .2.1 .1.2 +---+ .1.1 .0.6 +--- .0.*
> `--' `-
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 13:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cannot get my linux box to act as a router, I'm hoping someone can help.
My setup is sarge on a machine with 2 NICs, 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.2.1.
I attach 192.168.1.2 to another machine with 2 NICs [192.168.1.1 and
192.168.0.6]. This
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 13:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I cannot get my linux box to act as a router, I'm hoping someone can help.
>
> My setup is sarge on a machine with 2 NICs, 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.2.1.
>
> I attach 192.168.1.2 to another machine with 2 NICs [192.168.1.1 and
> 192.168.0.6
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 21:43:08 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I cannot get my linux box to act as a router, I'm hoping someone can help.
>
> My setup is sarge on a machine with 2 NICs, 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.2.1.
>
> I attach 192.168.1.2 to another machine with 2 NICs [192.168.1.1 and
> 192.
On 21/12/05 4:28 AM, Enrique Morfin wrote:
All 192.168.1.1 packets MUST go in and out throught
eht0. And all 192.168.1.10 packets MUST go in and out
throught eth1.
How can i tell the routing table this?
If both interfaces are on the same subnet, then you aren't routing.
Perhaps you should ret
Khanh Cao Van wrote:
cvkhanh:~# route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination---Gateway---Genmask--Flags--Metric---RefUse--Iface
10.0.0.0---0.0.0.0255.255.255.0-U0-0---0-eth0
192.168.60.0-192.168.60.2--255.255.255.0---UG-
On 5/1/05, Franki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But this machine cannot ping any address's past the VPN server and that
> is what I need to solve.
>
>
> It seems like the VPN server will not accept any packets for IP's that
> it doesn't have an exact interface match for, even though it has a route
On Wednesday 13 October 2004 05:45 am, Sebastiaan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Mark Maas wrote:
> > Thanks for reading!
> >
> > I hope someone can help me with a routing issue:
> >
> > I've attached a situation scetch.
> >
> > The thing is, my road warriors connect via a pptp connection
>
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Mark Maas wrote:
> Thanks for reading!
>
> I hope someone can help me with a routing issue:
>
> I've attached a situation scetch.
>
> The thing is, my road warriors connect via a pptp connection
> to my VPN server via GW2.
> This fails because the default gateway (GW) on
asurto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: routing table question
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> From: Sergio Basurto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: routing table question
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez
> wrote:
&
: Re: routing table question
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez
wrote:
>
> sorry to have recycled the subjectreal question
> below.
>
> Tony UcedaVélez
> Security Analyst
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 877.884.1110
> --
> SecureWorks. Rock
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez
wrote:
>
> sorry to have recycled the subjectreal question
> below.
>
> Tony UcedaVélez
> Security Analyst
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 877.884.1110
> --
> SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security.
> No hassles. No headcount. No capital
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 02:56:03PM +1000, James Sinnamon wrote:
> Until someone more knowledgeable replies ...
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:02 am, David Purton wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've got a routing question. This is the setup:
>
> > But that didn't work either.
> >
> >
> > Can anybody expla
James Sinnamon wrote:
Also '/usr/sbin/tcpdump eth0' (or '/usr/sbin/tcpdump -i eth1')
(don't think it will work with ppp0) is another debugging tool.
Ethereal is another tool, similar to tcpdump, which gives more readable output.
tethereal is the termial (command line) version of ethereal if you d
Until someone more knowledgeable replies ...
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:02 am, David Purton wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've got a routing question. This is the setup:
> But that didn't work either.
>
>
> Can anybody explain to me what is going wrong or how to fix it?
I have done something similar, but don
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When ppp is started, these messages are recorded
in the syslog.
... pppd[n]: Couldn't set pass-filter in kernel:
Invalid argument
... pppd[n]: not replacing existing default route
to eth0[192.168.1.1]
... pppd[n]: Cannot determine eth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When ppp is started, these messages are recorded
in the syslog.
... pppd[n]: Couldn't set pass-filter in kernel:
Invalid argument
... pppd[n]: not replacing existing default route
to eth0[192.168.1.1]
... pppd[n]: Cannot determine eth
Peter Easthope writes:
> Does anyone recognize the problem or have a suggestion?
Yes. You or some script erroneously created a default route to your LAN.
Get rid of it. You neither need nor want it.
Ignore the pass-filter and proxy arp messages.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
D
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
>> 2. DDTC (Dynamic Dns)
>> I used a script that send my public ip back to http://www.ddts.net
>> where i
>> had a hostname associated with my server. Now my router has that
>> external
>> ip and not my gateway server. The router has support for Dynamic DNS
>> but the
>> ma
Benedict Verheyen wrote:
> As for my questions:
> 1. ROUTING
I solved all this by changing the ip of eth1 to 192.168.1.1 and thus
really assigning a different network to eth1.
Then i changed all scripts that used to have the 192.168.0.1 ip in them.
(grep "192.168.0.1" -R /etc) and it all worked.
"Cosmin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
(Please don't post to the list in HTML; plain text is fine.)
(Summary: external router machine has external address 82.77.83.33/27,
with routable internal network 81.196.166.97/29 and internal NAT
network
Cosmin wrote:
> [...]
