[leaf-user] QoS setup via Bering or Shorewall docs?
Hi, I would like to limit the bandwidth of outgoing traffic from my lan (masqueraded) to the Internet or the DMZ. It appears that I could either follow the Bering bridge/QoS or the Shorewall traffic shaping docs. The Shorewall approach seems more suitable as I need Shorewall to protect the lan and DMZ. Is this a correct assumption? More questions: If I _can_ follow the Shorewall method do I still install tc.lrp, qos-htb.lrp and all of the tc support modules outlined in the Bering docs? Do I still need to install bridge.lrp? My setup consists of Bering 1.2 booting from cdrom, eth0 (WAN, static IP), eth1 (masqueraded) and eth2 (proxy arp DMZ with 2 servers on public IPs). Any other supporting docs, tips and suggestions much appreciated. Thanks, Stephen --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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] can only ping assigned IP
The project name these days is LEAF, not LRP. I do note that EigerStein plus Trevor's PPP dialup package is pretty old stuff, possibly tough to get current support for. As to your substantive problem, I see a couple of oddities in what you posted. First, the pppd messages never report receiving a local IP address for ppp0, but do report this entry: Jul 12 10:31:31 firewall pppd[735]: Remote message: Jul 12 10:31:35 firewall pppd[735]: Remote IP address changed to 206.166.57.162 Second, your routing table offers this oddity: 206.166.57.162 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 12.34.56.78 The "12.34.56.78" part suggests that you are not getting a proper local address assigned to the interface. SInce both local and remote addresses are usually logged by pppd, the two oddities are at least consistent. But this leaves me a bit puzzled about what IP address you are referring to when you say you can ping "ONLY to the assigned IP my ISP gives me". Do you really mean "12.34.56.78", or do you mean some other address (which implies some error in what you reported to us)? It might help if next time you included the output of "ip -v link show" so we could see what interfaces are active and what packet counts they show. As to the pings, how do they fail? Do they fail silently, or do you get one of the many possible error messages? Details count here for diagnosis. And you mention ping'ing (unsuccessfully) addresses "including the DNS servers or other IPs or names". What about the other end of the ppp0 link (in the example you reported, 206.166.57.162)? Until you can ping the other end of the link, you will not be able to ping anything past it. One thing you **might** want to try: change this line in /etc/network.conf # External Address dynamically assigned EXTERN_DYNADDR=NO # - YES/NO to read YES. If none of this causes you to spot the solution on your own, please post a followup with this information (don't edit, please, and include the command you enter, not a replacement header as you did this time) when the ppp0 interface is up: output of "ip -v link show" output of "ip route show" the log output of "pppd" only after "chat" finishes logging Also provide the equivalent information for your Slackware system when it is working. That might be the same commands or it might be output of "ifconfig -a" output of "netstat -nr" the same pppd output At 02:35 PM 7/12/2003 -0500, RS Peterson wrote: I'm into a blind cove and close to the rocks. I'm struggling to set up LRP and have partial success. I cannot ping to the outside world. ONLY to the assigned IP my ISP gives me. Using ppp0 --> outside; eht0 --> inside I get no error messages in /var/log/messages or /var/log/ppp.log Get perfect success when I ping the assigned IP. Likewise, I can ping any internal machine on my LAN. Nothing when ping ANYWHERE else outside, including the DNS servers or other IPs or names. The "SO" modem light blinks merrily, but no one is talking back. Details: Hardware: Pentium 75/133, 48 Mb RAM, USRobotics 28800 (old) modem, ne2000 NIC OS: Charles Steinkuehler's EigerStein_1_img_EigerStein.exe with dialout.lrp from Trevor Things tried: removed any (and ALL) references in --> /etc/hosts.deny --> /etc/hosts.allow Changed modem configs to several types: ATH0, AT&F1, AT&FH0, etc It's clear I'm connecting fine, just my ISP is blocking me somehow. BTW, on my regular Slackware 9.0 box I have absolutely no problem (setup with 'pppsetup'). I can connect and ping and surf everywhere. I have built /etc/ppp/options and /etc/ppp/chatscript to look exactly like my working box which works. Hmmm? (that's circular) So, here's hoping someone with a quick look can pinpoint my mistake. After much frustration with other LRPs, this version is tantalizing close to talking to the outside. Thanks. -- Bob Peterson ps: I looked through "Re: [leaf-user] Can't ping external gateway" thread from Sept 2002. This seemed to be slightly different. Yes? No? So here is all those details the help page requested. I'll strip the filler. Hoping all of this is helpful [details deleted] --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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] can only ping assigned IP
