On 05/21/2008 06:13 PM, Walt L. Williams wrote:
Greetings
I have recently upgraded my computer's hardware.
After re-installing Debian Etch (64AMD). (I was running
on a seven year old AMD motherboard.) I found that
I now have to set the default route to ppp0 when I use
gnome-ppp by hand throug
Greetings
I have recently upgraded my computer's hardware.
After re-installing Debian Etch (64AMD). (I was running
on a seven year old AMD motherboard.) I found that
I now have to set the default route to ppp0 when I use
gnome-ppp by hand through a terminal window and
su, where I didn't have t
Hi
I have ipv6 setup on my network and I use static and dynamic addresses I use a
6to4 setup.
On my server I have
2002:::11::10 as my static
2002:::11:230:834f:beaf:1cd0 as my dynamic (setup with radvd)
routing info is
2002:::11::11 dev eth0 metric 1024 expires 182
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 di
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 h
Hi all,
I've got a routing question. This is the setup:
+--+
| Provider 1 |
+-| Analog Modem | Int
On Sunday 27 July 2003 20:10, Fraser Campbell wrote:
> On July 27, 2003 09:10 am, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
> > I'm trying to combine 2 linux firewalls/routers together. the final host
> > should have the following ports:
> >
> > 1. eth0 - 256kbps frame relay.
> > 2. ppp0 (via eth1) - pppoe ads
On July 27, 2003 09:10 am, Haim Ashkenazi wrote:
> I'm trying to combine 2 linux firewalls/routers together. the final host
> should have the following ports:
>
> 1. eth0 - 256kbps frame relay.
> 2. ppp0 (via eth1) - pppoe adsl with dhcp.
> 3. eth2-3 - 2 DMZ's.
> 4. eth4 -
Hi
I'm trying to combine 2 linux firewalls/routers together. the final host
should have the following ports:
1. eth0 - 256kbps frame relay.
2. ppp0 (via eth1) - pppoe adsl with dhcp.
3. eth2-3 - 2 DMZ's.
4. eth4 - localnet.
The default route is ppp0.
Here's the
* [my private subnet = rightsubnet]
Martin Edward John Waller wrote:
> --
>
> Subject: FreeS/Wan and masquerdaing routing question... (was desperate for
> help! freeswan attempt: can exhange keys but no access to other net
> aft
--- Begin Message ---
John Sullivan wrote:
>
>
> It looks like you're sending SYN packets but
> never receiving an ACK. My guess would be that
> the internal device does not know how to get to
> 192.168.201.0/24 or it does know but it knows
> wrongly, i.e., some router is sending the
> packets t
Hi folks,
I have the following network:
192.168.1.2 +--- eth1 192.168.1.1
|eth0 aaa.bbb.ccc.130 +--- real IP network
192.168.1.3 + Debian Router |
| +-aaa.bbb.ccc.129
192.168.1.4 +
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
i think, as time progresses, it is becoming increasingly obvious
that i don't /really/ know what i'm doing. i'm hoping there's an easy
fix, but i'm prepared for the long haul if necessary.
i have the following set up:
dsl modem - 192.168.1.254 (to hub)
machine a - 192.168.1.10 (to hub)
On 5 Sep 2001 21:06:32 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 5 Sep 2001 08:29:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >I can ping outside and inside networks from the router, and I can ping the
LAN
>> side of the router from a local computer, but I can't ping outside from the
>> local compute
> On 5 Sep 2001 08:29:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I can ping outside and inside networks from the router, and I can ping the
> >LAN
> side of the router from a local computer, but I can't ping outside from the
> local computer.
>
> You need SNAT ("ip masquerading") like this:
>
>
> >I can ping outside and inside networks from the router, and I can ping the
> >LAN
> side of the router from a local computer, but I can't ping outside from the
> local computer.
>
> You need SNAT ("ip masquerading") like this:
>
> if [ -n "$EXTERNAL" ]; then
> for ext in $EXTER
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:29:37AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I have two nics in a Debian 2.2 machine w/ kernel 2.4.9. eth0 is a
| Linksys Ether16 using the ne driver, eth1 is a Linksys 10/100 using
| the tulip driver. I'm trying to build a router and firewall using
| iptables. When I bri
On 5 Sep 2001 08:29:37 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I can ping outside and inside networks from the router, and I can ping the LAN
side of the router from a local computer, but I can't ping outside from the
local computer.
