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
On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 17:02, shock wrote:
> * Michael Heldebrant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> >
> > I am guessing that the problem must be on the interfaces on
> > the debian machine. What does ifconfig on the debian machine show?
>
> # ifconfig eth0
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWadd
* Michael Heldebrant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
>
> I am guessing that the problem must be on the interfaces on
> the debian machine. What does ifconfig on the debian machine show?
# ifconfig eth0
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:C0:F0:57:C9:AF
inet addr:192.168.1.99 Bc
On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 14:21, shock wrote:
> * Michael Heldebrant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> >
> > Everything looks ok so far. Routing information is the only thing left
> > that I can think of.
>
> any specific flags i should be passing the route command? here's a
> brief one:
>
> [EM
* Michael Heldebrant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
>
> Everything looks ok so far. Routing information is the only thing left
> that I can think of.
any specific flags i should be passing the route command? here's a
brief one:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] stephen]# /sbin/route -ee
Kernel IP routing t
On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 11:34, shock wrote:
> * Michael Heldebrant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> >
> > What is the default policy for the input and output chains on "a".
> > ipchains -L -v -n output will show this.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] stephen]# /sbin/ipchains -L -v -n
> Chain input (polic
* Michael Heldebrant ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
>
> What is the default policy for the input and output chains on "a".
> ipchains -L -v -n output will show this.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] stephen]# /sbin/ipchains -L -v -n
Chain input (policy ACCEPT: 3466 packets, 774392 bytes):
pkts bytes target
On Tue, 2001-11-27 at 23:39, shock wrote:
> * nate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> >
> > from the looks of the info you gave machine A and E are on
> > the same hub..the cables seem to work as they can both get to
> > the dsl..so my guess would be theres a incorrect netmask or
> > broadcast add
shock said:
> * nate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> the broadcast / netmask scenario you described (while potentially
> problematic) seems to be okay. unless i'm overlooking the obvious.
yeah seems network config is ok..only other thing i'd do is
run tcpdump on machine E and see what comes
* nate ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
>
> from the looks of the info you gave machine A and E are on
> the same hub..the cables seem to work as they can both get to
> the dsl..so my guess would be theres a incorrect netmask or
> broadcast address set on either A or E, and the DSL gateway
> doesn
shock said:
> however, machine e (192.168.1.99) cannot ping or otherwise see
> machine a (192.168.1.10). it can gateway through the router
> (192.168.1.254) but that's it. what do i need to do in order to
> allow machine e to see machine a?
from the looks of the info you gave machine A and E ar
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:58:48AM -0300, Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
:Hi.
:
:I've tried your configuration and now I can ping the second interface (eth1)
from the router, but not the other hosts. I run the following commands
:
:ifconfig eth1 200.16.224.3 netmask 255.255.255.255 up
:route add -host 20
Hi,
If there is a limited number a machine behind the firewall try this:
set the interface to the router normally
set the interface to the hub with a 255.255.255.255 mask, then add
static routes the the hosts behind this interface
I *think* that will work.
-Jon
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 03:55:58PM -0300, Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I have a subnet with real IPs and I want configure a firewall with two
> interfaces, the first one (eth0) connected to the router ant the other (eth1)
> connected to the hub. Two interfaces have the same subnetmask.
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 03:55:58PM -0300, Eduardo Gargiulo wrote:
> I have a subnet with real IPs and I want configure a firewall with two
> interfaces, the first one (eth0) connected to the router ant the other (eth1)
> connected to the hub. Two interfaces have the same subnetmask.
> When I
- Original Message -
From: "Eduardo Gargiulo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 7:55 PM
Subject: Routing question
> Hi all.
>
> I have a subnet with real IPs and I want configure a firewall with two
interfaces, the first one (eth0) connected to the router ant the o
Yo-
> Please do so. You could tell us *what* problems you have. What makes you
> "feel" something is wrong? How is the connection "corrupted"? What makes
> you think your routes are messed up.
I have a "bogus" connection sometimes as already stated.
By corrupted I mean that sometimes I be worki
> "i" == ian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
i> I think I am having a routing problem which is responsible for
i> "corrupting" my ISDN connection intermittently. I have ISDN with an
i> routed directly to the router. My current set-up is working but I feel
i> like something is wrong so I though
In your email to me, Pete Templin, you wrote:
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> I'm in the process of setting up a 486 sx/25 as a dialup router
> (with one modem and one network card). Unfortunately, the ISP can't seem
> to get the external routing right yet, so my testing is being held up.
>
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