I'm into a blind cove and close to the rocks. I'm struggling to set up LRP and have partial success. I cannot ping to the outside world. ONLY to the assigned IP my ISP gives me. Using ppp0 --> outside; eht0 --> inside I get no error messages in /var/log/messages or /var/log/ppp.log Get perfect success when I ping the assigned IP. Likewise, I can ping any internal machine on my LAN. Nothing when ping ANYWHERE else outside, including the DNS servers or other IPs or names. The "SO" modem light blinks merrily, but no one is talking back. Details: Hardware: Pentium 75/133, 48 Mb RAM, USRobotics 28800 (old) modem, ne2000 NIC OS: Charles Steinkuehler's EigerStein_1_img_EigerStein.exe with dialout.lrp from Trevor Things tried: removed any (and ALL) references in --> /etc/hosts.deny --> /etc/hosts.allow Changed modem configs to several types: ATH0, AT&F1, AT&FH0, etc It's clear I'm connecting fine, just my ISP is blocking me somehow. BTW, on my regular Slackware 9.0 box I have absolutely no problem (setup with 'pppsetup'). I can connect and ping and surf everywhere. I have built /etc/ppp/options and /etc/ppp/chatscript to look exactly like my working box which works. Hmmm? (that's circular) So, here's hoping someone with a quick look can pinpoint my mistake. After much frustration with other LRPs, this version is tantalizing close to talking to the outside. Thanks. -- Bob Peterson ps: I looked through "Re: [leaf-user] Can't ping external gateway" thread from Sept 2002. This seemed to be slightly different. Yes? No? So here is all those details the help page requested. I'll strip the filler. Hoping all of this is helpful - uname -a Linux firewall 2.2.16 #1 Sun Jun 11 11:33:38 CDT 2000 i386 unknown - /var/log/messages Jul 12 10:29:47 firewall kernel: PPP: version 2.3.7 (demand dialling) Jul 12 10:29:47 firewall kernel: PPP line discipline registered. Jul 12 10:29:47 firewall kernel: PPP BSD Compression module registered Jul 12 10:29:47 firewall kernel: PPP Deflate Compression module registered Jul 12 10:29:47 firewall kernel: ne.c:v1.10 9/23/94 Donald Becker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Jul 12 10:29:47 firewall kernel: NE*000 ethercard probe at 0x280: 52 54 40 21 30 31 Jul 12 10:29:47 firewall kernel: eth0: NE2000 found at 0x280, using IRQ 11. Jul 12 10:29:47 firewall kernel: registered device ppp0 Jul 12 10:31:04 firewall pppd[735]: Starting link Jul 12 10:31:05 firewall chat[812]: report (CONNECT) Jul 12 10:31:05 firewall chat[812]: timeout set to 60 seconds Jul 12 10:31:05 firewall chat[812]: abort on (BUSY) Jul 12 10:31:05 firewall chat[812]: abort on (NO CARRIER) Jul 12 10:31:05 firewall chat[812]: abort on (VOICE) Jul 12 10:31:05 firewall chat[812]: abort on (NO DIALTONE) Jul 12 10:31:05 firewall chat[812]: send (AT&F1^M) Jul 12 10:31:06 firewall chat[812]: expect (OK) Jul 12 10:31:06 firewall chat[812]: AT&F1^M^M Jul 12 10:31:06 firewall chat[812]: OK Jul 12 10:31:06 firewall chat[812]: -- got it Jul 12 10:31:06 firewall chat[812]: send (ATDT16302325970^M) Jul 12 10:31:06 firewall chat[812]: timeout set to 60 seconds Jul 12 10:31:06 firewall chat[812]: expect (CONNECT) Jul 12 10:31:06 firewall chat[812]: ^M Jul 12 10:31:23 firewall chat[812]: ATDT16302325970^M^M Jul 12 10:31:23 firewall chat[812]: CONNECT Jul 12 10:31:23 firewall chat[812]: -- got it Jul 12 10:31:23 firewall pppd[735]: Serial connection established. Jul 12 10:31:24 firewall pppd[735]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS1 Jul 12 10:31:31 firewall pppd[735]: Remote message: Jul 12 10:31:35 firewall pppd[735]: Remote IP address changed to 206.166.57.162 Jul 12 10:33:17 firewall kernel: martian source f797fea9 for fea9, dev eth0 Jul 12 10:33:17 firewall kernel: ll header: ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 50 ba 50 ff 59 08 00 Jul 12 10:34:51 firewall pppd[735]: Terminating connection due to lack of activity. Jul 12 10:34:51 firewall pppd[735]: Connection terminated. Jul 12 10:34:51 firewall pppd[735]: Hangup (SIGHUP) ***route*** 206.166.57.162 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 12.34.56.78 192.168.100.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.100.1 default via 206.166.57.162 dev ppp0 ***filter*** Chain input (policy DENY: 0 packets, 0 bytes): pkts bytes target prot opttosa tosx ifname mark outsize sourcedestination ports 0 0 DENY icmp l- 0xFF 0x00 * 0.0.0.0/00.0.0.0/0 13 -> * 0 0 DENY icmp l- 0xFF 0x00 * 0.0.0.0/00.0.0.0/0 14 -> * 0 0 DENY all l- 0xFF 0x00 ppp0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0/0 n/a 0 0 DENY all l- 0xFF 0x00 ppp0
RE: [leaf-user] Re: Maybe LEAF should become a Debian mini-distribution?!
