Re: sendmail configuration - how to route all mail through my ISP
- Original Message - From: dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lorin Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 10:32 PM Subject: Re: sendmail configuration - how to route all mail through my ISP On 26 Jan Lorin Lund wrote: I have a static IP and a domain but I can't send e-mail out directly because my ISP blocks it. I need to send all my e-mail out through my ISP. How do I tell sendmail to route all my mail out through my ISP's mail server? The smarthost option does what you ask for. However, I don't get how your ISP can block *outgoing* connects of your sendmail. Some isp's block incoming connects on 25. What he means is, that his ISP blocks all connects to port 25 which are not directed at their SMTP server. Fairly common practice, these days. Hence, he cannot send mail out using his own SMTP server. Many of my users had the same problem: their ISP would not allow them to connect to my SMTP server. That was easily solved, as I simply opened a second DaemonPort (sendmail), and offered my users to connect to that alternate port (in the high 7000+ region). That would allow THEM to bypass their ISP restriction. My server, of course, still sends out via port 25. So, setting his smarthost would indeed solve the problem, as his ISP will allow him to send through their own SMTP server. - Mark System Administrator Asarian-host.org --- If you were supposed to understand it, we wouldn't call it code. - FedEx To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: sendmail configuration - how to route all mail through my ISP
On 25 Jan Chris Phillips wrote: From: dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, I don't get how your ISP can block *outgoing* connects of your sendmail. Some isp's block incoming connects on 25. *** FYI *** FreeServe, Energis Demon are doing just this. I am informed that this kind of action is due to AOL getting uppety with Demon forcing them to restrict their network simliarly, due to AOL customers being SPAMMED by mail that appears to originate from Demon Networks... BT is doing similar to their dynamic IP customers... Thought this might interest a few of you ;-) Doesn't sound good. It sucks. Thought things were bad in Holland, but here some isp's only block incoming #25 (and that is easely beaten ;-)) And even that give quite a stirr.. and very few therefor do so. -- dick -- http://www.nagual.st/ -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE ++ Running FreeBSD 4.7 ++ Debian GNU/Linux (Woody) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:40:48PM +, Stacey Roberts wrote: I had a look at the attachment, but could see anything (to my eyes) that look untoward in there, except the fact that you've got maxusers set to 0. This value tells the kernel how many new file / processes can be opened. This definitely should be higher, probably somewhere around 132. What does /var/log/messages /var/log/security say whenever you try to access a remote host, or ping the local machine. If it were a firewall issue the attempts would have been logged there. Bump maxuers to 132 asap, and try seeing if anything gets logged when testing later. This from LINT: # The `maxusers' parameter controls the static sizing of a number of # internal system tables by a formula defined in subr_param.c. Setting # maxusers to 0 will cause the system to auto-size based on physical # memory. It seems to work pretty well on any and every box I have ever built, so unless your system has trouble determining the availalbe physical memory, my guess is you can just leave it as is. I am no kernel expert, mind, but I don't think fiddling with this setting while trying to fix another problem will help matters. Dan -- Daniel Bye PGP Key: ftp://ftp.slightlystrange.org/pgpkey/dan.asc PGP Key fingerprint: 3D73 AF47 D448 C5CA 88B4 0DCF 849C 1C33 3C48 2CDC _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) - against HTML, vCards and X - proprietary attachments in e-mail / \ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 01:22, Gene Bomgardner wrote: snipped thanks for the help. Now, care to take a shot at this one: Same machine, when I telnet to it (ie. telnet guardian1), regardless of kernel, I get the following: - td: send do AUTHENTICATION td: ttloop td: ttloop read 21 chars td: recv will NAWS td: send do NAWS td: recv will TSPEED td: send do TSPEED td: recv will TERMINAL TYPE td: send do TERMINAL TYPE td: recv will NEW-ENVIRON td: send do NEW-ENVIRON td: recv do ECHO td: send will ECHO td: recv will SUPPRESS GO AHEAD td: send do SUPPRESS GO AHEAD td: recv do SUPPRESS GO AHEAD td: send will SUPPRESS GO AHEAD td: ttloop td: ttloop read 3 chars td: recv wont AUTHENTICATION td: send will ENCRYPT td: send do XDISPLOC td: send do OLD-ENVIRON td: ttloop td: ttloop read 9 chars td: recv suboption NAWS 0 80 (80) 0 24 (24) td: ttloop td: ttloop read 9 chars td: recv dont ENCRYPT td: recv wont XDISPLOC td: recv wont OLD-ENVIRON td: send suboption TERMINAL-SPEED SEND td: send suboption NEW-ENVIRON SEND td: send suboption TERMINAL-TYPE SEND td: ttloop td: ttloop read 34 chars td: recv suboption TERMINAL-SPEED IS 38400,38400 td: recv suboption NEW-ENVIRON IS td: recv suboption TERMINAL-TYPE IS XTERM td: send do ECHO td: send do LINEMODE td: send will STATUS td: send do LFLOW td: ttloop td: ttloop read 12 chars td: recv wont ECHO td: recv wont LINEMODE td: recv dont STATUS td: recv wont LFLOW td: Entering processing loop FreeBSD/i386 (guardian1.ath.cx) (ttyp0) login: -- Then I type a character and get: td: netread 9 chars td: recv suboption NAWS 0 97 (97) 0 47 (47) ssh works like charm. Looks like some sort of debugging is running. Any idas? Thanks again. Hi Gene, Looks as if you've got debugging enabled on /usr/libexec/telnetd, for a start :-0 Regards, Staey God's Blessings, Gene To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.Ecl 3:1 - and more recently, The Byrds -- Stacey Roberts B.Sc (HONS) Computer Science Web: www.vickiandstacey.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
No route to host
