RE: [leaf-user] linuxrc
Thanks Jeff.. In trying to get back to upgrading our routers, I was experimenting with uClibc, v1.0-2.4.18, and v1.0-2.4.20, and I was using the cdrom modules from the 2.4.18 tarball. I didn't think that would make a difference, but alas it did. Thanks again!! Bob Pocius -Original Message- From: Jeff Newmiller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Bob Pocius Subject:Re: [leaf-user] linuxrc On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Bob Pocius wrote: I'm struggling with getting 1.1 to boot from a cd. This is the same problem I had the first time I tried the 2.4.20 version of 1.0 stable. During bootup, the system returns the Could not load packages error. I found the error in linuxrc, and it seems that the isolinux.cfg is not being read properly, and it is defaulting to /proc/cmdline data. Have you experienced this? I don't remember, but it sounds familiar. Do you have the correct drivers for the cdrom drive in your initrd.lrp (/boot/lib/modules/*.o and listed in /boot/etc/modules)? In particular, if you don't have an ide cdrom drive then you will have to diverge from the modules described in section 8.4 in http://leaf-project.org/devel/jnilo/bucdrom.html. (Actually, if that is the case, you might just consider going out and buying an IDE cdrom drive.) Another problem that occurs frequently is encountering the 255 character limit on /proc/cmdline. See http://leaf-project.org/devel/jnilo/bubooting.html#AEN1155. What I'm wondering is where the /proc/cmdline file pulls it's data from? Last line of isolinux.cfg. This occurs regardless of whether you have the right drivers, because this data is passed into the kernel by the boot loader. Drivers become important when the packages other than initrd.lrp must be loaded. I'm tempted to just hardcode my parameters in, but I'd rather do it cleanly. Any advice would be appreciated. --- Jeff NewmillerThe . . Go Live... DCN:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing Research Engineer (Solar/BatteriesO.O#. #.O#. with /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k --- --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf 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] linuxrc
I'm struggling with getting 1.1 to boot from a cd. This is the same problem I had the first time I tried the 2.4.20 version of 1.0 stable. During bootup, the system returns the Could not load packages error. I found the error in linuxrc, and it seems that the isolinux.cfg is not being read properly, and it is defaulting to /proc/cmdline data. Have you experienced this? What I'm wondering is where the /proc/cmdline file pulls it's data from? I'm tempted to just hardcode my parameters in, but I'd rather do it cleanly. Any advice would be appreciated. Bob Pocius --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#, Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge 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] HOW TO ADD STATIC ROUTES TO BERING..
Someone who posted a reply earlier was right, in that seeing your routing table would be helpful to others who are trying to solve your problem. When I first started playing with static routes in Bering, I found that Bering was creating its own default routes based on the interfaces that were defined. I cheated my way around this a little by adding a line near the end of my /etc/init.d/network file that called a route script. The route script began by flushing all existing routes, and then defining my own. Bob Pocius From: Troy Aden [EMAIL PROTECTED] /mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=1925173 /mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=1925173 RE: HOW TO ADD STATIC ROUTES TO BERING.. /mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=1925173 2002-08-06 14:10 I managed to get the static routes added. But still no joy. Here is what my interfaces file looks like. SNIP # /etc/network/interfaces -- configuration file for LEAF network # J. Nilo, April 2002 # # Loopback interface. auto lo iface lo inet loopback # Step 1: configure external interface # uncomment/adjust one of the following 4 options # Option 1.1 (default): eth0 / dynamic IP from pump/dhclient #auto eth0 #iface eth0 inet dhcp # # Option 1.2: eth0 / Fixed IP (assumed to be 1.2.3.4). # (broadcast/gateway optional) auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.141.1 masklen 24 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.142.1 masklen 24 auto eth2 iface eth2 inet static address 192.168.143.1 masklen 24 auto eth3 iface eth3 inet static address 192.168.147.1 masklen 24 broadcast 192.168.147.255 gateway 192.168.147.4 # # up ip route add 192.168.140.0/24 via 192.168.147.3 |true up ip route add 192.168.144.0/24 via 192.168.147.2 |true up ip route add 192.168.145.0/24 via 192.168.147.2 |true up ip route add 192.168.146.0/24 via 192.168.147.2 |true # END SNIP I see that all my interfaces come up fine at boot. I do a ip addr and all my NICs are up. I do a ip route show and all my routes appear to be up as well. But something is still interfering with the routes because I can't ping to the servers on our .147 subnet. I have removed shorewall.lrp from the disk because this is not a firewall it is a router only. This is where I suspect the problem is. As I recall there is a router/firewall switch in Dachstein. Is there a command that I should be entering in the interfaces file to tell this box that it is a router? Why is this not working? A couple footnotes to this, I have removed shorewall.lrp and ADDED ifconfig.lrp and dhcrelay.lrp. I am receiving no errors on boot up so I suspect I am just missing a command somewhere. Can someone please help me out. (Yes I have read the interfaces manpage but I did not read anything that explains how to do this.) Thanks in advance. Troy --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf 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] routing more than 1 hop