Ray, >Marc, have you actually tried this install script, >to see how (or even whether) it works... Nope, I have not tried it. Just to be clear... I am not suggesting that LEAF adopt this particular mini distribution. In fact, I fully agree with you that one should not rely upon someone else's brand-new project. Rather, what I was suggesting was that LEAF plunge into using a better package distribution system (i.e., debian or whatever). I think this is necessary for LEAF to attain its goal of being easily maintained and customized for different routing/gatewaying/firewalling/etc. situations. Marc --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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: Maybe LEAF should become a Debian mini-distribution?! (wasRE: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER)
Mike... thanks for the pointer to the project description & goals page. LEAF is definitely a project in of itself -- being focused on routing, firewalling, WISPing, etc. In fact, most of the development should focus on those issues alone and not on the more mundane issues of installation, package maintenance, and creating releases / branches. It was for this reason that I was suggesting that LEAF migrate to using a Debian (or whatever) to take care of these more "mundane" yet complex issues. For example, what I wanted was something along the lines of the LEAF WISP distribution working together with PPPOE. While PPPOE works with Bering out of the box, it does not easily with the WISP distribution. Moreover, WISP clumps packages together into its own LRP packages, rather than reusing those from Bering. Thus, without putting together the appropriate packages for BERING or piecing together the appropriate files for WISP, one cannot "easily" get this to work. The bottom line is that from this respect LEAF has not reached its goal of being "EASY". It certainly is "easier" than doing everything from scratch (and I applaud everyone who has taken it this far), but it needs to get even easier for people than where it is now. What is nice about Debian is package management feature. There are others of course... and I don't really care which one is used, as long as it makes it EASY for people to configure a LEAF appliance with LEAF-related packages. For example, what I would like is the ability to install a base LEAF system and then easily customize it be whatever appliance I wish without having to be concerned with the interdendencies of packages, editing a syslinux.cfg file, etc. Moreover, I should be able to set up the LEAF box to easily upgrade packages to the latest, greatest, stable form. But that's just me... Marc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Noyes Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 11:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Maybe LEAF should become a Debian mini-distribution?! (wasRE: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER) On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 11:05, Marc E. Fiuczynski wrote: > I agree with Peter's notion that LEAF is basically a specialized Linux > distribution. Developers create packages that are either included into a > "release" or "branch". In that sense, LEAF is basically like Debian or what > have you, but specialized towards the use of routing. Marc, You may find this document of interest. It's a work in progress, but it should give you an indication of where LEAF is going. LEAF: Project Description & Goals (draft revision) http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=1396&group_id=13751 --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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: Maybe LEAF should become a Debian mini-distribution?!
