On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 8:55 PM Timothy M Butterworth <
timothy.m.butterwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I have two network interfaces on my PC and I want to route the stub
> interface to the internet facing interface and perform Masquerading. My
> Internet facing NIC is
All,
I have two network interfaces on my PC and I want to route the stub
interface to the internet facing interface and perform Masquerading. My
Internet facing NIC is set to use zone drop and my inside facing zone is
set to use zone trusted.
# enable routing
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/i
On 3/14/2019 1:58 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Does it help understanding what I'm trying to do?
>
> It just confirms what I guessed. Did you try my suggestion?
>
Thanks to Your answer and the one by "Dan Purgert " I now
have the bit I was missing; add routing on server a to let server a know
abo
r now both server (a and b) are responsible for MASQUERADING the
> networks behind them.
> So server a MASQUERADEs 172.17.232.0/24 and server b MASQUERADEs
> 192.168.3.0/24.
>
> MASQUERADE is only needed on server a.
>
> Does it help understanding what I'm trying to do?
>
> I really appriciate any help/hint.
>
> --
> John Doe
> Does it help understanding what I'm trying to do?
It just confirms what I guessed. Did you try my suggestion?
Stefan
gt; For now both server (a and b) are responsible for MASQUERADING the
>> networks behind them.
>> So server a MASQUERADEs 172.17.232.0/24 and server b MASQUERADEs
>> 192.168.3.0/24.
>>
>> MASQUERADE is only needed on server a.
>>
>> Does it help unde
quot;server b" has an address 172.17.232.NN
> > on one network interface and 192.168.3.1 on another.
> >
> >> If I enable MASQUERADING on server b everything works as expected
> >> but as soon as I disabled MASQUERADING on server b the hosts
> >> behind it do
2.168.3.1 on another.
If I enable MASQUERADING on server b everything works as expected but
as
soon as I disabled MASQUERADING on server b the hosts behind it don't
have internet access for example.
What do I need to do on server a to properly MASQUERADE server b?
My guess is that on &quo
and 192.168.3.1 on another.
>
>> If I enable MASQUERADING on server b everything works as expected but as
>> soon as I disabled MASQUERADING on server b the hosts behind it don't
>> have internet access for example.
>> What do I need to do on server a to properly MASQUERADE serv
> Ip range on server a: 172.17.232.0/24
> IP range on server b: 192.168.3.0/24
That's very vague.
But I'll assume that your "server b" has an address 172.17.232.NN
on one network interface and 192.168.3.1 on another.
> If I enable MASQUERADING on server b everyt
Hi,
I have one internet facing server that is doing masquerading (server a).
Behind that server I have an other server (server b).
Server a is the only one server that should do NAT .
Ip range on server a: 172.17.232.0/24
IP range on server b: 192.168.3.0/24
I have configured server a to
Hi,
You already solved this problem but ... But this explain where is the
disconnect.
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:19:09AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Mon,04.Jan.10, 16:32:42, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 07:45:07PM +0100, Marc Schröder wrote:
> > > its better t
On Sun,03.Jan.10, 10:30:18, Andrei Popescu wrote:
[...]
> The problem is that some websites work flawlessly from the squeeze box
> and some stall. The same sites are ok from the lenny box. Here are
Turned out it was a problem with Path MTU Discovery[1] and setting
CLAMPMSS=YES
in shorewall
Antonio Perez wrote:
> which both work on port 80, filter the destination port 80 and compare.
> hint: tcp.dstport==80
also you may add the dest IP or any other relevant factor to reduce noise:
for wget http://www.google.com :
tcp.dstport==80 and ip.addr==74.125.159.1/24
for http://www.
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Tue,05.Jan.10, 03:53:22, Antonio Perez wrote:
>
>> You could start a Wireshark capture on both the LAN and the PPP before
>> performing the wget command and compare both.
>
> I installed tshark (I only have ssh access as both machines are in a
> different city) on the
On Tue,05.Jan.10, 03:53:22, Antonio Perez wrote:
> You could start a Wireshark capture on both the LAN and the PPP before
> performing the wget command and compare both.