Hi - hope someone can help - I've got 4.6 up on a laptop. With the Generic kernel all is well with networking. I then recompiled the kernel. the only changes made to the GENERIC file was the addition of the ipfw stuff (including default_to_accept) and the netgraph definitions. All compiled and installed without a hitch. However, any attempt to access the network (telnet, ping, whatever) results in No route to host. Even when trying to ping 127.0.0.1 Booting the original kernel back up restores networking. I get the feeling I've missed something. Any ideas? Thanks. God's Blessings, Gene To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.Ecl 3:1 - and more recently, The Byrds To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 18:00, Gene Bomgardner wrote: Hi - hope someone can help - I've got 4.6 up on a laptop. With the Generic kernel all is well with networking. I then recompiled the kernel. the only changes made to the GENERIC file was the addition of the ipfw stuff (including default_to_accept) and the netgraph definitions. All compiled and installed without a hitch. However, any attempt to access the network (telnet, ping, whatever) results in No route to host. Even when trying to ping 127.0.0.1 Booting the original kernel back up restores networking. I get the feeling I've missed something. Any ideas? Run an sdiff on both kernels and post the output so that members can take a look at the actual differences between the two kernels. Regards, Stacey Thanks. God's Blessings, Gene To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.Ecl 3:1 - and more recently, The Byrds To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message -- Stacey Roberts B.Sc (HONS) Computer Science Web: www.vickiandstacey.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
Did that. It really is set to accept all. On 29 Dec 2002 at 10:52, Sarah Woolley wrote: Someone had this problam a few days ago. It seems that although he thought his kernal was set default to accept, it really wasn't. You may want to try ipfw show to check and make sure it really is working that way. Sarah On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Gene Bomgardner wrote: To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
Gene Bomgardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Did that. It really is set to accept all. Can you send the output of 'netstat -rn', and perhaps of 'ipfw list' (just to make sure). norbert. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
On 29 Dec 2002 at 18:04, Stacey Roberts wrote:
Run an sdiff on both kernels and post the output so that members can
take a look at the actual differences between the two kernels.
sdiff only reports that the two binary files are different. I don't see
any options to force a display. Did you mean to run a diff on the
conf files? If so, they are attached as an rtf file.
Thanks.
God's Blessings,
Gene
To everything there is a season, and a time to every
purpose under heaven.Ecl 3:1 -
and more recently, The Byrds
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
File information ---
File: comp.rtf
Date: 29 Dec 2002, 15:19
Size: 52412 bytes.
Type: MS-Richtext
comp.rtf
Description: RTF file
Re: No route to host
On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 21:20, Gene Bomgardner wrote: On 29 Dec 2002 at 18:04, Stacey Roberts wrote: Run an sdiff on both kernels and post the output so that members can take a look at the actual differences between the two kernels. sdiff only reports that the two binary files are different. I don't see any options to force a display. Did you mean to run a diff on the conf files? If so, they are attached as an rtf file. Thanks. Hi Gene, Sorry, I did mean just diff. I had a look at the attachment, but could see anything (to my eyes) that look untoward in there, except the fact that you've got maxusers set to 0. This value tells the kernel how many new file / processes can be opened. This definitely should be higher, probably somewhere around 132. What does /var/log/messages /var/log/security say whenever you try to access a remote host, or ping the local machine. If it were a firewall issue the attempts would have been logged there. Bump maxuers to 132 asap, and try seeing if anything gets logged when testing later. Regards, Stacey But remem God's Blessings, Gene To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.Ecl 3:1 - and more recently, The Byrds __ The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. File information --- File: comp.rtf Date: 29 Dec 2002, 15:19 Size: 52412 bytes. Type: MS-Richtext -- Stacey Roberts B.Sc (HONS) Computer Science Web: www.vickiandstacey.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
Hi Gene, From what I've just been reading here, maxusers after about FreeBSD 4.5 can be safely left at 0 (as long as there is 64MB RAM), which replaces the previous default of 32. Could you post /etc/hosts the output from netstat -rn as well please? Cheers, Stacey -- Stacey Roberts B.Sc (HONS) Computer Science Web: www.vickiandstacey.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
Below is the output of ipfw show and netstat -rn - ipfw list 65535 allow ip from any to any netstat -nr Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.123.8 UGSc10 ed1 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1UH00 lo0 192.168.123link#6 UC 20 ed1 192.168.123.1 00:50:ba:c1:a0:4f UHLW00ed1 977 192.168.123.8 link#6 UHLW20ed1 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::1 ::1UH : lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0Uc lo0 fe80::1%lo0link#2 UHLlo0 fe80::%ed1/64link#6 UC ed1 fe80::204:acff:fe90:528e%ed1 00:04:ac:90:52:8e UHL lo0 ff01::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 UC lo0 ff02::%ed1/32 link#6 UC ed1 God's Blessings, Gene To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.Ecl 3:1 - and more recently, The Byrds To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