At 11:05 AM 7/12/2003 -0700, Marc E. Fiuczynski wrote: [...] Seems to me that the LEAF project would vastly benefit from adopting the recent Debian Mini-Distribution for Diskless Routers (http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/27/). In other words, create a Debian LEAF distribution that trims the fat from Debian, but otherwise adopts the benefits of debian's package system. I always get nervous when someone advocates having a long established project adopt the approach of a brand-new project. I worry about how well developed the new project is and whether it has the long-term support it needs to be viable (anyone remember Gibraltar, a Debian-based router-on-a-CD-image from a couple of years ago? Google still returns hits for it (as "Linux Gibraltar"), but I can't get them to resolve and DWN never mentions the project any more). What people seem to overlook in these discussions is that it is already easy to make a router from pretty much any full-size Linux distribution. In fact, a good part of my reduced involvement in LEAF is that for years, I've used a router here based on full-size Debian (originally Potato, now Woody). Though I've used LEAF router for other locations and in lab-bench tests, I found I preferred the convenience of a system that used a hard disk in standard ways and tied into Debian's security-update system. That's why I think moving LEAF toward full-size systems is an unproductive move ... the regular distros do that job too well already. Marc, have you actually tried this install script, to see how (or even whether) it works and what the resulting routers look like (in size, performance, ease of adapting to hardware variations, support for the range of external connections people have, and flexibility of the firewalling component ... and maybe more)? I'd feel better receiving this suggestion based on someone's actual experience with the alternative than just on a write-up in Debian Weekly News (which tends to put positive spins on all the new projects it reports). Trimming the "fat" from Debian is trickier than it sounds, given the requirements that the Debian Packaging Guidelines impose on packaging. Of course, this will likely require a leap away from being a floppy-based linux router. However, I would argue that limiting LEAF to a floppy-based installation is going to kill it in the long-run. "In the long run, we are all dead" (John Maynard Keynes). Similarly, all software fades into uselessness sooner or later. Anyway, the real question is not whether LEAF should be "limited" to floppy size but whether it should continue to support floppy-size installs as one of its *options* (something the Debian Router approach seems not to allow as a possibility). I'd worry about viability over a 1-2 year horizon than an ill-defined "long run", and for that timeframe, I think the ability to adapt to use of scrapbox equipment remains a distinct strength for LEAF. To "leap away" from floppies as even an *option* seems to me a bad strategy. In fact, the WISP distribution of LEAF already requires more space than what fits into a single floppy. And, as Peter mentioned, more packages are being continuously developed and added --- which is a good thing! Right. But the range of variants that LEAF provides currently allows for both options ... bigger systems that do more, and leaner ones that do the bare minimum. Now I'd agree the the commoditization of router-in-a-box solutions for the home (Linksys, D-Link, etc.) reduces interest in the lower end, just as head-to-head competition from full-size distros reduces interest at the highest end. Flexibility and adaptability in the middle range seems to me LEAF's distinctive strength at this time, and I'd hate to see that strength lost. --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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: Maybe LEAF should become a Debian mini-distribution?! (wasRE: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER)
On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 11:05, Marc E. Fiuczynski wrote: > I agree with Peter's notion that LEAF is basically a specialized Linux > distribution. Developers create packages that are either included into a > "release" or "branch". In that sense, LEAF is basically like Debian or what > have you, but specialized towards the use of routing. Marc, You may find this document of interest. It's a work in progress, but it should give you an indication of where LEAF is going. LEAF: Project Description & Goals (draft revision) http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=1396&group_id=13751 > For the moment LEAF's package subsystem is 'ok' when there are only a > handful of packages. But when the list of packages continues to grow and the > interdependencies become more complex, the current LRP package system wont > hack it. Seems to me that the LEAF project would vastly benefit from > adopting the recent Debian Mini-Distribution for Diskless Routers > (http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/27/). In other words, create a > Debian LEAF distribution that trims the fat from Debian, but otherwise > adopts the benefits of debian's package system. Various alternate package formats (udeb, ipkg, etc.) have been discussed on leaf-devel in the past. Discussion on this topic is welcome on our leaf-devel mailing list. > Of course, this will likely require a leap away from being a floppy-based > linux router. However, I would argue that limiting LEAF to a floppy-based > installation is going to kill it in the long-run. In fact, the WISP > distribution of LEAF already requires more space than what fits into a > single floppy. And, as Peter mentioned, more packages are being continuously > developed and added --- which is a good thing! LEAF hasn't been floppy only in years. The mention of floppy is a result of our project members desire to keep LEAF release/branch footprint as small as possible. -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: ffl, leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER
pn] I meant separate from the commercial linux versions. But I was being general, and accept your correction. Thanks for the link; I missed that interesting dialog. --- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 09:06, Peter Nosko wrote: > > pn] Now it's being rebuilt by adding back packaged functionality (and more room > > for security > > holes), some of which already existed and was removed. In reality, LEAF is just a > > collection > of > > Linux distributions on their own separate tree. > > Peter, > That is not the reality for LEAF. See > > Evolution as a project development model > http://www.mail-archive.com/leaf-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04541.html > > -- > Mike Noyes > http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ > SF.net Projects: ffl, leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs > > > > --- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft > Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. > Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. > www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 > > 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 = - Peter Nosko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) This is a good place for a tagline. __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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
Maybe LEAF should become a Debian mini-distribution?! (was RE: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER)
Mike, I agree with Peter's notion that LEAF is basically a specialized Linux distribution. Developers create packages that are either included into a "release" or "branch". In that sense, LEAF is basically like Debian or what have you, but specialized towards the use of routing. For the moment LEAF's package subsystem is 'ok' when there are only a handful of packages. But when the list of packages continues to grow and the interdependencies become more complex, the current LRP package system wont hack it. Seems to me that the LEAF project would vastly benefit from adopting the recent Debian Mini-Distribution for Diskless Routers (http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2003/27/). In other words, create a Debian LEAF distribution that trims the fat from Debian, but otherwise adopts the benefits of debian's package system. Of course, this will likely require a leap away from being a floppy-based linux router. However, I would argue that limiting LEAF to a floppy-based installation is going to kill it in the long-run. In fact, the WISP distribution of LEAF already requires more space than what fits into a single floppy. And, as Peter mentioned, more packages are being continuously developed and added --- which is a good thing! Just my $0.02. Cheers, Marc -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Noyes Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 09:06, Peter Nosko wrote: > pn] Now it's being rebuilt by adding back packaged functionality (and more room for security > holes), some of which already existed and was removed. In reality, LEAF is just a collection of > Linux distributions on their own separate tree. Peter, That is not the reality for LEAF. See Evolution as a project development model http://www.mail-archive.com/leaf-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04541.html --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER
On Sat, 2003-07-12 at 09:06, Peter Nosko wrote: > pn] Now it's being rebuilt by adding back packaged functionality (and more room for > security > holes), some of which already existed and was removed. In reality, LEAF is just a > collection of > Linux distributions on their own separate tree. Peter, That is not the reality for LEAF. See Evolution as a project development model http://www.mail-archive.com/leaf-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg04541.html -- Mike Noyes http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: ffl, leaf, phpwebsite, phpwebsite-comm, sitedocs --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER
--- Adrian Wooster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In this respect LEAF is the richest routing environment available because it > adds more and better ancillary functions than anything else, while > maintaining near perfect base routing functions. pn] On the other hand (although I'm not complaining, I like it), it has been a stark reversal of course from the original intent to strip a linux distribution of everything unnecessary for routing/firewalling and leave the tiniest amount of code behind that would a) minimize to the greatest extent possible security holes and b) fit on a floppy diskette. pn] Now it's being rebuilt by adding back packaged functionality (and more room for security holes), some of which already existed and was removed. In reality, LEAF is just a collection of Linux distributions on their own separate tree. pn] "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" :) = - Peter Nosko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) This is a good place for a tagline. __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER
Sorry. I should have been more specific. The comment 'LEAF is not a router' was the subject of my reply. I acknowledge that bandwidth management is not technically a function of the router. Cheers, - Original Message - From: "Adrian Wooster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 8:53 AM Subject: RE: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER > > The professor is technically right - it is not a function of routing. > > The fact that many implementations draw on associated technology doesn't > stop the device being a router, but it does not mean Bandwidth Management is > a defining function of the router - it is a nice to have ancillary function. > > OSPF, BGP, RIP, and so on most definitely are implementations of routing > functions - they assist in the passing of packets from one network to > another. DNS cache, bandwidth management, and bridging do not maintain > routing tables, alert neighbours, or deliver packets between networks. What > they do is enhance the networking experience by adding features which are > best implemented at the point of routing. > > The strength of a particular implementation, and LEAF is a perfect example, > should be viewed as the richness of these ancillary functions. What they do > is increase the breadth of the product, taking it beyond a paper routing > tool into a valuable asset. > > Because it adds to the functions of a paper router rather than altering > them, LEAF remains a router. Had LEAF altered the basic functions of > routing, say by operating only at layer 2, then LEAF would cease being a > router. It hasn't. > > In this respect LEAF is the richest routing environment available because it > adds more and better ancillary functions than anything else, while > maintaining near perfect base routing functions. > > The same could be said of Operating Systems, the Gnu tool sets are not part > of the Unix/Linux operating system per sae, but it would be a miserable > world without them. > > Rather an academic distinction but then this was a university lecture. > > Adrian > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Mullan > > Sent: 12 July 2003 11:26 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER > > > > > > Unfortunately, it has been my experience that > > teachers/professors/etc. don't > > really like answers that they didn't specifically give you during > > a course. > > Naturally, that means if they don't know about it, it doesn't exist > > > > This gives credance to the adage: 'Those that can, do. Those that can't, > > teach!' > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Sebastián Aresca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 7:38 PM > > Subject: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER > > > > > > > Hi everyone, i want to tell that today a make a exam of "Network" in the > > > university. > > > And a question was: "Features of a router". So i one i said was: > > "Bandwidth > > > Management" > > > And then the said that this is imposible and that the LEAF Bering Router > > is > > > NOT a ROUTER. > > > > > > So .. my question ... jajaja, =): What is Leaf Bering ROUTER Project? > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > Sebastián A. Aresca > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft > > > Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. > > > Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. > > > www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 > > > > > > 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 sponsored by: Parasoft > > Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. > > Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. > > www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 > > > > 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 sponsored by: Parasoft > Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. > Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. > www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 > > 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 sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more.
RE: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER
The professor is technically right - it is not a function of routing. The fact that many implementations draw on associated technology doesn't stop the device being a router, but it does not mean Bandwidth Management is a defining function of the router - it is a nice to have ancillary function. OSPF, BGP, RIP, and so on most definitely are implementations of routing functions - they assist in the passing of packets from one network to another. DNS cache, bandwidth management, and bridging do not maintain routing tables, alert neighbours, or deliver packets between networks. What they do is enhance the networking experience by adding features which are best implemented at the point of routing. The strength of a particular implementation, and LEAF is a perfect example, should be viewed as the richness of these ancillary functions. What they do is increase the breadth of the product, taking it beyond a paper routing tool into a valuable asset. Because it adds to the functions of a paper router rather than altering them, LEAF remains a router. Had LEAF altered the basic functions of routing, say by operating only at layer 2, then LEAF would cease being a router. It hasn't. In this respect LEAF is the richest routing environment available because it adds more and better ancillary functions than anything else, while maintaining near perfect base routing functions. The same could be said of Operating Systems, the Gnu tool sets are not part of the Unix/Linux operating system per sae, but it would be a miserable world without them. Rather an academic distinction but then this was a university lecture. Adrian > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Mullan > Sent: 12 July 2003 11:26 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER > > > Unfortunately, it has been my experience that > teachers/professors/etc. don't > really like answers that they didn't specifically give you during > a course. > Naturally, that means if they don't know about it, it doesn't exist > > This gives credance to the adage: 'Those that can, do. Those that can't, > teach!' > > - Original Message - > From: "Sebastián Aresca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 7:38 PM > Subject: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER > > > > Hi everyone, i want to tell that today a make a exam of "Network" in the > > university. > > And a question was: "Features of a router". So i one i said was: > "Bandwidth > > Management" > > And then the said that this is imposible and that the LEAF Bering Router > is > > NOT a ROUTER. > > > > So .. my question ... jajaja, =): What is Leaf Bering ROUTER Project? > > > > Regards. > > > > Sebastián A. Aresca > > > > > > > > > > --- > > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft > > Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. > > Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. > > www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 > > > > 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 sponsored by: Parasoft > Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. > Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. > www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 > > 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 sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER
Unfortunately, it has been my experience that teachers/professors/etc. don't really like answers that they didn't specifically give you during a course. Naturally, that means if they don't know about it, it doesn't exist This gives credance to the adage: 'Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach!' - Original Message - From: "Sebastián Aresca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 7:38 PM Subject: [leaf-user] LEAF Bering is NOT a ROUTER > Hi everyone, i want to tell that today a make a exam of "Network" in the > university. > And a question was: "Features of a router". So i one i said was: "Bandwidth > Management" > And then the said that this is imposible and that the LEAF Bering Router is > NOT a ROUTER. > > So .. my question ... jajaja, =): What is Leaf Bering ROUTER Project? > > Regards. > > Sebastián A. Aresca > > > > > --- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft > Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. > Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. > www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 > > 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 sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 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
