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: SHA256
Debian GNU/Linux (Buster)
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 /e
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:07 PM, wrote:
> Hello folks
>
> I have following setup:
>
> DMZ public IP 4
> DMZ public IP 3
> |
> Internet---br0, public IP 1 (eth0 is internet side and eth1 is DMZ side)
> br0:0, public IP 2---nat (eth2)---private IP
>
>
Hello folks
I have following setup:
DMZ public IP 4
DMZ public IP 3
|
Internet---br0, public IP 1 (eth0 is internet side and eth1 is DMZ side)
br0:0, public IP 2---nat (eth2)---private IP
Problem is that sometimes (a 2-4 times in a day) DMZ publ
-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
Title: routing problem
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 it is
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.
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 is a Win2K machine, and it routes connections from the
l
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
Hi!
i have 1 box, with 2 eth cards, both are in the same
lan.
eth0 192.168.1.1
eth1 192.168.1.10
i want to use it as dns server (eth0) and webserver
(eth1). And ssh on both interfaces.
bind conf:
listen-on {148.247.153.1;}
apache conf:
Listen 192.168.1.10:80
#netstat -rn
Kernel IP routing
> I am willing to collect and explain what I did to get it
> working but it
> may take a little time (a couple of days) to make sure I get
> everything
> and to go over it so I can understand it again. And just now having a
> look at the routing table shows a couple of duplicate and/or
> conf
Peter Coppens wrote:
From: Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can possibly use ARP to get B to listen for A's packets and route
them accordingly.
For example I have the following setup:
LAN-1 <--> LAN-2 <--> router <--> internet
All hosts on LAN-1 can talk to all hosts on LAN-2 and all hosts
Brett,
Thanks for the suggestion. Would you be able to share details on how you
configured your systems?
Tx,
Peter
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:41 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re
Hendrik Sattler wrote:
Peter Coppens wrote:
I assume you missed to add a route on R for the net of A pointing
to B.
Yes...that is probably what is wrong. Problem is I don't have enough
privileges on the router to do that. Seems I am stuck, sigh.
You can do NAT for A on B or install a prox
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 06:48:00AM -0400, Peter Coppens wrote:
> > Or maybe you can make B act like a bridge instead of a router
> > and put A
> > on 192.168.1.0/24.
>
> I have attempted to use brctl on B to bridge eth0 and wlan0 and
> something seems to work...something meaning when I do dhclie
> Or maybe you can make B act like a bridge instead of a router
> and put A
> on 192.168.1.0/24.
I have attempted to use brctl on B to bridge eth0 and wlan0 and
something seems to work...something meaning when I do dhclient on A it
gets an address from R.
After that I can however still not ping
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 05:16:35AM -0400, Peter Coppens wrote:
>
>Debian (network) fans,
>
>
>
>I am strugging with a basic routing problem
>
>
>
>I have two machines and a router which is connected to the internet.
[..]
>Anybody any sug
Peter Coppens wrote:
>> I assume you missed to add a route on R for the net of A pointing
>> to B.
>
> Yes...that is probably what is wrong. Problem is I don't have enough
> privileges on the router to do that. Seems I am stuck, sigh.
You could enable NAT on B; in that case, the router doesn't
Peter Coppens wrote:
>> I assume you missed to add a route on R for the net of A pointing
>> to B.
> Yes...that is probably what is wrong. Problem is I don't have enough
> privileges on the router to do that. Seems I am stuck, sigh.
You can do NAT for A on B or install a proxy on B.
HS
--
To
Schütter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 1:11 PM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Basic routing problem
>
> Hello Peter,
>
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 05:16:35 -0400
> "Peter Coppens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Hello Peter,
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 05:16:35 -0400
"Peter Coppens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Debian (network) fans,
>
> I am strugging with a basic routing problem
>
> I have two machines and a router which is connected to the internet.
>
> A &l
Debian (network)
fans,
I am strugging with
a basic routing problem
I have two machines
and a router which is connected to the internet.
A <--> B <--> R <->
Internet
- A is connected to
B through eth0, static IP 192.168.2.2
- B is connected to
A through eth0, sta
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
Hi guys,
I Wonder if I could pick your minds for a moment with a routing problem
I am having.
I've been asked to setup a VPN for a client to so they can log into
their linux server from home.
That part of things I was able to handle no problems. Now he wants to be
able to use VNCviewer to
"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
Hy
I`m using the latest version of Debian Linux
installed on a computer which has as a main role router for
internet.
I have a special configuration that was given to me
by my ISP:
The eth0 has the following specifications (and it
is used as a interface to my ISP)
IP: 82.77.83.35
Netmask:
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
Hi,
hope, my question is not offtopic.
Here is my situation:
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
On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 04:30:58PM +, Doug MacFarlane wrote:
> 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 ne
it only needs a default
> route to buster and buster can forward connections to the firewall.
>
> > is this a routing problem, or am i looking endlessly in the wrong place?
> > i am at a dead stop. i would so appreciate some pointers.
> >
> > thanks in advance.
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
0 0 eth0
> 0.0.0.0 10.42.42.2540.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth0
remove 10.42.43 routes
> bilbo can ping the world and buster but not into the cluster.
>
> (i realize that i will have to add a route to the firewall to the cluster
t; (i realize that i will have to add a route to the firewall to the cluster
> but that can wait till c0n1 can ping bilbo!)