> I have received only five ip-s to use on my LAN: 81.196.166.98 - 102
> on netmask 255.255.255.248 but I have 15 computers. The rest of them
> use IP-s like 192.168.1.1 to 15
>
> I have configured the file /etc/init.d/firewall like this:
>
> iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -s
Do the computers with network 192.168.1.0/24 has gateway 81.196.166.97
So if it has your problem is here.
You need use the gateway in the same network of yours computers. Ex:
IP 192.168.1.10
GW 192.168.1.1
I recomend to you add a new network card in your server with this IP (192.168.1.1).
Hu
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:23:38AM -0500, Debian User wrote:
> can someone help me as to what i have neglected?
Maybe none of these, maybe all:
(0) Reading the Networking HOWTO
(1) Assuring it's OK to use the 192.168.*.* within your network @ work
(or isolating it (Masquerading-Simple-HOWT
Greg Folkert wrote:
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 03:39, Mark Devin wrote:
I am having some trouble getting routing to work properly on a box with
three network connections. One, eth0, is connected to a router and is
the default gateway. Another, ppp0 (eth1 - ADSL) is connected to a
private network o
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 03:39, Mark Devin wrote:
> I am having some trouble getting routing to work properly on a box with
> three network connections. One, eth0, is connected to a router and is
> the default gateway. Another, ppp0 (eth1 - ADSL) is connected to a
> private network on the 192.168
"Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Situation:
Okay, your diagram got a little botched up on this end, but you've got
a gateway interconnecting the three private LANs, and you've got a
Debian box---the only connection to the outside world---with eth0 on
the 192.168.8 net and the rest of t
pile the kernel. Any doc's on that?
Thanks again.
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Buhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Routing
> &quo
Mark Maas wrote:
[snip]
When I use the MS pptp client and login to the pptpd server on this machine
i can ping all networks from the client, but cannot reach the internet.
Pinging google.nl results in the name beeing resolved to the ip adress of
google.nl but the request don't ever reach google.n
"Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> When I use the MS pptp client and login to the pptpd server on this machine
> i can ping all networks from the client, but cannot reach the internet.
> Pinging google.nl results in the name beeing resolved to the ip adress of
> google.nl but the request
]>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Routing
> "Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > This is what my table looked like:
> >
> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Me
"Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> This is what my table looked like:
>
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse
> Iface
> localnet* 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth0
> 217.149.32.0*
?
>
> Just keep: route add -net 192.168.3.0/24 eth0 ?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Buhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, September 05,
Kevin Buhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: Routing
> Kevin Buhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > route add -net 192.168.3.0 netm
David Z Maze wrote:
"Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
when only eth0 is up I can reach my local lan, 192.168.8.0-255, the
lan of another firm, 192.168.3.0-255 and yet another firm,
10.1.0.0-255.
But when I bring up eth1, I can only reach my local lan, and not the
other two anymore.
Kevin Buhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> route add -net 192.168.3.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 eth0
Oh, and David Z Maze is probably correct. Even if this works, it
probably isn't what you want to do anyway.
When you only brought "eth0" up and were able to reach the
192.168.3/24 and 10.1.0
"Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Ok thanks, tried it but I get:
>
> SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument
>
> when I issue:
> route add -net 192.168.3.0 eth0
Include the netmask anyway:
route add -net 192.168.3.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 eth0
or, if you prefer the short version (CIDR sty
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 08:30, Mark Maas wrote:
> Ok thanks, tried it but I get:
>
> SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument
>
> when I issue:
> route add -net 192.168.3.0 eth0
>
> man route tells me:
> route add -net 192.56.76.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0
> adds a route to the network 192.
"Mark Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. (*) text/plain ( ) text/html
(Please post to the list in plain text only, not HTML, and set your
mailer to wrap lines at 72 columns.)
> when only eth0 is up I can reach my local lan, 192.168.8.0-255, the
> lan of another firm, 192
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Routing
> 0, Mark Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał:
> > Now how do I tell Debian to route all traffic for 192.168.3.0-255 and
10.1.0.0-255 over the eth0 interface?
> wha
0, Mark Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał:
> Now how do I tell Debian to route all traffic for 192.168.3.0-255 and 10.1.0.0-255
> over the eth0 interface?
what You need is something like this
route add -net 192.168.3.0-255 eth0
or similar, try man route
--
with regards
Lukasz Hejnak
[EMAIL PROTEC
John Von Essen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The 3 computers are configured with IP's 192.168.1.100-102. They have 192.
> 168.1.1 as the default router address. The *.101 and *.102 machines
> are end user, Mac and Win98. The *.100 is running Debian Linux with
> tunnelv. The machine has 192.168.1.10
Doug MacFarlane schreibt:
On 11 Dec 2002, 11:57:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Server (with debian 3.0 ofcourse, kernel 2.4.20 ) has got two
network-adapter. The ip's on this adapters are in seperated subnets. NIC A
ist the def.gw. The machine is running two webservers (apache). A forwarding
On 11 Dec 2002, 11:57:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Server (with debian 3.0 ofcourse, kernel 2.4.20 ) has got two
> network-adapter. The ip's on this adapters are in seperated subnets. NIC A
> ist the def.gw. The machine is running two webservers (apache). A forwarding
> between the NIC sho
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