Hi Gene, Thanks for that information. Now, could you try pinging a remote host and 192.168.123.8, then check /var/log/messages /var/log/security to see if anything is recorded there, please? You should post any output from both files here. At the same time, post what is actually returned on screen as well. Regards, Stacey On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 00:18, Gene Bomgardner wrote: Below is the output of ipfw show and netstat -rn - ipfw list 65535 allow ip from any to any netstat -nr Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.123.8 UGSc10 ed1 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1UH00 lo0 192.168.123link#6 UC 20 ed1 192.168.123.1 00:50:ba:c1:a0:4f UHLW00ed1 977 192.168.123.8 link#6 UHLW20ed1 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::1 ::1UH lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 fe80::1%lo0Uc lo0 fe80::1%lo0link#2 UHLlo0 fe80::%ed1/64link#6 UC ed1 fe80::204:acff:fe90:528e%ed1 00:04:ac:90:52:8e UHL lo0 ff01::/32 ::1 U lo0 ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 UC lo0 ff02::%ed1/32 link#6 UC ed1 God's Blessings, Gene To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.Ecl 3:1 - and more recently, The Byrds To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message -- Stacey Roberts B.Sc (HONS) Computer Science Web: www.vickiandstacey.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
On 30 Dec 2002 at 0:44, Stacey Roberts wrote: Hi Gene, Thanks for that information. Found it. From the block of ipfw definitions, under ipfilter, options IPFILTER_DEFAULT_BLOCK #block all packets by Commented it out, recompiled and voila. thanks for the help. Now, care to take a shot at this one: Same machine, when I telnet to it (ie. telnet guardian1), regardless of kernel, I get the following: - td: send do AUTHENTICATION td: ttloop td: ttloop read 21 chars td: recv will NAWS td: send do NAWS td: recv will TSPEED td: send do TSPEED td: recv will TERMINAL TYPE td: send do TERMINAL TYPE td: recv will NEW-ENVIRON td: send do NEW-ENVIRON td: recv do ECHO td: send will ECHO td: recv will SUPPRESS GO AHEAD td: send do SUPPRESS GO AHEAD td: recv do SUPPRESS GO AHEAD td: send will SUPPRESS GO AHEAD td: ttloop td: ttloop read 3 chars td: recv wont AUTHENTICATION td: send will ENCRYPT td: send do XDISPLOC td: send do OLD-ENVIRON td: ttloop td: ttloop read 9 chars td: recv suboption NAWS 0 80 (80) 0 24 (24) td: ttloop td: ttloop read 9 chars td: recv dont ENCRYPT td: recv wont XDISPLOC td: recv wont OLD-ENVIRON td: send suboption TERMINAL-SPEED SEND td: send suboption NEW-ENVIRON SEND td: send suboption TERMINAL-TYPE SEND td: ttloop td: ttloop read 34 chars td: recv suboption TERMINAL-SPEED IS 38400,38400 td: recv suboption NEW-ENVIRON IS td: recv suboption TERMINAL-TYPE IS XTERM td: send do ECHO td: send do LINEMODE td: send will STATUS td: send do LFLOW td: ttloop td: ttloop read 12 chars td: recv wont ECHO td: recv wont LINEMODE td: recv dont STATUS td: recv wont LFLOW td: Entering processing loop FreeBSD/i386 (guardian1.ath.cx) (ttyp0) login: -- Then I type a character and get: td: netread 9 chars td: recv suboption NAWS 0 97 (97) 0 47 (47) ssh works like charm. Looks like some sort of debugging is running. Any idas? Thanks again. God's Blessings, Gene To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.Ecl 3:1 - and more recently, The Byrds To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Can't route past gateway
#ipnat -l List of active MAP/redirect filters: map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp 4:6 map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 ^^^ Shouldn't that be xl0? Fer DOH! Dang fonts! I guess that ends my short career as a network admin. If anyone is looking for me, I am going to get my eyes thoroughly examined, and then re-enroll in the first grade (that is, if they will except me). :) Thanks Fernando! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Can't route past gateway
I tried to send a message to the list earlier, but my email server was down. I checked the archives, but I can't tell if my message has been posted already, so I apologize if it has. If anyone has already replied, could you forward your response to this address? I have a freeBSD machine with two NICS that I am using as a NAT gateway. No matter what I do, clients on my LAN can't get past the gateway. They can ping both the interal and external interfaces of the gateway, but can't get outside. I am using IPF and IPNAT as loadable kernel modules. My /etc/rc.conf looks like this: gateway_enable=YES kern_securelevel_enable=NO linux_enable=YES moused_enable=YES nfs_reserved_port_only=YES sendmail_enable=YES sshd_enable=YES usbd_enable=YES ipfilter_enable=YES ipfilter_program=/sbin/ipf ipfilter_rules=/etc/ipf.rules ipfilter_flags= ipnat_enable=YES ipnat_program=/sbin/ipnat ipnat_rules=/etc/ipnat.rules ipnat_flags= ifconfig_dc0=inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig_xl0=DHCP inetd_enable=NO hostname=forcefield.mydomain.com ipf -V gives this: ipf: IP Filter: v3.4.29 (336) Kernel: IP Flter v3.4.29 Running: yes Log Flags: 0 = none set Default: pass all, Logging available Active list:0 Here is dmesg showing ipfilter stuff: IP Filter: v3.4.29 initialized. Default = pass all, Logging = enabled (it also says some things at boot, like IPFilter module loaded, and other things about ipnat getting flushed and loaded, but I don't know how to get dmesg to show me exactly what it says at boot time). My /etc/ipf.rules file has just this for testing: pass in all pass out all My ipnat.rules file has this: map 192.168.1.0/24 - 0/32 portmap tcp/udp 1:65000 map 192.168.1.0/24 - 0/32 In this configuration, my outside interface is getting its info via dhcp from my cable provider. I also tried this similar configuration at my work, using same internal addressing scheme, but using a fixed IP for the ext. interface with no luck. I just can't get past the outside interface of my gateway. What am I leaving out? And this is not a DNS issue, as I am pinging only by ip. Do I need to add static routes or something? I've googled for hours and hours already... :( Thanks for your help, Adam Lofstedt __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Can't route past gateway
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Adam Lofstedt wrote:
I tried to send a message to the list earlier, but my
email server was down. I checked the archives, but I
can't tell if my message has been posted already, so I
apologize if it has. If anyone has already replied,
could you forward your response to this address?