It's funny how the keys slip sometimes, huh :-) There's definitely no unsend button :-) It wasn't until after my third or fourth time reading this e-mail that I figured out what you were talking about. Oops! Ok. Be aware that you're going to want to check your syslog a lot during this phase to see what's really going on. Hopefully, all denied or rejected packets will be logged and we can get somewhere. Even without Shorewall? Yes, it looks complete, and it seems to make sense. I don't see any lo, localhost routes. Why not? Did you just omit them? I just didn't bother typing them out here, but they do exist. They are the same as what you have listed in your routing table. There's also an occasion or two where I'd think the gateway would simply be 0.0.0.0, but I'm not convinced that's an issue. The routes look logical. I point that out inllne. Most likely, we're at the point of traceroute and ping to bang our heads against any rules that are getting in the way. From a workstation at Site 1, I can ping the segment at Site 2 including all the interfaces in between, and the 10.10.12.253 interface (which is the router from Site 2b to Site 3, but I get unreachable messages for everything beyond. I did this because that router is connected via 100Mb fibre to another building where the rest of the routing happens. eth0 on Site 1 connects to a switch, and 10.10.1.254 (my main gateway router) connects to a different port on that same switch. Ok. I get that now. As long as you're not using some really expensive 3COM switch or router that has traffic filtering/routing rules, we should be in good shape. Didn't you mention this exact setup worked with a full blown RH distro? If that's the case, I'm leaning more toward Shorewall, heh heh. It's a Nortel Accelar 1150R-B, but there's no filtering on it. And, yes it does work with a full blown RH distro. Since I haven't used the ip route tool before, I thought there might be more parameters that I need to be including when I build my routes. And I took Shorewall out to try and make things easier on myself, but it doesn't seem to make a difference. Because you're not saying to the kernel that 192.168.1.254 is *another router*, *another gateway* or a thing that does routing, but rather you're just trying to say, put all that traffic out eth1. Although I know netstat and routing in general, I've never set something up this complicated and can't be sure. I just know how a routing table usually looks, and it does not specify the external nic ip address for routes like this one. Here's mine, for example: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Iface 10.1.1.0 0.0.0.0255.255.255.0 U eth1 63.194.213.0 0.0.0.0255.255.255.0 U eth0 127.0.0.00.0.0.0255.0.0.0 U lo 0.0.0.0 63.194.213.254 0.0.0.0UG eth0 Ok then. I'll leave it at this point until we find out about the localhost route (127.0.0.0/8) sort of thing and the 0.0.0.0 gateway issue. I'll give this a try, but at first glance it seems that it would direct all outbound traffic to the next hop, but what about traffic destined for hosts on the 63.194.213.0/24 segment? That's why I got specific with the gateway definitions. Btw, how do you pronounce Pocius? Poe'-shuss? Poe'-she-us? It's Poe'-shuss..and I'm very impressed that you were able to guess that. No one ever pronounces it right! Bob Pocius ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
RE: [Leaf-user] routing more than 1 hop
Sometimes LEAF distros are configured to block traffic destined for the private address space from going out eth0. It's designed that way because private addresses are in general for internal use only. Rarely, an ISP uses these, and adjustments are made to ipfilter.conf or wherever your rules are defined. That makes good sense, but I stripped Whorewall out to try to simplify things for myself. Btw, tabs mess up your tables. I converted them to spaces. Thanks!! I'm deciding not to comment on the routes at all until you post the output of ifconfig -a on all four sites. I've included the useful data with each of the routing tables (I hope I didn't leave out anything that you were looking for). I will mention that I don't get the concept of having both 10.10.1.254 and 10.10.1.40 assigned to the same eth0, for instance. I did this because that router is connected via 100Mb fibre to another building where the rest of the routing happens. eth0 on Site 1 connects to a switch, and 10.10.1.254 (my main gateway router) connects to a different port on that same switch. Site 1: 10.10.1.0 eth0 10.10.1.40/24 eth1 192.168.1.254/24 Destination MaskGatewayDev 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.1.254eth0 (to internet) 10.10.1.0255.255.255.0 10.10.1.40 eth0 (wired interface) 10.10.12.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.253 eth1 (wireless to site 2) 10.10.13.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.253 eth1 (wireless to site 2) 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.254 eth1 (wireless interface) 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.253 eth1 (wireless to site 2) Site 2a: 10.10.12.0 eth0 10.10.12.254/24 eth1 192.168.1.253/24 Destination MaskGatewayDev 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 eth1 (wireless to site 1) 10.10.12.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.12.254 eth0 (wired interface) 10.10.13.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.12.253 eth0 (to other local router) 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.253 eth1 (wireless interface) 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.12.253 eth0 (to other local router) (Site 2a and 2b are connected to the same switch) Site 2b: 10.10.12.0 eth0 10.10.12.253/24 eth1 192.168.2.254/24 Destination MaskGateway Dev 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.12.254eth0 (to other local router) 10.10.12.0255.255.255.0 10.10.12.253eth0 (wired interface) 10.10.13.0255.255.255.0 192.168.2.253 eth1 (wireless to site 3) 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.254 eth1 (wireless interface) Site 3: 10.10.13.0 eth0 10.10.13.254/24 eth1 192.168.2.253/24 Destination MaskGateway Dev 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.254 eth1 (wireless to site 2) 10.10.13.0255.255.255.0 10.10.13.254eth0 (wired interface) 192.168.2.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.253 eth1 (wireless interface) Bob Pocius ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
[Leaf-user] routing more than 1 hop
I'm using Bering as a platform to help me route between buildings connected to my network. In some cases, routing has to hop more than once (up to 3 times). Using standard routing commands, I don't seem to be able to fix this. Here is what my network looks like. Site 1 is the main segment. Site 2 connects directly to Site 1. Site 3 connects directly to Site 2. Below are the (what I feel are necessary) routes to make things work. Site 1: 10.10.1.0 Destination MaskGateway 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.10.1.254 10.10.12.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.253 10.10.13.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.253 Site 2: 10.10.12.0 Destination MaskGateway 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 10.10.12.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.12.254 10.10.13.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.253 Site 3: 10.10.13.0 Destination MaskGateway 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.254 10.10.13.0 255.255.255.0 10.10.13.254 I've been using this command to create my tables. #ip route add address /masklen via gateway Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. Bob ___ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
