[leaf-user] Bering: pppoe docs...
Can anyone point me to some detailed docs on the PPPOE module implemented in Bering. I would like to understand the parameters as I am having a problem with it. It resets my connection everyday. This doesn't happen with other PPPOE connections (either XP, or Roaring) Rgds Thomas Fischer, MCSE mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Apple, WinNT, e-Mail, Groupware mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] Re: leaf-user digest, Vol 1 #1693 - 4 msgs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Markus Koelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:03:45 +0200 Subject: [leaf-user] timezone in uClibc-Bering 1.1 I need correct CET and CEST (summer time) an my Bering-uClibc 1.1 router. What ist the correct value of /etc/TZ for CET and CEST ? Regards Markus Markus, Try http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/files/kernels/zoneinfo/. I would think that you could these time zone files on Bering too. KP has a timezone package located at http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/leaf/devel/kapeka/packages/tz.lrp. Greg Morgan --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] sendmail.lrp for Bering?
On Sunday 30 March 2003 12:49 am, Chris Hill wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anyone have a sendmail.lrp of sendmail 8.12.9 ? Another CERT advisory > went out today about a vulnerability in Sendmail (hopefully not yet a > common exploit!), so it's time to replace sendmail 8.9.3 ! > > If nobody has an up-to-date sendmail.lrp, then I'll have to change to a new > MTA. Postfix? The only versions of sendmail I know of available for LEAF are ancient (years!). Jacques Nilo's qmail package is a very recent (and secure) MTA. -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall Developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net http://guitarlynn.homelinux.org:81 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Old Eiger and PPTP
> I have been running the 2.2.X kernel version of Eiger for a few years now > without any problem with my dialup ISDN internet connection and I know I > should update, but the time never seems to be there. Anyway I now need to > use PPTP to a customer of ours and I cannot get it to work, it appears to > connect to the remote firewall and then fails to validate the > username/password with a timout error. Anyone have any experience of doing > this or recommendations? Have you loaded the ip_masq_pptp module? -- ~Lynn Avants Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall Developer http://leaf.sourceforge.net http://guitarlynn.homelinux.org:81 --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] Shorewall log
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Port 445 is Win2K's backup for the smb related netbios ports > 135;137 & 139. > > If eth0 is your internet attached interface someone is probably trying to > get some netbios related info from your machine & the firewall is blocking > it as it should. > In the 1.4.1 and later common.def file, Shorewall silently drops these packets. -Tom -- Tom Eastep\ Shorewall - iptables made easy Shoreline, \ http://www.shorewall.net Washington USA \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] uCLIB Driver Modules
Hi. Just one more question? I almost have this thing working! Ie I have everything I need on one floppy. But I have one remaining problem, which is that the SMC Ultra driver I have doesn't work. It works fine with Bering stable 1.0 so I assume it's a compile thing? Do I need to get an SMC-Ultra.o driver that has been compiled with uCLIB? I also use an rtl8139.o driver but there is one of those on the uCLIB CD so I assume that will work. Thanks. David Pitts IT Services Manager Reid Library University of Western Australia Telephone: (08) 9380 3492 Fax: (08) 9380 1012 -Original Message- From: Jacques Nilo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 3:17 AM To: Peter Lourens; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [leaf-user] increasing size of root filesystem Le Lundi 31 Mars 2003 20:52, Peter Lourens a écrit : > Hi, > > Does anyone know howto increase the size of the root (/). Since there > are a lot of packages nowadays it is difficult to fit them in the > initial 6MB. Even after deleting everyhing I don't need I can't get > everything on the 6MB :( It's strange; in the user and devel > mailinglists no one complaints about this...Am I the only one? syst_size=10M in the syslinux.cfg will do the trick This is in the doc by the way ... http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/biaddrm.html#AEN636 Jacques --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
Re: [leaf-user] increasing size of root filesystem
Le Lundi 31 Mars 2003 20:52, Peter Lourens a écrit : > Hi, > > Does anyone know howto increase the size of the root (/). Since there > are a lot of packages nowadays it is difficult to fit them in the > initial 6MB. Even after deleting everyhing I don't need I can't get > everything on the 6MB :( > It's strange; in the user and devel mailinglists no one complaints about > this...Am I the only one? syst_size=10M in the syslinux.cfg will do the trick This is in the doc by the way ... http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/biaddrm.html#AEN636 Jacques --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
RE: [leaf-user] sshd taking too long ?
