Linux-Networking Digest #458
Linux-Networking Digest #458, Volume #12 Fri, 3 Sep 99 05:13:32 EDT
Contents:
Re: DHCP and never-expired leases ("Smallman")
Re: Upgrade problems with NFS (Johannes Ziegler)
Re: Using Samba to join an NT domain. ("Steve Cowles")
Re: Netscape 4.6 + JAVA -> freezes (Bev)
mail server setup (loc)
Re: 100base-Tx crossover cable, rtl8139 module options (Bernd Zimmermann)
Local DNS name (Peter Öhrt)
Re: Need help: POP/SMTP not working (RH5.2) (Gary Helbig)
Samba: Login prob with W95 login (Helge Maus)
Squid and InternetExplorer Proxy prob. (Helge Maus)
VPND error codes?? (XonXoff)
Re: setting up fixed IP address (Bernd Zimmermann)
Re: Samba & Win95 Network Neighborhood (Bernd Zimmermann)
Re: W98 can see samba share, but cannot see files (Bernd Zimmermann)
Re: Help!!! Nt and Linux networking (Bernd Zimmermann)
PPPD and proxyarp ("Oliver Lehm")
Linux client in a NT-network (F.Th.G. Heijmans)
Re: extra FF when printing with Samba (Bernd Zimmermann)
Re: sendmail win98 (Villy Kruse)
From: "Smallman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
tw.bbs.comp.linux,alt.linux,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.questions,info.ncsa-telnet,hk.comp.os.linux,hk.comp.os.unix,hk.comp.pc,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: DHCP and never-expired leases
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:10:40 +0800
Unless you will never upgrade or move client computers, don't set it to
unlimited, or you can't recover a lease to a DHCP client.
Chokky ¼¶¼g©ó¤å³¹ <7qnaeq$lu7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>DHCPºÞ²zû¤J±§ïscope ªº¤º®e->¯²¥Î´Á¶¡
>
>Jimmy Lio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> How do I configure dhcpd so that it gives out leases that never expired?
>>
>> Jimmy
>>
>
>
--
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 18:29:09 +0200
From: Johannes Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Upgrade problems with NFS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
> I upgraded to SuSE 6.2 and now find my NFS server not responding as
> before. I cannot mount exported directories.
>
> The /etc/exports is untouched. The client is still the same, no change
> compared to pre upgrade state.
>
> It seems the nfsd is behaving different from the earlier version.
>
> I do not find any message in /var/log/messages or /var/log/warn.
>
> After a mount trial, I get the simple answer "Time Out".
>
> Thanks
> Karl
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Are you sure, that the nfs servers starts properly on your box?
Maybe the update has changed the startup.
How does your exports file look like, now?
If you still have problems, send further details.
Best regards
Johannes Ziegler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: "Steve Cowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using Samba to join an NT domain.
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 06:03:43 GMT
Brad,
At first, I thought your "security=domain" was the problem (never heard of that
security
option in Samba), but I decided to read the man pages along with the /usr/docs/samba
stuff
(before I replied) and discovered Samba actually does support this type of
authentication.
My Linux/Samba box was configured to for "security=server" along with "password
server=NetBios Name of domain controller". That combination has worked for over a year
with out any problems. All authentications went to my domain controller for "share
access"
to my linux box. Exactly as configured!
Anyway, I reconfigured Samba for the security=domain as described in
/usr/doc/samba-2.0.5a/docs/textdocs/DOMAIN_MEMBER.txt. and was able to execute the
smbclient example without any problems. In fact, I was also able to execute the
smbclient
example when Samba was configured for security=server. BTW: The on-line status DID
change
in server manager when I executed "smbpasswd -j DOMAIN - r PDC" only after I restarted
samba. (which makes since)
As for your question... you did not mention this in your post, but have you enabled
"encrypted passwords" in your smb.conf. I already had this option enabled in my
previous
configuration and left that setting "as is". In fact, that was mentioned in the
DOMAIN_MEMBER.txt as a prerequisite for accessing NT.
Hope the encrypted password setting fixes your problem
BTW: thanks for "teaching an old dog a new trick!!!" Guess I should start reading those
damn "release notes"
Steve Cowles
SWCowles at gte dot net
Brad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello, folks. I hope I can find here the solution to a problem I've been
> having for some time.