yes, your message was posted. keppt it easy, it's a world-wide holiday,
so the answers can take while. :)
I have a freeBSD machine with two NICS that I am using
as a NAT gateway. No matter what I do, clients on my
LAN can't get past the gateway. They can ping both
the interal and external interfaces of the gateway,
but can't get outside.
Either NAT is not working or the filter are blocking the packets. try doing an
'ipnat -l' and post the output. If the rules are loaded, drop the
filters ('ipf -Fa') and try again from one client.
Tell me if that works.
Fer
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Can't route past gateway
yes, your message was posted. keppt it easy, it's a
world-wide holiday,
so the answers can take while. :)
Thanks... Sorry about this. I didn't mean to make it
seem hysterical or anything.
I have a freeBSD machine with two NICS that I am
using
as a NAT gateway. No matter what I do, clients on
my
LAN can't get past the gateway. They can ping
both
the interal and external interfaces of the
gateway,
but can't get outside.
Either NAT is not working or the filter are blocking
the packets. try doing an
'ipnat -l' and post the output. If the rules are
loaded, drop the
filters ('ipf -Fa') and try again from one client.
#ipnat -l
List of active MAP/redirect filters:
map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp
4:6
map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32
List of active sessions:
I've tried ipf -Fa, but no luck yet.
Thanks and happy holidays.
Adam Lofstedt
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Can't route past gateway
- Original Message - From: Adam Lofstedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:24 AM Subject: Can't route past gateway I tried to send a message to the list earlier, but my email server was down. I checked the archives, but I can't tell if my message has been posted already, so I apologize if it has. If anyone has already replied, could you forward your response to this address? I have a freeBSD machine with two NICS that I am using as a NAT gateway. No matter what I do, clients on my LAN can't get past the gateway. They can ping both the interal and external interfaces of the gateway, but can't get outside. I am using IPF and IPNAT as loadable kernel modules. My /etc/rc.conf looks like this: gateway_enable=YES kern_securelevel_enable=NO linux_enable=YES moused_enable=YES nfs_reserved_port_only=YES sendmail_enable=YES sshd_enable=YES usbd_enable=YES ipfilter_enable=YES ipfilter_program=/sbin/ipf ipfilter_rules=/etc/ipf.rules ipfilter_flags= ipnat_enable=YES ipnat_program=/sbin/ipnat ipnat_rules=/etc/ipnat.rules ipnat_flags= ifconfig_dc0=inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig_xl0=DHCP inetd_enable=NO hostname=forcefield.mydomain.com ipf -V gives this: ipf: IP Filter: v3.4.29 (336) Kernel: IP Flter v3.4.29 Running: yes Log Flags: 0 = none set Default: pass all, Logging available Active list:0 Here is dmesg showing ipfilter stuff: IP Filter: v3.4.29 initialized. Default = pass all, Logging = enabled (it also says some things at boot, like IPFilter module loaded, and other things about ipnat getting flushed and loaded, but I don't know how to get dmesg to show me exactly what it says at boot time). My /etc/ipf.rules file has just this for testing: pass in all pass out all My ipnat.rules file has this: map 192.168.1.0/24 - 0/32 portmap tcp/udp 1:65000 map 192.168.1.0/24 - 0/32 In this configuration, my outside interface is getting its info via dhcp from my cable provider. I also tried this similar configuration at my work, using same internal addressing scheme, but using a fixed IP for the ext. interface with no luck. I just can't get past the outside interface of my gateway. What am I leaving out? And this is not a DNS issue, as I am pinging only by ip. Do I need to add static routes or something? I've googled for hours and hours already... :( Thanks for your help, Adam Lofstedt FreeBSD cheatsheets has instructions for setting up a Dual Homed Host (2 NICs) using IPFW. It works for me. You can also get some additional information from the FreeBSD handbook about NAT. Which I also used in setting it all up. It really is quite simple. Joe Gwozdecki Houston, Texas To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Can't route past gateway
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Adam Lofstedt wrote:
yes, your message was posted. keppt it easy, it's a
world-wide holiday,
so the answers can take while. :)
Thanks... Sorry about this. I didn't mean to make it
seem hysterical or anything.
I have a freeBSD machine with two NICS that I am
using
as a NAT gateway. No matter what I do, clients on
my
LAN can't get past the gateway. They can ping
both
the interal and external interfaces of the
gateway,
but can't get outside.
Either NAT is not working or the filter are blocking
the packets. try doing an
'ipnat -l' and post the output. If the rules are
loaded, drop the
filters ('ipf -Fa') and try again from one client.
#ipnat -l
List of active MAP/redirect filters:
map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp
4:6
map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32
List of active sessions:
I've tried ipf -Fa, but no luck yet.
Thanks and happy holidays.
Adam Lofstedt
Have you issued an ipf -y command to synchronize IPFilter's address with
the 0/32 rule?