I installed tshark (I only have ssh access as both machines are in a
different city) on the gateway, but unfortunately I can'
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> on the gateway in /etc/ppp/peers/provider and ifconfig ppp0 correctly
> shows the new setting, but no change. Thanks for the hint though.
Hi:
You could start a Wireshark capture on both the LAN and the PPP before
performing the wget command and compare both.
--
Antonio
On Sun,03.Jan.10, 12:14:37, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>
> > Have you checked IPV6 issues discussed recently on debian-devel?
>
> I just tried commenting out
>
> net.ipv6.bindv6only = 1
>
> in /etc/sysctl.d/bindv6only.conf but no change. The Lenny box also has
> IPV6_DISABLED=yes set in shorewall.c
On Mon,04.Jan.10, 16:32:42, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 07:45:07PM +0100, Marc Schröder wrote:
> > its better to setup a propper mtu size on the gateway. then all
> > clients behind will work without extra modifications.
>
> Yes, if the problem is caused by a gateway you c
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 07:45:07PM +0100, Marc Schröder wrote:
> its better to setup a propper mtu size on the gateway. then all
> clients behind will work without extra modifications.
Yes, if the problem is caused by a gateway you control, this is the root
cause fix.
This is done, as I und
its better to setup a propper mtu size on the gateway. then all clients behind
will work without extra modifications.
marc
Am Sonntag 03 Januar 2010 13:02:54 schrieb Osamu Aoki:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:03:34PM +0100, Marc Schröder wrote:
> > i think your problem is mtu fragmentation.
> >
>
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 12:03:34PM +0100, Marc Schröder wrote:
> i think your problem is mtu fragmentation.
>
> try on the squeeze the following as root:
>
> ifconfig eth0 mtu 1300
>
> and try that wget again
> marc
yah... behing choking pppoe connection ...
You can add
iface eth0 inet dhcp
i think your problem is mtu fragmentation.
try on the squeeze the following as root:
ifconfig eth0 mtu 1300
and try that wget again
marc
Am Sonntag 03 Januar 2010 09:30:18 schrieb Andrei Popescu:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I'm banging my head against the wall with this one and could appreciate
>
On Sun,03.Jan.10, 03:22:29, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Andrei Popescu put forth on 1/3/2010 2:30 AM:
>
> > I have no idea what to try so any hints are welcome.
>
> Try looking at your logs. This is exactly why logs exist, for
> troubleshooting.
> Start with the Lenny host's log files such as syslo
On Sun,03.Jan.10, 18:10:48, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:30:18AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> > The problem is that some websites work flawlessly from the squeeze box
> > and some stall. The same sites are ok from the lenny box. Here are
> > example sessions
On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 10:30:18AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> The problem is that some websites work flawlessly from the squeeze box
> and some stall. The same sites are ok from the lenny box. Here are
> example sessions with wget:
Have you tried runing lenny box inside your
Andrei Popescu put forth on 1/3/2010 2:30 AM:
> I have no idea what to try so any hints are welcome.
Try looking at your logs. This is exactly why logs exist, for troubleshooting.
Start with the Lenny host's log files such as syslog and messages and any/all
custom log files you or your firewall
Hi everybody,
I'm banging my head against the wall with this one and could appreciate
some hints. Here is the setup:
- the gateway box is running lenny and is connected to the internet via
eth0 using PPPoE and using shorewall(-perl) to set up a simple
firewall and IP forwarding to a 192.16
bug=401482 this is a bug
in linux-image-2.6.18-6-k7.
The problem is, IP masquerading doesn't work when booting the
etchnhalf kernel. Is there any way to fix this? Attached is my dmesg
and iptables rules, if that information is required.
Thanks!
Initializing cgroup subsys cpuset
Linux
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:05:13PM +1000, Cameron Lowe wrote:
> >
> >
> Can you access the outside world from your firewall/router? You may want
> to check your routes.
Hi, Thanks for the reply.
iptables -L -v is my friend. I was just a little
confused. :-(
bob[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Hi, Our isp sold the block of ip's we were on.