>
> I've h
Linux-Networking Digest #458
Linux-Networking Digest #458, Volume #11 Tue, 8 Jun 99 23:13:41 EDT
Contents:
Re: Goal: Killer Server (motherboard) ("D. Carlos Knowlton")
Goal: Most Killer, Least Cost, Linux Server ("D. Carlos Knowlton")
Re: samba question (Monte Phillips)
Re: 3C509B Etherlink III (Zenon Fortuna)
Re: Changing networks on a laptop... (Sitaram Chamarty)
Re: Goal: Killer Linux Server! ("D. Carlos Knowlton")
Re: Cable modems and Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PPP nightmare - HELP (Michael Powe)
Re: rh6 and diald wont compile (Gilford Wimbley)
Re: Linux vs. 3CON Etherlink III (Zenon Fortuna)
Re: Routing question (DeNeTHoR)
Re: Linux network (with win machines) to go online - need help! (Gilford Wimbley)
Basics of setting up a Linux network (Slip Gun)
Samba: Only one Win95 machine can access Net Neighborhood ("mikes")
Re: Cable modem problem in Linux! ("Maguai")
Re: netscape questions (Malware)
Re: Log use of internet for every user? (Frank Hahn)
IP Masquerading Problem (Brian "Scoop" Hanley)
Setting up a modem that doesn't work ("Mads")
Re: Are internal IP DNSes a bad idea? (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Need a guru's advice on IP masquerading (John Oliver)
From: "D. Carlos Knowlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.slakware,alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,utah.linux
Subject: Re: Goal: Killer Server (motherboard)
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:26:27 -0500
-Motherboard: This is too complicated to even think about until the other
questions are resolved, but if has any good ideas, please feel free to post
them.
_
- "You know, when I die, I want to die sleeping peacefully, like my
grandpa. -
Not terrified and screaming, like his passengers."
_
--
From: "D. Carlos Knowlton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.slakware,alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,utah.linux
Subject: Goal: Most Killer, Least Cost, Linux Server
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:11:00 -0500
Here's my challenge:
Given what's available today, what would you need to build the most awesome
Linux server at a decent price?
It's got to have the following:
-At least 400MHz processor power (which is best?)
-At least 128MB SDRAM (100MHz or better)
-At least 50GB drive space (software RAID5 with IDE drives (heard of
UDMA/66?))
-100MHz system bus on the mother board.
-Linux 2.2.X (of course)
Who can help me fill in the blanks? (see responding messages for details)
If we can get enough of the right people in on this discussion, we will have
a really killer machine that can be built on a budget by just about anyone.
Are you game?
-ck
_
- "You know, when I die, I want to die sleeping peacefully, like my
randpa. -
Not terrified and screaming, like his passengers."
_
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Monte Phillips)
Subject: Re: samba question
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:00:23 GMT
Kevin, first thing I'd do is check the hosts & lmhosts file for a typo
in the addresses and alias of that linux box(s)
>I'm running samba (ver 1.9.18p5-1 )
>from my linux box i can mount my WinNT & Win95 shares just fine
>from my WinNT & Win95 boxes i can mount my linux shares just fine
>the problem:
>from my linux box to one of my other linux boxes i recieve this
>message
/*
>mount error: Invalid argument
>Please look at smbmount's manual page for possible reasons
>*/
>smbclient works just fine to any machine ( including the linux
>boxes ).
>it's only when i use smbmount that the problem pops up between
>the linux
>boxes ( only )
>kevin
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zenon Fortuna)
Subject: Re: 3C509B Etherlink III
Date: 8 Jun 1999 18:57:20 -0700
IT may happen, that on your motherboard the 3c508B will not work with Linux
... at all. I have spent about a week trying to get it working.
It was pinging other system (but every other packet was marked DUP), it did
not ping yet other systems at all (on the same subnet), etc.
I have exchanged it for another (cheap) card, and got it running in 10 minutes.
Don't loose (too much) time.
