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'
-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
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
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
"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
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
On 04 Oct 2002, 19:35:14, Kourosh wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:24:51PM -0600, dave mallery wrote:
> Have you enabled IP forwarding on buster? Do you have firewalling enabled
> on buster?
The answer is that you need to configure Buster to function as a router.
Just configuring Buster to b
dave mallery wrote:
>
> next (and last) here's bilbo, a sarge machine on the home front:
>
> bilbo:/>> route -n
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Iface
> 10.42.43.0 10.42.42.112255.255.255.0 UG0 0 0 eth0
> 1
hi ya
yuppers.. agree on all point you make..
problem is the gw is slight misconfigured ..
based on the routes listed...
a cluster on its own private lan needs its own ip#..
( say 10.42.42.* ) and one of them (buster) goes to the fw
on say 10.42.43.*
in its current config... that is not the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 07:40:37PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> hiya dave
>
> quick glance... and some guesswork
>
> - a machine should always be able to ping itself
> ( 10.32.32.x or 10.42.43.x
> ( evben with the nic cable disconnected )
>
> - c0n1 does not have a 10.42.42.0 route
hiya dave
quick glance... and some guesswork
- a machine should always be able to ping itself
( 10.32.32.x or 10.42.43.x
( evben with the nic cable disconnected )
- c0n1 does not have a 10.42.42.0 routes
and it has 10.42.43.* gateway ( wrong ?? )
- i think either eth1(43.*
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:24:51PM -0600, dave mallery wrote:
> hi
>
> now i believe myself to be a fairly experienced deb user. this is
> humiliating:
Not really, these things happen to everyone =)
> 10.42.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth0
> 0.0.0.0 10
also sprach Derrick 'dman' Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.06.12.0412 +0200]:
> Looking at that routing table, it looks like you have the same (well,
> overlapping) subnet on 2 interfaces. Linux doesn't like having
> multiple interfaces on the same subnet, unless you do channel bonding.
> My gues
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 11:11:57PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
| hi wizards!
|
| any clue on this one:
|
| gw2:~# route -n
| Kernel IP routing table
| Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
| xx.xxx.239.144 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0
Have the route you're trying to delete in the routing table?
--
Sincerely,
David Smead
http://www.amplepower.com.
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Baris Metin wrote:
> Hello;
>
> I try to delete a routing entry but get the fallowing :
>
> tiger:/etc/samba# route
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination
Baris Metin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello;
>
> I try to delete a routing entry but get the fallowing :
>
> tiger:/etc/samba# route
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Ifa=
> ce
> localnet* 255.255.255.0
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
> As I'm goin on the assumption you want Box C to have an option
>of which network (.9/24 or .7/24) go through and as they are equal hop
>count but obviously different bandwidth I would be tempt'd to suggest
>possibly running zebra on the three mach
Obviously the issue resolves around the default gateway setup
on the machines... Box A should obviously have the ultimate default
gateway as it has the internet access directly... Box B should go to Box
A if it isn't destined for either network 192.168.9/24 or 192.168.7/24
which would go ou
Howdy
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:10:25PM -0800, Klaus Neumann wrote:
> Maybe I should have mentioned that I'm using kernel 2.4.17 in Potato?
To run 2.4.x kernels on potato, you'll need some newer kernel-related
packages, including things like iptables, and most importantly
modutils. Have a look
Klaus Neumann, 2002-Jan-17 18:10 -0800:
> On Thursday 17 January 2002 03:44 am, Jeff wrote:
> > Klaus Neumann, 2002-Jan-16 22:07 -0800:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I just replaced my SuSE with Debian potato on my second computer (B).
> > > Using computer A, still SuSE installed as router. I can ping from
On Thursday 17 January 2002 03:44 am, Jeff wrote:
> Klaus Neumann, 2002-Jan-16 22:07 -0800:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just replaced my SuSE with Debian potato on my second computer (B).
> > Using computer A, still SuSE installed as router. I can ping from A to B
> > without problem. If I ping from B to A,
Klaus Neumann, 2002-Jan-16 22:07 -0800:
> Hi,
>
> I just replaced my SuSE with Debian potato on my second computer (B). Using
> computer A, still SuSE installed as router. I can ping from A to B without
> problem. If I ping from B to A, I loose 30% to 55% packets. What am I doing
> wrong?
>
>
Dear Christoph,
Tnx friend. That was the problem. I was extensively
using ipchians to make this box a gateway with
firewalling. I slipped this. Thanks again.
Regards,
Deb
--- Christoph Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
> Debian GNU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:16:40PM -0300, Christoph Simon wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
> Debian GNU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > If it would have been a permission probelem, I would
> > not have been able to access the other networks. I did
> > as both root and ordina
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Debian GNU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If it would have been a permission probelem, I would
> not have been able to access the other networks. I did
> as both root and ordinary user. But both gave the same
> results.
Do you have some firewall rules ins
And is does the ping works propperly to others systems in the network?
greetz,
kim
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Debian GNU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vrijdag 29 juni 2001 4:05
Aan: Miguel Griffa; debian-user@lists.debian.org
Onderwerp: Re: Routing Problem
If it would have
If it would have been a permission probelem, I would
not have been able to access the other networks. I did
as both root and ordinary user. But both gave the same
results.
