Re: dnsmasq-base does work for connection sharing
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:30 +0900, Jacobs Shannon wrote: Not sure what I did differently this last time, but dnsmasq-base (alone) is working properly for the connection sharing. I've noticed a few minor behavioral differences, but I think that's probably just some differences in the security settings. The other problems I mentioned are minor, and I can just live with them for now. I'll work with this configuration for a few weeks and see how things go. Thanks again for your encouragement. And sometimes it doesn't... Presumably whatever I saw last night was whatever was going on the first time when it didn't seem to be working. I don't know what state it is in, but various lesser solutions such as tweaking the configuration settings (in various orders) and restarting the network don't fix it. Nothing short of a full reboot seems to do the trick. Whatever state it is in, the DHCP part seems to be working, and the gateway computer is connected normally, but none of the guest computers can reach the external network, though they can ping the gateway machine. I now realize that I didn't do quite enough testing to pin it to the DNS, but I'll check with an external IP address the next time I see it... So that sounds more like iptables rules than anything to do with dnsmasq. dnsmasq will only provide DHCP and DNS, so you should still be able to ping external addresses as long as dnsmasq is returning the correct gateway to machines that perform DHCP requests. What's the routing table on a machine you're sharing to? Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: dnsmasq-base does work for connection sharing
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:51:11 -0400 From: Dan Williams d...@redhat.com On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:30 +0900, Jacobs Shannon wrote: Not sure what I did differently this last time, but dnsmasq-base (alone) is working properly for the connection sharing. I've noticed a few minor behavioral differences, but I think that's probably just some differences in the security settings. The other problems I mentioned are minor, and I can just live with them for now. I'll work with this configuration for a few weeks and see how things go. Thanks again for your encouragement. And sometimes it doesn't... Presumably whatever I saw last night was whatever was going on the first time when it didn't seem to be working. I don't know what state it is in, but various lesser solutions such as tweaking the configuration settings (in various orders) and restarting the network don't fix it. Nothing short of a full reboot seems to do the trick. Whatever state it is in, the DHCP part seems to be working, and the gateway computer is connected normally, but none of the guest computers can reach the external network, though they can ping the gateway machine. I now realize that I didn't do quite enough testing to pin it to the DNS, but I'll check with an external IP address the next time I see it... So that sounds more like iptables rules than anything to do with dnsmasq. dnsmasq will only provide DHCP and DNS, so you should still be able to ping external addresses as long as dnsmasq is returning the correct gateway to machines that perform DHCP requests. What's the routing table on a machine you're sharing to? Well, it hasn't got into the strange state lately, but I'll keep working with it and see if I can detect any patterns. Right now I'm mostly impressed with it, but I'm thinking about experimenting with the wireless side of it for ad hoc wireless networking to two of my machines instead of going through the hub. -- Power up the Internet with Yahoo! Toolbar. http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/toolbar/ ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
AW: Re: dnsmasq-base does work for connection sharing
Hi all On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:30 +0900, Jacobs Shannon wrote: I now realize that I didn't do quite enough testing to pin it to the DNS, but I'll check with an external IP address the next time I see it... I ran into a DNS-related problem with dnsmasq (once i had discovered in syslog that NM complained about not finding the dnsmasq binary, so I installed dnsmasq-base). It returned a REFUSED status code upon a client's query. Via Google I found a post in the dnsmasq-discuss list that said: | The only circumstance in which dnsmasq will generate a REFUSED reply is | when it has no upstream server available to forward a query to, but it's | worth bearing in mind that if dnsmasq _does_ forward the a query, then | the upstream nameserver could also return a REFUSED reply, and dnsmasq | would send that back to the original requester. And then I realised what had happened: The client had obtained an IP address and issued a DNS request before my mobile broadband connection was up and the sharing computer had learnt about the ISPs DNSs via PPP. So making sure that the to-be-shared link is up and running before bringing up the sharing Ethernet or WLAN profile should help. Right now I'm mostly impressed with it, but I'm thinking about experimenting with the wireless side of it for ad hoc wireless networking to two of my machines instead of going through the hub. Works. Define a new ad-hoc WLAN profile, set WEP parameters as needed. Bring up the upstream link first, then Create new wireless network from nm-applets menu and select your previously created ad-hoc profile. AFAIK, NM currently has no built-in way to run a WLAN NIC in master mode to create an AccessPoint/Infrastructure network, so we're stuck with ad-hoc for the time being. regards Marc ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: dnsmasq-base does work for connection sharing
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 21:51 +0900, Jacobs Shannon wrote: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:51:11 -0400 From: Dan Williams d...