The cluster doesn't need a route to the firewall, it only needs a default
route to buster and buster can forward connections to the firewall.
> is this a routing
.0.0.0 10.42.42.2540.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth0
bilbo can ping the world and buster but not into the cluster.
(i realize that i will have to add a route to the firewall to the cluster
but that can wait till c0n1 can ping bilbo!)
is this a routing problem, or am i looking e
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
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 00 eth0
xx.xxx.239.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00
the problem is solved, but i don't understand why. the reason for the
weird pings from 192.168.31.2 to 192.168.14.1, which resulted in:
echo request: 192.168.31.2 -> 192.168.14.1
echo reply: 192.168.14.1 -> 192.168.14.1
but which weren't a problem the other way:
echo request: 192.168.1
and any other host on 192.168.14.0/24 can not ping
192.168.14.1 with the static routes in place. if i remove the
static routes on the router, then everything's fine.
this looks to me like a massive linux routing problem, or i really
screwed up (which is hard to imagine for i've done this t
hi debian folk, i am in desperate need of your wisdom, patience, and
help!
i have a network setup as follows:
212.54.xxx.12 192.168.14.1
|
|
|
192.168.14.31
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
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 Iface
localnet* 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth1
localnet*
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
lets start with network topology:
/\/\/\/\/\
< internet >
\/\/\/\/\/
|
|
-
| box A |
-
| 192
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
Thanks folks!
After I discovered linuxconf, and played a little with its network menu, I
could suddenly connect to the internet.
Any volunteer who would help me to exchange my SuSE router with Debian?
Regards,
Klaus
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?
>
>
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?
Cheers,
Klaus
Thank you very much for the reply.
Your suggestion fixed my problem.
I guess I misunderstood the option
'noipdefault'.
Again, thanks for the help.
--- Original Message ---
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: PPP configuration and
Russ writes:
> Route -n shows the ppp0 configured with the same local and remote IP
> addresses as shown in options.ttyS1.
I assume that your modem is on ttyS1?
> I initiate a connection with PON, the PPP0 interface is not properly
> configured. Route -n shows the ppp0 configured with the same l
I recently did a fresh install of Debian on a machine which serves
as the internet gateway for my lan. The version installed was
Debian2.2R2. This machine is a dial-up gateway and
ip-masquerader for my other machines. The problem is that when
I initiate a connection with PON, the PPP0 interfa
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
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 192.168.1.10 in
/etc/network/interfaces. When I am p
Duh...thanks for pointing out the obvious...I knew that it had to be something
simple! I now remember changing ezekiel's gateway to bethel (.11) when I
needed to temporarily take ariel down for a harddrive change. I hadn't used
the laptop since that time, and I evidently forgot to change the gate
> Internet
> |
> | (external NIC)
> |
> ariel
> | |
>(192.168.1.10) | | (192.168.247.10) <--- (two internal NICs)
> | |
> | |
> ezekiel:/home/thoover# route -n
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse
Iface
> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00
eth0
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.110.0.0.0 UG0 0
, but neither ezekiel nor
woody can ping paltiel (which I think confirms a routing problem). For some
reason ariel is able to properly route between paltiel and either taz or noah,
but not between paltiel and either ezekiel or woody. All machines can connect
to ariel, and ariel can connect to all o
rawing for box3.
Where does it go and what network is that connected to?
good luck!
-Matt
-Original Message-
From: Friedrich Clausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2001 12:58 AM
To: Mark Janssen
Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Routing problem.
Hi,
Sure, I s
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
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.
Mateusz Mazur
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
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 map.
It should illustrate my problem.
LAN
Hi.
When I upgraded to testing, I got ppp-2.4.0along with it.
Once this version of ppp was installed, the routing no longer worked
properly. In particular, with ppp-2.4.0 I get the following behavior:
-
[... not connected to anything ...]
dkatz [~] $ /sb
Hi,
I have a little problem with my ISDN internet connection. The ISDN-Card
is set up (ippp0) and I can connect to the ISP. Furthermore I have an
ethernet card, connected to a local network. My problem is, that I do
not know how to configure the Debian routing table to get the
IP-Packages using th
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
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
computer on the school network. The gateway's ip
address is 192.168.1.12 (er,
On 26 Jul 2000, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
->> "Nagarjuna" == Nagarjuna G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
->
->Nagarjuna> It is unthinkable for us that a machine can forward packets
->Nagarjuna> without itself able to approach the router. !!! Pl mail if
->Nagarjuna> you require more information on this
> "Nagarjuna" == Nagarjuna G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Nagarjuna> It is unthinkable for us that a machine can forward packets
Nagarjuna> without itself able to approach the router. !!! Pl mail if
Nagarjuna> you require more information on this.
Post the output of "netstat -rn" on the gatew
Hi ,
This is regarding a routing problem that has cropped up since yesterday
(using potato). The setup is as follows
There are 3 entities involved in the configuration of the network
a)The Router which connects to the internet
b)The gateway which routes the packets for the entire network to the
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
I have added an extra ethernet card to one of our Linux servers so that it
can route packets between our two public Internet networks. It has been
performing the job just fine for a few weeks but I have just noticed that
one of the interfaces does not respond from outside our networks.
To illustr
Administrator
Fuller Theological Seminary
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Simon Law wrote:
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:10:47 -0500
> From: Simon Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Debian User
> Subject: Routing Problem
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I see
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