We had to change our static ip which I thought
would be trivial. Instead masquerading stopped
working. The system is debian unstable and the
kernel is 2.6.17.8 I have been through the networking
section of the config many times and
Problem solved! Worked out that what I was really trying to do was use the
linux box as a bridge, installed brudge-utils and now everything works.
- Joe
I have got a bit further with my networking problem, using a linux box as a
router, now I have a different problem.
I have five machines
I have got a bit further with my networking problem, using a linux box as a
router, now I have a different problem.
I have five machines [Windows PCs and Macs] connected to an ethernet switch.
They are all 192.168.0.x
One of these has two NICs, and is used to connect in the linux box. The
s
2.168.0.0/24
`---'
CompR(which contains eth0 and eth1) is the router computer (doing NAT or
IP masquerading) running iptables and doing masquerading. ppp0, the ADSL
modem, has my external internet address given by my ISP. eth1 is
192.168.2.10 and eth0 is 192.168.0.1. My L
2.168.0.0/24
`---'
CompR(which contains eth0 and eth1) is the router computer (doing NAT or
IP masquerading) running iptables and doing masquerading. ppp0, the ADSL
modem, has my external internet address given by my ISP. eth1 is
192.168.2.10 and eth0 is 192.168.0.1. My LAN is 192.168.0.0/16.
Bef
Many thanks for all these replies. I've now got it working now so that
another Debian box and a Mac can both connect through the Debian gateway.
The thing I was doing wrong was in setting the gateway on the other network
machines. Like not doing it on the Debian one [doh!] and mixing up proxy
--- Matt Zagrabelny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ethx -j SNAT
> --to
> > ppp_address
>
> this is the wrong approach for a dialup where you
> would get a dynamic
> ip. use masquerading instead. (this will always wor
> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ethx -j SNAT --to
> ppp_address
this is the wrong approach for a dialup where you would get a dynamic
ip. use masquerading instead. (this will always work regardless of your
external ip assigned from the ISP)
do the following commands:
# iptables -t
sarge, and built a new kernel with
> > lots of the networking
> > options built in.
> >
> > I've tried to set up IP masquerading so I can use my
> > Debian PC as a router
> > to a [dialup] ISP. The Debian machine has a serial
> > modem and an ethern
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I wonder if someone could help please!
>
> I've upgraded to sarge, and built a new kernel with
> lots of the networking
> options built in.
>
> I've tried to set up IP masquerading so I can use my
> Debian PC as a router
On Wednesday 08 December 2004 1:09 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Once connected to the ISP, the Debian machine can ping the IP address
> of its modem and get a response, and canload web pages. But other
> machines get nothing when I try.
Did you install the ipmasq package as well?
--
Paul
I wonder if someone could help please!
I've upgraded to sarge, and built a new kernel with lots of the networking
options built in.
I've tried to set up IP masquerading so I can use my Debian PC as a router
to a [dialup] ISP. The Debian machine has a serial modem and an ethernet
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:04:16 -0800, Daniel Asarnow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the advice. It looks like I'll be at this for a while...if
> I can't make any headway with it, I'll ask for more help
>
> Thanks again,
As a basis for your rules I recommend
http://www.netfilter.org/docume
nt for human eyes.
> You should try to isolate your problem from bottom to top:
>
> Try a minimalistic firewall. Just for testing, of course, as this is
> totally insecure:
>
> # Clear all rules
> /sbin/iptables -F; /sbin/iptables -t nat -F; /sbin/iptables -t mangle -F
>
/iptables -t mangle -F
# Enable Masquerading
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
/sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE
If this solves your problems, then you should think about changing
firehol, making the firewall by hand (but with the great help of
fwbuilder), or (yuck!) try
Here's the output of iptables -L -v -t nat:
Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 1 packets, 60 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday, 11.11.2004 at 07:57 +, Alan Chandler wrote:
> On Thursday 11 November 2004 03:03, Daniel Asarnow wrote:
>
> > The complete output of iptables -L is here: www.boxbattle.com/iptables.txt
> > A bit long...