@redhat.com On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:30 +0900, Jacobs Shannon wrote: Not sure what I did differently this last time, but dnsmasq-base (alone) is working properly for the connection sharing. I've noticed a few minor behavioral differences, but I think that's probably just some differences in the security settings. The other problems I mentioned are minor, and I can just live with them for now. I'll work with this configuration for a few weeks and see how things go. Thanks again for your encouragement. And sometimes it doesn't... Presumably whatever I saw last night was whatever was going on the first time when it didn't seem to be working. I don't know what state it is in, but various lesser solutions such as tweaking the configuration settings (in various orders) and restarting the network don't fix it. Nothing short of a full reboot seems to do the trick. Whatever state it is in, the DHCP part seems to be working, and the gateway computer is connected normally, but none of the guest computers can reach the external network, though they can ping the gateway machine. I now realize that I didn't do quite enough testing to pin it to the DNS, but I'll check with an external IP address the next time I see it... So that sounds more like iptables rules than anything to do with dnsmasq. dnsmasq will only provide DHCP and DNS, so you should still be able to ping external addresses as long as dnsmasq is returning the correct gateway to machines that perform DHCP requests. What's the routing table on a machine you're sharing to? Well, it hasn't got into the strange state lately, but I'll keep working with it and see if I can detect any patterns. Right now I'm mostly impressed with it, but I'm thinking about experimenting with the wireless side of it for ad hoc wireless networking to two of my machines instead of going through the hub. If *anything* else is touching iptables rules on your machine, it could step on the NM's rules unless that program is careful to only undo what it added in the first place. Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: AW: Re: dnsmasq-base does work for connection sharing
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 13:36 +, netzt...@bluewin.ch wrote: Hi all On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 09:30 +0900, Jacobs Shannon wrote: I now realize that I didn't do quite enough testing to pin it to the DNS, but I'll check with an external IP address the next time I see it... I ran into a DNS-related problem with dnsmasq (once i had discovered in syslog that NM complained about not finding the dnsmasq binary, so I installed dnsmasq-base). It returned a REFUSED status code upon a client's query. Via Google I found a post in the dnsmasq-discuss list that said: | The only circumstance in which dnsmasq will generate a REFUSED reply is | when it has no upstream server available to forward a query to, but it's | worth bearing in mind that if dnsmasq _does_ forward the a query, then | the upstream nameserver could also return a REFUSED reply, and dnsmasq | would send that back to the original requester. And then I realised what had happened: The client had obtained an IP address and issued a DNS request before my mobile broadband connection was up and the sharing computer had learnt about the ISPs DNSs via PPP. So making sure that the to-be-shared link is up and running before bringing up the sharing Ethernet or WLAN profile should help. Right now I'm mostly impressed with it, but I'm thinking about experimenting with the wireless side of it for ad hoc wireless networking to two of my machines instead of going through the hub. Works. Define a new ad-hoc WLAN profile, set WEP parameters as needed. Bring up the upstream link first, then Create new wireless network from nm-applets menu and select your previously created ad-hoc profile. AFAIK, NM currently has no built-in way to run a WLAN NIC in master mode to create an AccessPoint/Infrastructure network, so we're stuck with ad-hoc for the time being. That's because (a) drivers universally suck for master mode, and (b) there's a hell of a lot more setup required for master mode than adhoc. At the moment, I don't see a compelling reason to use master mode over adhoc until drivers get better. We certainly can't flip the switch until most of the mac80211-based drivers get good AP mode support. While some drivers do have OK AP-mode support, there question is, what advantages does master mode bring, and if those are significant, how do we let the user know what impact master vs. adhoc will have on their day-to-day workflow? Dan ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: dnsmasq-base does work for connection sharing
That's because (a) drivers universally suck for master mode, and (b) there's a hell of a lot more setup required for master mode than adhoc. At the moment, I don't see a compelling reason to use master mode over adhoc until drivers get better. er.. I didn't mean to complain about the lack (which I don't consider as such) of AP-mode support. If my words sounded like a complaint, I offer my apologies on the spot. I like NM very much, and it's fun seeing how it gets better with every release: I was stunned how easy it was to get my USB 3G modem working with NM (plug, PIN, works), where it took me half an evening to make it work on MacOS X, half of which figuring out which software to obtain from where and what exactly to use it for... The one thing that springs to mind if it comes to Infrastructure vs ad-hoc modes of 802.11 could be scaleability for a larger number of devices, and another thing might be the lack of WPA/WPA2 support I see occurring in most implementations once you switch over to ad-hoc mode. I'm not quite sure if that is because of the nature of how 802.11 ad-hoc mode works or if no vendor's so far cared about implementing WPA/WPA2 in ad-hoc mode. regards Marc ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
Re: dnsmasq-base does work for connection sharing
Not sure what I did differently this last time, but dnsmasq-base (alone) is working properly for the connection sharing. I've noticed a few minor behavioral differences, but I think that's probably just some differences in the security settings. The other problems I mentioned are minor, and I can just live with them for now. I'll work with this configuration for a few weeks and see how things go. Thanks again for your encouragement. And sometimes it doesn't... Presumably whatever I saw last night was whatever was going on the first time when it didn't seem to be working. I don't know what state it is in, but various lesser solutions such as tweaking the configuration settings (in various orders) and restarting the network don't fix it. Nothing short of a full reboot seems to do the trick. Whatever state it is in, the DHCP part seems to be working, and the gateway computer is connected normally, but none of the guest computers can reach the external network, though they can ping the gateway machine. I now realize that I didn't do quite enough testing to pin it to the DNS, but I'll check with an external IP address the next time I see it... -- Power up the Internet with Yahoo! Toolbar. http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/toolbar/ ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
dnsmasq-base does work for connection sharing
Not sure what I did differently this last time, but dnsmasq-base (alone) is working properly for the connection sharing. I've noticed a few minor behavioral differences, but I think that's probably just some differences in the security settings. The other problems I mentioned are minor, and I can just live with them for now. I'll work with this configuration for a few weeks and see how things go. Thanks again for your encouragement. -- Power up the Internet with Yahoo! Toolbar. http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/toolbar/ ___ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