Marco Radzinschi
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wed Dec 25 17:12:14 EST 2002
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Can't route past gateway
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Adam Lofstedt wrote: #ipnat -l List of active MAP/redirect filters: map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 portmap tcp/udp 4:6 map x10 192.168.1.0/24 - 0.0.0.0/32 ^^^ Shouldn't that be xl0? Fer List of active sessions: I've tried ipf -Fa, but no luck yet. Thanks and happy holidays. Adam Lofstedt __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
add a static route at boot time
Could somebody please confirm that the place to add a static route at boot time is rc.conf? For instance static_routes=192.168.1.0/24 192.168.0.1 Is there a way to ensure that the route is added before all network daemons are started? Thanks, /per olof To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: add a static route at boot time
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, at 00:44 [=GMT+0100], Per olof Ljungmark wrote: Could somebody please confirm that the place to add a static route at boot time is rc.conf? For instance static_routes=192.168.1.0/24 192.168.0.1 Maybe that works. This worked for me (just in case the above doesn't work, and everybody is having Christmas, and don't read lists): static_routes=meisje route_meisje=-net 10.0.1.0/24 10.0.1.1 Is there a way to ensure that the route is added before all network daemons are started? Does it not do that? -- [03] I thank you for your time and interest. http://logoff.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: how do I add this route without rebooting ?
Josh Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] route_route3=10.20.30.1 198.78.1.1 So i have added another alias, and another route. Now, here's the question - in the past when I have done this, I have just rebooted the machine and let these settings in rc.conf do everything. This time, however I cannot reboot - I need to stay up and running. So, I add the new IP with: ifconfig fxp1 alias 10.20.30.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 but what is the command to do what I have listed above for rc.conf for adding the third static route ? route(8) comes to mind, maybe route add 10.20.30.2 198.78.1.1 norbert. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
how do I add this route without rebooting ?
Hi, Currently my rc.conf looks like this: ifconfig_fxp0=inet 198.78.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.248 ifconfig_fxp1=inet 10.10.10.192 netmask 255.255.255.224 ifconfig_fxp1_alias0=inet 10.10.20.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 static_routes=route1 route2 route_route1=10.10.10.193 198.78.1.1 route_route2=10.10.20.1 198.78.1.1 So far so good. Now I want to add a new network, and I have changed it so it now looks like this: ifconfig_fxp0=inet 198.78.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.248 ifconfig_fxp1=inet 10.10.10.192 netmask 255.255.255.224 ifconfig_fxp1_alias0=inet 10.10.20.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig_fxp1_alias1=inet 10.20.30.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 static_routes=route1 route2 route3 route_route1=10.10.10.193 198.78.1.1 route_route2=10.10.20.1 198.78.1.1 route_route3=10.20.30.1 198.78.1.1 So i have added another alias, and another route. Now, here's the question - in the past when I have done this, I have just rebooted the machine and let these settings in rc.conf do everything. This time, however I cannot reboot - I need to stay up and running. So, I add the new IP with: ifconfig fxp1 alias 10.20.30.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 but what is the command to do what I have listed above for rc.conf for adding the third static route ? thanks! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
linux-igd route add prob
I'm trying to get linux-igd working. The INSTALL says to add a route using: route add -net 239.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 [int_if] Where int_if is my internal interface (xl1). I get: route: bad address: netmask How might I modify this to get it to work? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: linux-igd route add prob
I created an alias. Perhaps this will work :) Quoting James [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm trying to get linux-igd working. The INSTALL says to add a route using: route add -net 239.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 [int_if] Where int_if is my internal interface (xl1). I get: route: bad address: netmask How might I modify this to get it to work? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: linux-igd route add prob
On 11/22/02 3:43 PM, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: route add -net 239.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 [int_if] Where int_if is my internal interface (xl1). I get: route: bad address: netmask How might I modify this to get it to work? use -netmask For future reference, I recommend reading the man page related to the specific command you're having trouble with. Paul -- Paul A. Scott mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://skycoast.us/pscott/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: linux-igd route add prob
I recommend not assuming the least of individuals who ask for help. -netmask doesn't work either :) Quoting Paul A. Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 11/22/02 3:43 PM, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: route add -net 239.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 [int_if] Where int_if is my internal interface (xl1). I get: route: bad address: netmask How might I modify this to get it to work? use -netmask For future reference, I recommend reading the man page related to the specific command you're having trouble with. Paul -- Paul A. Scott mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://skycoast.us/pscott/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: linux-igd route add prob
I recommend not assuming the least of individuals who ask for help. -netmask doesn't work either :) The error you reported was due to the fact that you specified 'netmask' rather than '-netmask'. Since you didn't mention that you also tried the latter, I could only assume you didn't try. Otherwise, your plea for help would be poorly formulated, and I didn't want to assume that. Now you are saying '-netmask' doesn't work either, but you didn't say in what way. The error could not be the same. Since you didn't reply with further information, I guess now I can only assume you don't require any assistance. :) Paul -- Paul A. Scott mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://skycoast.us/pscott/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: linux-igd route add prob