Deb
--- Miguel Griffa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:49 a.m. 28/06/01 -0700, Debian GNU wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >My machi
At 12:49 a.m. 28/06/01 -0700, Debian GNU wrote:
Hi all,
My machine running potato has rtl8139 network card. I
have configured it as eth0 and eth0:0 with two ip
addresses. I am able to ping to machines in two ip
ranges and working fine. Now I have added one more
alias as eth0:0 with ip address 19
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 12:57:47PM +0100, Mateusz Mazur wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I would like to thanx for all replay for my mesg. If I will be have some
> another problems I will be write to this list ;). Polish mailing list and
> newsgroup aren't so kind.
sometimes folks around here get a bit uppity
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:19:06PM +0100, Mateusz Mazur wrote:
> Hello.
> I will be very, very greatfull for your help. I'am newbie and I have big
> trouble (big for me of course). I would also apologize for my english. I'am
> from Poland and english isn't my nativ language. Here is some kind of ma
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:19:06PM +0100, Mateusz Mazur wrote:
> Hello.
> I will be very, very greatfull for your help. I'am newbie and I have
> big trouble (big for me of course). I would also apologize for my
> english. I'am from Poland and english isn't my nativ language. Here
> is some kind of
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:19:06PM +0100, Mateusz Mazur wrote:
> Hello.
> I will be very, very greatfull for your help. I'am newbie and I have big
> trouble (big for me of course). I would also apologize for my english. I'am
> from Poland and english isn't my nativ language. Here is some kind of ma
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:04:27AM +0100, Sian Leitch wrote
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 02:27:47AM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
> >
> > I'd check your ipchains/ipfwadm rules.
> >
> > If you're running kernel 2.0.x, what does the output of
> > # ipfwadm -I -l -e
> > # ipfwadm -O -l -e
> > # ipfwadm -F
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 02:27:47AM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
>
> I'd check your ipchains/ipfwadm rules.
>
> If you're running kernel 2.0.x, what does the output of
> # ipfwadm -I -l -e
> # ipfwadm -O -l -e
> # ipfwadm -F -l -e
>
> look like?
>
> If you're running kernel 2.2.x, what does the ou
> Weird.
Yah! :)
> Firstly, can you ping hosts out on the
> 192.168.0. network?
Yes, there is a computer at 192.168.0.16 that i am
able to ping.
>Is your cabling okay?
It appears so. The gateway computer (the one with the
ping problem) actually gets its ip address for eth0
(192.168.1.12 for
On Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 04:37:50AM -0700, Peter Welte wrote
> hey there...
>
> I have a linux computer that is supped to act as a
> gateway to a school network and the internet for some
> linux clients, but im having this problem right now
> where the gateway itself can't even ping another
> compu
At 04:37 AM 8/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
##here is the out put of netstat -nr:
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U0 0 0 eth0
192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U0 0 0 eth1
looks correct
##In case i
I guess you should add routes:
On the incoming machine: (10.0.0.1 / 11.0.0.1)
10.0.0.0* 255.255.255.0 eth0
11.0.0.0* 255.255.255.192 eth1
Instead of 10.0.0.2 and 11.0.0.2
Ron Rademaker
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Fraser Campbell wrote:
> I have added an e
It looks to me like you need to set up the slink box to masqeurade for
your 192.168.2 network. The machines on the other side of your linux
machine have no idea what to do with a source address from your private
network. There is a how-to and kernel docs on this.
Ernest Johanson
Web Systems Admini
Mark Brown writes:
> If you are using diald it's easiest to *only* use diald. In your diald
> configuration, you shouldn't be using something like
> connect "/usr/sbin/chat -f /etc/chatscripts/"
That works just fine.
> diald starts pppd itself, and the connect program should simply bring the
>
Christopher Clark writes:
> The reference to sl0 is presumably diald.
Why are you trying to dial out with diald running?
> Could anybody give my a pointer please.
If you really need to dial out with diald running and establish a default
route over the ppp link, put route commands in ip-up.d and
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 07:46:04PM +0100, Christopher Clark wrote:
> dialing out (e.g. using pon) connects ok to my ISP and negotiates PPP
> The reference to sl0 is presumably diald.
> Could anybody give my a pointer please.
If you are using diald it's easiest to *only* use diald. In your diald
The installation menu provides a prototype network number made from the
logical AND of your IP address and your netmask. If the user types in the
wrong netmask or overrides the prototype network number (which I think is
what happened here), they can get an incorrect value. I'll have to look at
this
> : NETWORK=129.186.31.38
>
> IPADDR as the same as the NETWORK address?? Strange, isn't it?
err, forgot about this in the message i just sent.
On these machines, i found that i had to use their own address as teh
network address, rather than the .0 address; otherwise they wouldn't
talk to anyt
> The reason the last "route add -net ${NETWORK}" is not working is that it
> is expecting a network address (ending in .0) and it is getting a host
> address instead. In the above example, change the "NETWORK=129.186.31.38"
> line to "NETWORK=129.186.31.0" and things should work. If this is i
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Rick Hawkins wrote:
> Under the beta releases with 1.3.9x, the following file is created:
>
> #! /bin/sh
> ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
> route add 127.0.0.1
> IPADDR=129.186.31.38
> NETMASK=255.255.255.0
> NETWORK=129.186.31.38
> BROADCAST=129.186.31.255
> GATEWAY=129.186.31.
58 matches
Mail list logo