>
> I don't know what its doi
On Thursday 11 November 2004 03:03, Daniel Asarnow wrote:
> The complete output of iptables -L is here: www.boxbattle.com/iptables.txt
> A bit long...
I don't know what its doing either - some things to check:-
- There is a long list of IP networks which its doing something with
(accepting or r
Hey all,
I have set up my debian box as a firewall/router for my home network
(using firehol to actually make the firewall). Everything seems to be
working just fine, except that the computers behind the firewall box
can only access some websites. They can perform succesful DNS lookups
on any sit
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 04:01:46PM +0545, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Kevin Mark wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:09:36PM +0545, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> > > I think I've got a little confused. For example I hit the following:
> > >
> > > iptables -P FORWARD DROP
> >
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:09:36PM +0545, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> > I think I've got a little confused. For example I hit the following:
> >
> > iptables -P FORWARD DROP
> > iptables -A FORWARD -s xx:xx:xx:xx -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
> > xx would be the ha
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 02:09:36PM +0545, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> I think I've got a little confused. For example I hit the following:
>
> iptables -P FORWARD DROP
> iptables -A FORWARD -s xx:xx:xx:xx -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE
> xx would be the hardware address.
> Now wouldn't he be able to change
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
You didn't say whose machines they are nor what OS they're running. If
they're yours you can lock them down so the users can't do those things.
I think, here the issue isn't what OS they'll be running. It's okay if they
?
I think I'm right now.
Thanks for all helpful suggestions.
Ritesh
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Hiren wrote:
>
> how about limiting on MAC addresses :?
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> > I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet c
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> You didn't say whose machines they are nor what OS they're running. If
> they're yours you can lock them down so the users can't do those things.
>
I think, here the issue isn't what OS they'll be running. It's okay if they run TCP.
> You can ru
how about limiting on MAC addresses :?
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Hello all,
> I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to the internet
> and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers. I've enabled nat and my
> cust
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to the internet
and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers. I've enabled nat and my
customers are able to browse the internet well (My customer are cyber cafe owners).
Hello all,
I have a masquerading server with 2 ethernet cards, eth0(202.52.x.x) to the internet
and eth1(192.168.100.x) to my local network customers. I've enabled nat and my
customers are able to browse the internet well (My customer are cyber cafe owners).
I've limited their band
> > iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $BADIF -j MASQUERADE
> >
> > What do I have to do to see the masqueraded connections?
> Try this: http://cv.intellos.net
>
> Yndy
Wow! It addresses the problem exactly and the output seems nice. I'll try
that out at home asap, many, many thanks!
David
--
T
>
> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $BADIF -j MASQUERADE
>
> What do I have to do to see the masqueraded connections?
Try this: http://cv.intellos.net
Yndy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Hi group,
> >
> >I was used to display masqueraded connections with
> >
> >netstat -M
> >
> >but now, under Woody, I get
> >
> >no support for 'ip_masquerade' on this system.
> >
> >I set up masquerading with
> >
> Try iptstate - works great for me.
>
I'll look that up in testing, thanks.
David
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fokkema wrote:
> Hi group,
>
> I was used to display masqueraded connections with
>
> netstat -M
>
> but now, under Woody, I get
>
> no support for 'ip_masquerade' on this system.
>
> I set up masquerading with
>
> iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o
David Fokkema, 2003-Apr-03 16:08 +0200:
> Hi group,
>
> I was used to display masqueraded connections with
>
> netstat -M
>
> but now, under Woody, I get
>
> no support for 'ip_masquerade' on this system.
>
> I set up masquerading with
>
David Fokkema wrote:
Hi group,
I was used to display masqueraded connections with
netstat -M
but now, under Woody, I get
no support for 'ip_masquerade' on this system.
I set up masquerading with
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $BADIF -j MASQUERADE
What do I have to do
Hi group,
I was used to display masqueraded connections with
netstat -M
but now, under Woody, I get
no support for 'ip_masquerade' on this system.