Quoting Paul A. Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Now you are saying '-netmask' doesn't work either, but you didn't say in what way. The error could not be the same. Since you didn't reply with further information, I guess now I can only assume you don't require any assistance. Sure don't! Thanks for your time. For anyone who reads the linux-igd documentation. Their route add line is incorrect (at 'netmask') for FreeBSD, and the corrected route add line (with '-netmask' - thanks Paul) does not work either. The method I've found to work is to use an ifconfig alias (See Virtual Hosts in the FreeBSD Handbook). To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Arp and Route Commands
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:56:55 + (UTC) in lucky.freebsd.questions, Karl Timmermann wrote: Hello, I'm new to the list and was hoping maybe someone could help me. These commands work in Linux (and in this order), but not in FreeBSD/Mac OS X as the arp and route commands are different: arp -s 10.10.10.0 00:00:ca:13:4b:54 -i eth1 arp -s 10.10.10.0 00:00:ca:13:4b:54 -i eth1 arp -s 10.10.10.0 00:00:ca:13:4b:54 arp -s 10.10.10.0 00:00:ca:13:4b:54 route add -net 10.10.10.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth1 route add -net 10.10.10.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 -interface eth1 route add default gw 10.10.10.0 dev eth1 route add default 10.10.10.0 -interface eth1 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Arp and Route Commands
Hello, I'm new to the list and was hoping maybe someone could help me. These commands work in Linux (and in this order), but not in FreeBSD/Mac OS X as the arp and route commands are different: arp -s 10.10.10.0 00:00:ca:13:4b:54 -i eth1 arp -s 10.10.10.0 00:00:ca:13:4b:54 -i eth1 route add -net 10.10.10.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth1 route add default gw 10.10.10.0 dev eth1 anyone know how i would change these commands to work with the FreeBSD versions of arp and route? Thanks! Karl To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Unresponsive when default route is down
I have a 4.4 STABLE machine with a Sangoma WANPipe, configured as a router, using IPNAT/IPF. Up until last week, it had a 370+ day uptime, no problems whatsoever. Since last week, I have had problems with our upstream provider -- the link has gone down several times. The problem is that when the link goes down, within five or ten minutes the router's network services become unreponsive. I can't SSH in, can't ping, the DHCP and interal DNS services are non-repsonsive - nothing. Not only does is not route, it does not communicate with any hosts on the LAN. Is it trying to reverse DNS via the default route and freezing there? Does anyone have any idea what might be going on? Thanks, Michael Owens To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Unresponsive when default route is down
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:09:23AM -0600, Michael Owens wrote: I have a 4.4 STABLE machine with a Sangoma WANPipe, configured as a router, using IPNAT/IPF. Up until last week, it had a 370+ day uptime, no problems whatsoever. Since last week, I have had problems with our upstream provider -- the link has gone down several times. The problem is that when the link goes down, within five or ten minutes the router's network services become unreponsive. I can't SSH in, can't ping, the DHCP and interal DNS services are non-repsonsive - nothing. Not only does is not route, it does not communicate with any hosts on the LAN. Is it trying to reverse DNS via the default route and freezing there? Possibly. Have you set up an internal DNS for your LAN? As a general rule, every LAN should have internal DNS instead of resolving off the 'Net directly. Cheers. -- Jonathan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Irrationality is the square root of all evil - Douglas Hofstadter To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: Unresponsive when default route is down
Yep that's it. It was resolving LAN IPs via the default route, which when down, caused it to take a long time to time out. I did not properly configure the router to consult the internal DNS server: my IPF rules were blocking it. Once I modified them, it works like a charm, with or without the default gateway. Thanks for your help. Michael Owens On Friday 08 November 2002 01:33 pm, Jonathan Chen wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 11:09:23AM -0600, Michael Owens wrote: I have a 4.4 STABLE machine with a Sangoma WANPipe, configured as a router, using IPNAT/IPF. Up until last week, it had a 370+ day uptime, no problems whatsoever. Since last week, I have had problems with our upstream provider -- the link has gone down several times. The problem is that when the link goes down, within five or ten minutes the router's network services become unreponsive. I can't SSH in, can't ping, the DHCP and interal DNS services are non-repsonsive - nothing. Not only does is not route, it does not communicate with any hosts on the LAN. Is it trying to reverse DNS via the default route and freezing there? Possibly. Have you set up an internal DNS for your LAN? As a general rule, every LAN should have internal DNS instead of resolving off the 'Net directly. Cheers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:33:31 + (UTC) in lucky.freebsd.questions, Christian M?nk wrote: Hello FreeBSD Team. My name is Christian and I have a problem. I looked through the FAQ and the docs about the prob. when you get the No route to host reply when trying to ping. But my nic is intact. I made some Kernel configurations cause I want this one PC act as a router. So I thought something with all the stuff I changed is wrong. So I # everything out in the rc.conf that might cause the problem. Even though, what I as a beginner don?t like is that there are so many examples out there about how to config your system to act as a router. Is there no main script that includes it all? Well so much for that one. Hopefully you guys can help me, since I?m totally down cause I?m working on that prob. 4 days now. Thanks in advance. Follow this steps: 1. Configure your kernel to see your NICs in dmesg(8) output. 2. Add ifconfig_fxp0=inet 10.10.10.10 netmask 255.255.255.0 like strings to /etc/rc.conf file and check if your NICs have correct IP addresses. Use ifconfig(8) command for this. 3. Add default route for your computer with the defaultrouter parameter in /etc/rc.conf. If you use, for example, pppd(8), then read documentation for pppd(8) how to set default route. 4. Then try to send packets to some hosts no in your LAN. 5. Say your computer to be a router with the gateway_enable variable in /etc/rc.conf. 6. ... try to do above steps first. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
