Stefan Janecek wrote:
> uh,uh. things start getting complicated, especially because i missed the
> beginning of the thread. from what i can figure out, your configuration
> is the following:
>GOOFY
> (192.168.1.1)eth0 eth1(192.168.2.1)
>
In a galaxy not too far away, robert_wilhelm_land spoke on Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at
01:31:16PM +0100:
>
> What does "bind for domain name resolution" mean? Does the mashine
> want to contact a internet nameserver?
yes, that's exactly what it means.
>
> Surprising that today after boot-up GOOFY _can_
Robert wrote:
> If your problem is that name service isn't working (despite the hosts file),
> it could be that Goofy is trying to find mini and mickey on the internet,
> where they are not visible. I suggest not using a valid internet domain.
> I'd suggest "orion.home" or something more creative
This advice applies to /etc/host.conf, not resolve.conf.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 08:42:34AM -0600, Robert Guthrie wrote:
> ... Something else to
> look at first is your /etc/resolve.conf*. It should contain a line like
> "order hosts,bind", which tells it to look first in /etc/hosts, and then
On Thursday 16 November 2000 07:41, robert_wilhelm_land wrote:
> MICKEY can ping GOOFY because of using the local C:\windows\hosts
> MINI can ping GOOFY because of using the local /etc/hosts
>
> But GOOFY cannot ping MICKEY or MINI by name although GOOFY's
> /etc/hosts containes:
>
> #file /etc/hos
Robert Guthrie wrote:
> If you could give an example (including ascii diagrams) of what you're trying
> to accomplish, and and explanation of what advantage you hope to get from
> that setup, maybe we can get closer to understanding what you really want to
> do. I don't think I'm really qualified
On Friday 10 November 2000 14:48, Robert Guthrie wrote:
> As you may have figured out, having 2 NICs on the same subnet would not do
> anything for you. The computer with 2 NICs would either recieve duplicate
> packets, and have to do double the work (forwarding duplicate packets), or
> it would h
On Friday 10 November 2000 08:27, robert_wilhelm_land wrote:
> Robert Guthrie wrote:
... An analogy that illustrated a wrong concept...
> Exactly what I assumed.
>
... and another bad analogy illustrating what really does happen on a single
network (no gateway involved).
>
> I'm not to sure if
Robert Guthrie wrote:
> Okay, this I know about:
> On an ethernet network every packet of information that is transmitted by a
> computer is visible to all NICs on the network. For a NIC to actually accept
> a packet for it's machine, the packet must be addressed to that NIC's MAC
> address (the
Stefan Janecek wrote:
> > Mostly, I just share home out so that I have the same www bookmarks, same
> > mail folders, and same custom scripts (under ~/bin) available to me. There
> > are lots of issues when you do this kind of thing, though (you have to make
> > sure your /etc/group and /etc/pass
In a galaxy not too far away, Robert Guthrie spoke on Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at
01:29:24PM -0600:
> On Thursday 09 November 2000 12:05, robert_wilhelm_land wrote:
> > Robert Guthrie wrote:
> > > Now, I'm not quite sure what your setup is here, so let see if your setup
> > > is the same as mine...
> > >
On Thursday 09 November 2000 13:06, robert_wilhelm_land wrote:
> Does ipfowarding relate on something special compiled into the kernel
> or do I need a certain package?
Yes and Yes. Read the howto documents on IP-Masquerading and IP-Chains.
Then re-read them, then meditate and pray for understa
On Thursday 09 November 2000 12:05, robert_wilhelm_land wrote:
> Robert Guthrie wrote:
> > Now, I'm not quite sure what your setup is here, so let see if your setup
> > is the same as mine...
> >
> > 1 linux box, serving NFS and SMB to 2 desktops that dual-boot linux and
> > windows 98.
> >
> > Und
Robert Guthrie wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 November 2000 23:21, John wrote:
> >
> > As far as i know you will have to use 2 subnets and if you want the
> > 192.168.0.xxx range to be able to talk
> > to the 192.168.1.xxx range you will need to do ipforwarding between the 2.
> >
> >
> I agree with this
John wrote:
> Ok ill have a go,
>
> I think its something like this :) ?
>
> for each IP number bound to each NIC a route is set up in the routing table
> to tell
> the OS what to do with specific IP numbers
>
> ie if NIC1=192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0
>
> and NIC2=192.168.1.1/255.255.255.0
>
> t
On Wednesday 08 November 2000 23:21, John wrote:
>
> As far as i know you will have to use 2 subnets and if you want the
> 192.168.0.xxx range to be able to talk
> to the 192.168.1.xxx range you will need to do ipforwarding between the 2.
>
>
I agree with this assessment.
>
> robert_wilhelm_land
Ok ill have a go,
I think its something like this :) ?
for each IP number bound to each NIC a route is set up in the routing table to
tell
the OS what to do with specific IP numbers
ie if NIC1=192.168.0.1/255.255.255.0
and NIC2=192.168.1.1/255.255.255.0
then routes would be set up for each su
Would someone kindly help me in understanding why I cannot configure
two ethernet cards using the same subnet but different IP's on one
mashine?
In this case I would like to setup a linux server for a smb-win32 and
a nfs-nfs connection (in all 3 mashines)
Any short comment is appreciated
Robert
18 matches
Mail list logo