You need SNAT ("ip masquerading") like this:
if [ -n "$EXTERNAL
I have two nics in a Debian 2.2 machine w/ kernel 2.4.9. eth0 is a Linksys
Ether16 using the ne driver, eth1 is a Linksys 10/100 using the tulip driver.
I'm trying to build a router and firewall using iptables. When I bring up eth0
(connected to the cable modem) it works fine. I can take it
ard all packets from your host
straight to 10.10.6.1.
Regards,
Paul Mackinney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Lupa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 5:17 AM
Subject: simple routing question
I have the feeling that I just can'
I have the feeling that I just can't do what I want, but I figured I'd
ask to be sure...
I have a host with a static IP in the 10.10.8.* network. The router
for that network is 10.10.8.254. There is another router 10.10.6.1,
which can be reached through 10.10.8.254. What I would like to do is:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:06:35PM +0200, Hans wrote:
| Some advice needed, before I mess up big time.
I'm not very experienced, but ...
| At school I want to do
| $route add default gw 192.168.1.1:902 eth0
| so that all packet requests are put on
| through the proxy/firewall.
|
| Now back at
Hans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some advice needed, before I mess up big time.
>
> At home I have a small
> network with three machines: 192.168.1.1 till 192.168.1.3
>
> I want to take
> 192.168.1.2 to school and hook it up to the network there to do a dist
> upgrade (at home I have dial-up o
Some advice needed, before I mess up big time.
At home I have a small
network with three machines: 192.168.1.1 till 192.168.1.3
I want to take
192.168.1.2 to school and hook it up to the network there to do a dist
upgrade (at home I have dial-up only, school's free bandwidth). They have a
proxy/f
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) connec
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.
When I log to the router, I can ping eth0, but not eth1. Which is my problem
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface
> 192.168.3.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth2
according to then man-page and a real case in the last few days, this
should help:
route add -net 192.168.x.0/24 gw 192.168.x.1 eth?
(provi
Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>
> > Here's the ifconfig output:
> > ...
> it looks good.
>
> > Here's dmesg:
> > ...
> don't know, what the multicast errors mean, but they should be harmless.
> probably you got some dos tool to setup the card - try some options which
> seem to have something to do wi
> But I can't ping either of them from other boxes on their networks. I haven't
> implemented any type of firewall yet; I'm just trying to connect. The question
> is whether there is something wrong with the NICs or if it's something I
> haven't
> configured right (OK, I admit it--I'm a relative n
I'm setting up a gateway box with potato on a scavenged P75 box with one newer
Intel EtherExpress 10/100 PCI NIC (eth0) and two older Intel EtherExpress PRO/10
ISA NICs (eth1 and eth2). Target topology is a DMZ network and an internal
network, both masqueraded to the outside.
However, I've got pro
Thank you very much for your reply. The answers to most of your
questions were in the first email I sent. I tried to simplify it
by leaving out details, but apparently the details were what you
wanted to see.
In any case, my current network topology is this:
> [DSL]--[HUB]--[216.254.24.95]
>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 10:16:19AM -0500, Bill White wrote:
: Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but my problem is not fixed. I looked
: at the ICMP Masquerade Enabled setting in my kernel, and it appears to
: be enabled.
:
: I think that the problem I am having is:
: o I have a firewall machine, wi
Hi. Sorry to bother you again, but my problem is not fixed. I looked
at the ICMP Masquerade Enabled setting in my kernel, and it appears to
be enabled.
I think that the problem I am having is:
o I have a firewall machine, with an interface whose number is 192.168.2.10.
o I have machines on the s
On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 10:41:35AM -0500, Bill White wrote
> Hi. I have a routing question. I have tried this in various combinations,
> but I don't seem to have the right one.
>
> This is my desired HW and SW configuration.
> o One GNU/Linux firewall machine. This also h
Hi. I have a routing question. I have tried this in various combinations,
but I don't seem to have the right one.
This is my desired HW and SW configuration.
o One GNU/Linux firewall machine. This also has its own IP number. This
will also handle incoming email, ftp and web traffic
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
Yo-
I think I am having a routing problem which is responsible for
"corrupting" my ISDN connection intermittently. I have ISDN with an
Ascend Pipeline 50 router using NAT (network address translation) for a
dial-up connection. My desire is to have traffic not destined for the
internet to stay o
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.
>
>
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.
The question is this: I've compiled a lean, mean kernel with
55 matches
Mail list logo