No route to host
Hello FreeBSD Team. My name is Christian and I have a problem. I looked through the FAQ and the docs about the prob. when you get the No route to host reply when trying to ping. But my nic is intact. I made some Kernel configurations cause I want this one PC act as a router. So I thought something with all the stuff I changed is wrong. So I # everything out in the rc.conf that might cause the problem. Even though, what I as a beginner don?t like is that there are so many examples out there about how to config your system to act as a router. Is there no main script that includes it all? Well so much for that one. Hopefully you guys can help me, since I?m totally down cause I?m working on that prob. 4 days now. Thanks in advance. Christian -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
no route to host 2nd
Maybe I didn?t explain it enough. My Prob. is that I can?t ping in my LAN or anywhere else. When I wanna go online i do ppp and dial and i get the PPP. But that?s it. Network interface is o.k. Worked fine yesterday and works fine in an M$ environment. Normal realtek chipset. Any other ideas what I?m doing wrong? -- ___ Get your free email from http://mymail.operamail.com Powered by Outblaze To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: No route to host
Charles Pelletier Tech. Coordinator St Luke's School - Original Message - From: Christian Münk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:33 AM Subject: No route to host Hello FreeBSD Team. My name is Christian and I have a problem. I looked through the FAQ and the docs about the prob. when you get the No route to host reply when trying to ping. But my nic is intact. I made some Kernel configurations cause I want this one PC act as a router. So I thought something with all the stuff I changed is wrong. So I # everything out in the rc.conf that might cause the problem. Even though, what I as a beginner don?t like is that there are so many examples out there about how to config your system to act as a router. Is there no main script that includes it all? Well so much for that one. can you post your /etc/rc.conf? are you using NAT at all? have you entered the dns in /etc/resolv.conf? is the problem solely with your freebsd machine, i mean, am i to understand that you get a connection but you can't browse to anything or ping to anything ONLY on the freebsd box? that is all usually a strong hint that you haven't entered your ISP's DNS information. think of what is required for windows to get online via dial up or anything else. if you've done everything for freebsd that you would have done for windoze then you should be okay. it's basic troubleshooting. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: route settings in rc.conf - question, with details.
Thank you very much for that help - unfortunately Igot the wrong information and stated the problem slightly incorrect. In reality, the rc.conf in question is: defaultrouter=10.10.10.1 ifconfig_fxp0=inet 10.10.10.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig_fxp0_alias0=inet 20.20.20.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 so, the router in question that has address 10.10.10.1 also has address 20.20.20.1 - however, either one will work as the default gateway for BOTH subnets, which is why the rc.conf above works (using one default gateway for both addresses on fxp0) however, I still get: /kernel: arplookup 10.10.10.1 failed: host is not on local network because 20.20.20.2 arplookups 10.10.10.1 and it isn't local. BUT it still works - all packets from the 20.20.20.2 alias work just fine using 10.10.10.1 as a gateway. So how do I alter things (that are actually working ok) to get rid of those error messages ? I think I could do it two ways - one, add a second gateway for the 20.20.20.0/24 subnet for those aliases, OR ... well actually I guess that is the only way to do it. So what is the rc.conf syntax to do that ? Hi, I have a system with IPs assigned from 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24 Right now I have this in my rc.conf: defaultrouter=10.10.10.10 ifconfig_fxp0=inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig_fxp0_alias0=inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig_fxp0_alias1=inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 So, as you can see I have one default route, and both /24s use that single 10.10.10.10 as the default router. But, because I have simply added the 192.168.1.1 IP as one more plain old alias, I now get this in my logs: /kernel: arplookup 10.10.10.10 failed: host is not on local network So, how do I add 192.168.1.1 as an alias, without adding another defaultrouter, since my current defaultrouter setting is already correct ? The problem is not with the aliases - it is (as the message says) because the default router is not on a local network. If the router is attached via fxp0, then try adding an alias like this: ifconfig_fxp0_alias2=inet 10.10.10.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 Then your system will know which interface to use to talk to 10.10.10.10. --- Regards, Patrick O'Reilly. ______ / _ )__ __ (_)_ __ ___ _/ / __ / __/ -_) _) / ~ ) -_), ,-/ -_) _) /_/ \__/_//_/_/~/_/\__/ \__/\__/_/ http://www.perimeter.co.za _ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
route settings in rc.conf - question, with details.
Hi, I have a system with IPs assigned from 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24 Right now I have this in my rc.conf: defaultrouter=10.10.10.10 ifconfig_fxp0=inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig_fxp0_alias0=inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig_fxp0_alias1=inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 So, as you can see I have one default route, and both /24s use that single 10.10.10.10 as the default router. But, because I have simply added the 192.168.1.1 IP as one more plain old alias, I now get this in my logs: /kernel: arplookup 10.10.10.10 failed: host is not on local network So, how do I add 192.168.1.1 as an alias, without adding another defaultrouter, since my current defaultrouter setting is already correct ? thanks! _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: route settings in rc.conf - question, with details.