I set up masquerading with
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $BADIF -j MASQUERADE
What do I have to do to see the masqueraded c
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:16:55AM -0400, Jim Hribar wrote:
> Installed ipmasq (apt-get install ipmasq) and it does not seem to be
> working. The error message that puzzles me is:
>
> Initializing IP Masquerading...IP Masquerade has not been enabled in the
> kernel.
>
On Sun, 2002-06-30 at 20:59, Romel Sandoval wrote:
> Thank to all who help me with my IP Addresses problem
>
> Now I have successfuly configured an IP Masquerading linux gateway, of
> course with the 192.168.0.1 IP. I know its working correctly because I
> have a windows machine as
Thank to all who help me with my IP Addresses problem
Now I have successfuly configured an IP Masquerading linux gateway, of
course with the 192.168.0.1 IP. I know its working correctly because I
have a windows machine as client getting the Internet from this linux
gateway.
But I dont know what
"Ronald Castillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just to update something new I have found out.. I tried pinging my ADSL
> router and my brother´s PC from my Linux box and it doesn't work either,
> but it did work from my Windows PC when I had it connected directly to
> my ADSL router. So, now I'm f
debian (was: Ip Masquerading)
Hello..
I have configured my second interface as you told me (with a few
changes) and it's now working fine!!! Thanks a lot for your help to you
all!!!
Just two more questions.. I don't know if I should place "auto" on it
because the Windows box isn'
on, so I think that
Linux might show up an error message if the connection is up when the
Windows box is off, doesn´t it? Just like when I enable my other card
when it doesn't have a LAN cable in it.
The other thing is that, from the "masqueraded" PC (the windows box), I
can only
2 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: rc.local in debian (was: Ip Masquerading)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: rc.local in debian (was: Ip Masquerading)
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:49:54PM +0200, Ronald Castillo wrote:
> > I was thinking that I should configure my secondary LAN card (the one
> > that connects to my "internal" network) in the /etc/network/inter
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [020603 16:51]:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:49:54PM +0200, Ronald Castillo wrote:
> > I was thinking that I should configure my secondary LAN card (the one
> > that connects to my "internal" network) in the /etc/network/interfaces
> > card, but I don't know what
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:49:54PM +0200, Ronald Castillo wrote:
> I was thinking that I should configure my secondary LAN card (the one
> that connects to my "internal" network) in the /etc/network/interfaces
> card, but I don't know what to place there. I have already configured
> the LAN card t
.org
Subject: Re: rc.local in debian (was: Ip Masquerading)
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 03:08:56AM -0500, Elizabeth Barham wrote:
> I made my own entitled "local" in /etc/init.d by copying
> /etc/init.d/skeleton to /etc/init.d/local, added what I needed it to
> do in the start se
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 03:08:56AM -0500, Elizabeth Barham wrote:
> I made my own entitled "local" in /etc/init.d by copying
> /etc/init.d/skeleton to /etc/init.d/local, added what I needed it to
> do in the start section, and created a softlink to it in rc2.d
> entitled S99local.
>
> I don't know
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 03:08:56AM -0500, Elizabeth Barham wrote:
> I made my own entitled "local" in /etc/init.d by copying
> /etc/init.d/skeleton to /etc/init.d/local, added what I needed it to
> do in the start section, and created a softlink to it in rc2.d
> entitled S99local.
>
> I don't know
o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello.
>
> Thanks to you all for your suggestions for trying to connect my Linux
> box to my Windows one via serial port, but after trying some things and
> not being able to make it work I decided to try to do that via network
> cards.
&g
Hello.
Thanks to you all for your suggestions for trying to connect my Linux
box to my Windows one via serial port, but after trying some things and
not being able to make it work I decided to try to do that via network
cards.
On the IP Masquerading HOWTO it says I have to edit my
"/etc
ver ip be the same all the time ?!!?
>
> think about it too. :)
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "dman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: 486 SX (masquerading DSL connection)
>
> > On Thu,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:16:47PM +0200, Game Wizard wrote:
| umm, perhaps i am wrong as i don't know what kind of switch do u have but
| isn't switch's purphose is to divide the network into subnets ??!
A router would do that. A switch is a link-layer device. It is the
same as a hub, but inste
L PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: 486 SX (masquerading DSL connection)
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
> ...