Zenon
In article <7jk236$s59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am trying to configure a linux server that will connect into our NT
>domain. I have read multiple how-to's and manuals but I can not ping to
>other machines nor can
Linux-Networking Digest #458
Linux-Networking Digest #458, Volume #10 Thu, 11 Mar 99 15:14:13 EST
Contents:
Re: No rlogin through a Linux Firewall? (Rodney van den Oever)
Re: token ring sniffer (Bram Blaas)
Re: NAT Support ("Allen")
Re: Ethernet vs. SCSI (Erik Hensema)
Re: WebMail Server for Linux (Izak Burger)
Re: latest MS virus (Andy Harrison)
Re: Logging into Samba from Windoze 98 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
TCP connection ("Srinivasan K.S.")
Re: Linux-Router: pppd dialing on local connect & bootup & route (Andre Dietisheim)
Re: smb_dont_catch_keepalive: server->data_ready == NULL ("Duarte Cordeiro")
Re: Which program to use scsi-tape drive? (John Thompson)
Re: Slack and DHCP (Austin Gresham)
IPMasq Setup (3rd time is the charm) ("Stephen M. Shelly")
Re: ppp0 -> eth0 (Lew Pitcher)
IPCHAINS not working (Andre Giordano)
Re: Installation of Xwindows Applications and other misc problems (William
Burlingame)
Re: Network Newbie Question (Frank Hahn)
lost rsh (Sparkzz)
Re: problem with routing ("¤ñ¥d¶W")
Re: Linux + Novell 4.11 (Ron Flory)
Modem: no luck w/simple AT cmd (brett russ)
Linux 2.2.3 and Ultrix 4.3: incompatible NFS? (Georg Schwarz)
From: root@localhost. (Rodney van den Oever)
Crossposted-To: comp.security.firewalls
Subject: Re: No rlogin through a Linux Firewall?
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:23:13 GMT
Habib Jalili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It works fine with telnet and ftp from the linux A to internet. But
>rloging from Linux A returns the saying error permission denied. Rlogin
>from Linux A to LAN and rlogin from firewall (Linux B) to internet and
>to LAN does work too.
>I have tried it with -P all. No chance.
The problem is that Masquerading is in fact port-translation. All
traffic from the firewall leaves it with the IP-address of the
external interface as source-address. Because the session still has to
be unique, the source-port is changed to a value above 61000.
/*
* Linux ports don't normally get allocated above 32K.
* I used an extra 4K port-space
*/
#define PORT_MASQ_BEGIN 61000
#define PORT_MASQ_END (PORT_MASQ_BEGIN+4096)
rlogin uses random source ports below 1024, so masquerading breaks
this.
You will have to use a proxy.
Rodney van den Oever / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
'Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.' - Michael Finken
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bram Blaas)
Subject: Re: token ring sniffer
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 16:38:03 GMT
Probably you can. You will however need a promiscous token ring card.
Non-promiscous card are most IBM and Madge True Blue.
>My question: is it possible to sniff token-ring-LANs in the same manner?
--
From: "Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NAT Support
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 08:40:08 -0800
That's good to know. And I suppose it's transparent to workstations behind
it.
However, my concern is for port-mapping from outside linux (from Internet)
... should I call it reverse hosting? Does it support reverse hosting?
Thanks.
Allen
Eldir Tomassen wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Ye sit does. Buy on linux it's often called
>masquerading instead.
>
>
>Eldir
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Hensema)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Ethernet vs. SCSI
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:34:41 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Howard wrote:
>I have a 386, 486, and a 586. I was thinking of linking them with
>ethernet but then I started thinking about SCSI. They will be stacked
>on top of each other, and I do plan on getting another system to add to
>it later. What would be the advantages and disadvatages of using SCSI
>instead of Ethernet? There are 2 extra bays in the 586 and the 386,
>the 486 has 1 extra bay, but I could replace the IDE cd rom with SCSI
>(wich would be 2 bays). Email me with your thoughts.
In theory, it's possible to have multiple scsi controllers on one bus, they
should have different ID's, that's all. All controllers can access all
devices on the bus, however, NOT simultaniously (the same device). Probably
you can manage to access different partitions on the same drive from
different controllers.
It's all very dangerous, as concurrent access of multiple controllers on the
same partition can/will damage the filesystem.
SCSI is also more expensive, and not as versatile as ethernet (you can't
telnet over scsi...).
Don't do it if you aren't 100% sure of what you're doing.
--
Erik Hensema ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Please don't use my old address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) anymore, it's obsolete.
Somewhere in the near future, mail to this address won't r