From: Firsto Lasto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I have a system with IPs assigned from 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24 Right now I have this in my rc.conf: defaultrouter=10.10.10.10 ifconfig_fxp0=inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig_fxp0_alias0=inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig_fxp0_alias1=inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 So, as you can see I have one default route, and both /24s use that single 10.10.10.10 as the default router. But, because I have simply added the 192.168.1.1 IP as one more plain old alias, I now get this in my logs: /kernel: arplookup 10.10.10.10 failed: host is not on local network So, how do I add 192.168.1.1 as an alias, without adding another defaultrouter, since my current defaultrouter setting is already correct ? The problem is not with the aliases - it is (as the message says) because the default router is not on a local network. If the router is attached via fxp0, then try adding an alias like this: ifconfig_fxp0_alias2=inet 10.10.10.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 Then your system will know which interface to use to talk to 10.10.10.10. --- Regards, Patrick O'Reilly. ______ / _ )__ __ (_)_ __ ___ _/ / __ / __/ -_) _) / ~ ) -_), ,-/ -_) _) /_/ \__/_//_/_/~/_/\__/ \__/\__/_/ http://www.perimeter.co.za To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: bad route add command
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:40:54PM +0800, Craig A. Beasland typed: Hi there, I mistakenly typed in the wrong route command... route add -net 203.33.30.96 255.255.255.224 203.33.30.1 And now I have this entry in the netstat -rn output... 203.33.300xcb211e01 255.255.255.224UGSc148006 fxp1 And I cant delete it. It fills up my log files with... Oct 10 13:36:35 cyclone /kernel: arplookup 255.255.255.224 failed: host is not on local network Oct 10 13:35:48 cyclone /kernel: arpresolve: can't allocate llinfo for 255.255.255.224rt I know what is wrong but can't find the command to fix it. Have you tried route flush? (This will flush all static routes, so you'll have to reenter the ones you do need) cheers craig To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: bad route add command
Nathan, If you know what your other routes are you can flush the whole route table by using #route flush James - Original Message - From: Nathan Kinkade [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:55 PM Subject: Re: bad route add command On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 01:40:54PM +0800, Craig A. Beasland wrote: Hi there, I mistakenly typed in the wrong route command... route add -net 203.33.30.96 255.255.255.224 203.33.30.1 And now I have this entry in the netstat -rn output... 203.33.300xcb211e01 255.255.255.224UGSc148006 fxp1 And I cant delete it. It fills up my log files with... Oct 10 13:36:35 cyclone /kernel: arplookup 255.255.255.224 failed: host is not on local network Oct 10 13:35:48 cyclone /kernel: arpresolve: can't allocate llinfo for 255.255.255.224rt I know what is wrong but can't find the command to fix it. cheers craig `route delete' is not working for you? what error are you getting when you try `route delete'? Nathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
bad route add command
Hi there, I mistakenly typed in the wrong route command... route add -net 203.33.30.96 255.255.255.224 203.33.30.1 And now I have this entry in the netstat -rn output... 203.33.300xcb211e01 255.255.255.224UGSc148006 fxp1 And I cant delete it. It fills up my log files with... Oct 10 13:36:35 cyclone /kernel: arplookup 255.255.255.224 failed: host is not on local network Oct 10 13:35:48 cyclone /kernel: arpresolve: can't allocate llinfo for 255.255.255.224rt I know what is wrong but can't find the command to fix it. cheers craig To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
route caching problems
I'm running 4.6 release on a pc that I have configured as a router. The problem occurs when an app on this router establishes a tcp connection to some other app several hops away. The route caching code adds a static host route to the forwarding table. This is fine as long as nothing changes, but as soon as a downstream router has an interface change or a route change, this static host route is no longer valid. The routing demons, in this case gated running ospf , update the routes, but the static route is still there causing the tcp stream to fail. What I think I need is some way to disable the caching 'optimizations' for locally terminated connections. Can someone suggest some options ? Thanks, Rick Norman To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Parsing route dump received by using sysctl
Hi, I am currently trying to get a route dump in freebsd4.4 using sysctl with NET_RT_DUMP. I am running into problems while parsing the returned rt_msghdr structures. The sockaddr structures returned after the rt_msghdr are messed up and it is not giving correct gateway or netmask. For ex: when I am parsing the received route dump the netmask received is nonzero(random value) for a default route (which it returns as 0.0.0.0) and also netmask doesnt appear to be a sockaddr structure. Also for further routes gateway and netmasks are 0.0.0.0. I am parsing the received sockaddr structures to get all the values depending on flag bits set in rt_msghdr structure. If anyone can help me in this matter it will be a great help. Thanks, --Yatin __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Mountd No route to host
When I start mound with mount -dr I get: mountd: got line /usr/home/Shared -ro 192.168.0.2 mountd: making new ep fs=0x3d3d16f9,0x241504e5 mountd: doing opt -ro 192.168.0.2 mountd: got host 192.168.0.2 mountd: getting mount list mountd: here we go Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to send; errno = No route to host What's wrong? I can ping 192.168.0.2 and the firewall is completely open towards 192.168.0.0/24. Any ideas? Thanks, Daniel To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
How do I do I decide the best route between two gateways
I have a FreeBSD firewall box and attached to it are two external gateways (one from a DSL connection, the other from a T1). Basically I want the T1 link to be the primary link (the default gateway) for the LAN, but I would like to use the DSL link as a failover link. I also have legacy services that require the DSL connection (as I'm not prepared to move those services over to the T1 at this time). In doing some research it looks like routed is the way to go, but it doesn't look like I'm getting any RIP or IRDP messages back from the gateways (even though I have explicitly allowed UDP 520, all ICMP traffic, and IGMP though the firewall to be safe [or unsafe as the case may be])-- at least I see no evidence of this (netstat shows no new gateways and routed -t just shows the repopulation of the local subnet routes). Are there other better options? One of the main problems I'm having is that to get data to flow over the T1 circuit, I have to change the static default route from the DSL connection to the T1. This is fine since all connections on the T1 then operate as expected. But after switching the default gateway, the incoming connection (example SMTP) no longer work. In taking a look at the firewall rules, the packet is successfully received, but lacks a valid route back out the system. The same thing happens in reverse (if I switch the default route from the T1 to the DSL) the DSL connections work fine, but then requests to the T1 fail due to a lack of a good route. Any ideas? Thanks. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