I seem to recall that this happens if the connecting machine (the client) doesn't have an entry in the Bering machine's (the host) /etc/hosts file. Have you made sure that: 192.168.3.50 exists in the /etc/hosts file on the Bering box? Regards Nick > -Original Message- > From: Doug Hite [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 31 March 2003 20:55 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [leaf-user] sshd taking too long ? > > > Hello all - > > I am trying to troubleshoot my Bering 1.0 > router install with sshd (from > http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/ ) > The first time I try to connect with an ssh client > it takes anywhere from 25 to 50 seconds. I can then > immediately disconnect, and reconnect, and this time it does > it almost immediately. I can leave it disconnected for a few hours, > and then try again, and it will take 25 to 50 seconds to connect > again. I have turned on the debugging - and have attached a > sample of one of these long waits. I also included an entry > that seems to be in the log about once per hour - where it > is regenerating the RSA key. My working "guess" is that > the long wait happens with the first connection after a new > key has generated. Has anyone else had this problem ? > I did look for an entry about reverse DNS lookup failing > in the AUTH log, and did not find anything like that. Here > is the log section- > > Mar 31 12:11:08 firewall sshd[30296]: Generating new 768 bit RSA key. > Mar 31 12:11:09 firewall sshd[30296]: RSA key generation complete. > Mar 31 13:24:25 firewall sshd[9276]: Connection from > 192.168.3.50 port 1509 > Mar 31 13:24:25 firewall sshd[30296]: debug1: Forked child 9276. > Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Client protocol > version 1.99; client software version 3.2.2 SSH Secure Shell > for Windows > Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: no match: 3.2.2 > SSH Secure Shell for Windows > Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Enabling > compatibility mode for protocol 2.0 > Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Local version > string SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_3.5p1 > Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: Failed none for root > from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 ssh2 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: Accepted password for > root from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 ssh2 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > monitor_child_preauth: root has been authenticated by > privileged process > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: newkeys: mode 0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: newkeys: mode 1 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Entering > interactive session for SSH2. > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 3 setting O_NONBLOCK > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 5 setting O_NONBLOCK > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_init_dispatch_20 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > server_input_channel_open: ctype session rchan 0 win 1 max 512 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: input_session_request > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: channel 0: new > [server-session] > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_new: init > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_new: session 0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_open: channel 0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_open: > session 0: link with channel 0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > server_input_channel_open: confirm session > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request pty-req reply 0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > session_input_channel_req: session 0 req pty-req > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Allocating pty. > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_pty_req: > session 0 alloc /dev/ttyp0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request shell reply 1 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > session_input_channel_req: session 0 req shell > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 4 setting TCP_NODELAY > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: channel 0: rfd 7 isatty > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 7 setting O_NONBLOCK > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[15082]: debug1: Setting > controlling tty using TIOCSCTTY. > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request window-change reply 0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 > Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: > session_input_channel_req: session 0 req window-change > Mar 31 13:24:58 firewall sshd[15082]: debug1: permanently_set_uid: 0/0 > > ** notice the time is on
Re: [leaf-user] increasing size of root filesystem
syst_size=10M in the syslinux.cfg will do the trick This is in the doc by the way ... http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/biaddrm.html#AEN636 I should have read better...thanx anyway Peter Lourens --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
[leaf-user] sshd taking too long ?
Hello all - I am trying to troubleshoot my Bering 1.0 router install with sshd (from http://leaf.sourceforge.net/devel/jnilo/ ) The first time I try to connect with an ssh client it takes anywhere from 25 to 50 seconds. I can then immediately disconnect, and reconnect, and this time it does it almost immediately. I can leave it disconnected for a few hours, and then try again, and it will take 25 to 50 seconds to connect again. I have turned on the debugging - and have attached a sample of one of these long waits. I also included an entry that seems to be in the log about once per hour - where it is regenerating the RSA key. My working "guess" is that the long wait happens with the first connection after a new key has generated. Has anyone else had this problem ? I did look for an entry about reverse DNS lookup failing in the AUTH log, and did not find anything like that. Here is the log section- Mar 31 12:11:08 firewall sshd[30296]: Generating new 768 bit RSA key. Mar 31 12:11:09 firewall sshd[30296]: RSA key generation complete. Mar 31 13:24:25 firewall sshd[9276]: Connection from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 Mar 31 13:24:25 firewall sshd[30296]: debug1: Forked child 9276. Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Client protocol version 1.99; client software version 3.2.2 SSH Secure Shell for Windows Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: no match: 3.2.2 SSH Secure Shell for Windows Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Enabling compatibility mode for protocol 2.0 Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Local version string SSH-1.99-OpenSSH_3.5p1 Mar 31 13:24:26 firewall sshd[9276]: Failed none for root from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 ssh2 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: Accepted password for root from 192.168.3.50 port 1509 ssh2 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: monitor_child_preauth: root has been authenticated by privileged process Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: newkeys: mode 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: newkeys: mode 1 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Entering interactive session for SSH2. Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 3 setting O_NONBLOCK Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 5 setting O_NONBLOCK Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_init_dispatch_20 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_open: ctype session rchan 0 win 1 max 512 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: input_session_request Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: channel 0: new [server-session] Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_new: init Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_new: session 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_open: channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_open: session 0: link with channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_open: confirm session Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request pty-req reply 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_input_channel_req: session 0 req pty-req Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: Allocating pty. Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc /dev/ttyp0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request shell reply 1 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_input_channel_req: session 0 req shell Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 4 setting TCP_NODELAY Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: channel 0: rfd 7 isatty Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: fd 7 setting O_NONBLOCK Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[15082]: debug1: Setting controlling tty using TIOCSCTTY. Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: server_input_channel_req: channel 0 request window-change reply 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_by_channel: session 0 channel 0 Mar 31 13:24:30 firewall sshd[9276]: debug1: session_input_channel_req: session 0 req window-change Mar 31 13:24:58 firewall sshd[15082]: debug1: permanently_set_uid: 0/0 ** notice the time is only a few seconds until that last step - 28 seconds. What is happening here ? addtional note : router is a Pentium 233 - 32 meg running from a 5 meg compact flash. 2 different ssh clients tested - they both seem to have the same wait issue. Doug --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ l
[leaf-user] increasing size of root filesystem
Hi, Does anyone know howto increase the size of the root (/). Since there are a lot of packages nowadays it is difficult to fit them in the initial 6MB. Even after deleting everyhing I don't need I can't get everything on the 6MB :( It's strange; in the user and devel mailinglists no one complaints about this...Am I the only one? Thanx in advance Peter Lourens --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ leaf-user mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user SR FAQ: http://leaf-project.org/pub/doc/docmanager/docid_1891.html