>
> I too thought that putting the DSL modem on the hub (actually a switch
> in my case) wasn&
On Thursday 14 February 2002 14:48, dman wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
> ...
>
> I too thought that putting the DSL modem on the hub (actually a switch
> in my case) wasn't the Right Way.
>
> | The 486 that connects to the internet also does the masque
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 02:48:41PM -0500, dman scribbled...
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
> ...
>
> I too thought that putting the DSL modem on the hub (actually a switch
> in my case) wasn't the Right Way.
>
> | The 486 that connects to the internet also d
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
...
I too thought that putting the DSL modem on the hub (actually a switch
in my case) wasn't the Right Way.
| The 486 that connects to the internet also does the masquearading. All
| traffic flow to eth0, and gets masq'd, but t
ary 2002 11:27, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
> > > > The
> > > > reason I don't have it masquerading the DSL connection is I don't
> >
> > want
> >
> > > > to buy a second ISA NIC.
> > >
> > > If your DSL is anything like min
Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: 486 SX (masquerading DSL connection)
>
> I have potato on a 486SX, 25MHz, 300MB hard drive, 8MB RAM. It tends
> to drag because it swaps a lot, but otherwise is fully functional. I
> had it masquerading the dial-up connection with n
On 2002.02.14 17:35:55 +0100 John Cichy wrote:
On Thursday 14 February 2002 11:27, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
> > The
> > reason I don't have it masquerading the DSL connection is I don't
want
> > to buy a second ISA NIC.
>
> If your DSL is anything like mine
your internal net is not exposed to the
> internet and all is ok :-
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Cichy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:35 PM
> Subject: Re: 486 SX (masquerading DSL connection)
>
>
On Thursday 14 February 2002 11:27, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
> > I have potato on a 486SX, 25MHz, 300MB hard drive, 8MB RAM. It tends
> > to drag because it swaps a lot, but otherwise is fully functional. I
> > had it masquerading the dial-up connection with no problems. The
I have potato on a 486SX, 25MHz, 300MB hard drive, 8MB RAM. It tends
to drag because it swaps a lot, but otherwise is fully functional. I
had it masquerading the dial-up connection with no problems. The
reason I don't have it masquerading the DSL connection is I don't want
to buy a
Hey people.
Using kernel 2.2.12 and the ip_masq_raudio module, I've always been able
to view video clips using realaudio. After changing kernels to 2.2.20,
changing nothing else, it doesn't work.
Any clues? How can I debug this?
Thanks,
Mike
--
Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL
On Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 11:36:31AM +0100, Eric Smith wrote:
> According to Michel Loos on Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 09:54:53PM -0200:
> > > I thought this would just work out of the box :(
> that did not work for me - but this entry in modules.conf did:
>
> ### update-modules: start processing /etc/mod
On Sat, 2001-11-17 at 08:36, Eric Smith wrote:
> According to Michel Loos on Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 09:54:53PM -0200:
> > > I thought this would just work out of the box :(
> >
> > It works out of the box if eth0 is external and eth1 is local.
> > In your case you have to modify the 00Interfaces(?sp
On Sat, 2001-11-17 at 08:36, Eric Smith wrote:
> According to Michel Loos on Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 09:54:53PM -0200:
> > > I thought this would just work out of the box :(
> >
> > It works out of the box if eth0 is external and eth1 is local.
> > In your case you have to modify the 00Interfaces(?sp
According to Michel Loos on Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 09:54:53PM -0200:
> > I thought this would just work out of the box :(
>
> It works out of the box if eth0 is external and eth1 is local.
> In your case you have to modify the 00Interfaces(?sp I use iptables now)
> file in order to switch external a
According to Michel Loos on Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 09:54:53PM -0200:
> On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 21:41, Eric Smith wrote:
> >
> > I am on unstable and trying to give a client machine internet access.
> >
> > eth1 on the server gets internet access via cable modem via dhcpcd and the
> > eth0 to the loca
On Fri, 2001-11-16 at 21:41, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> I am on unstable and trying to give a client machine internet access.
>
> eth1 on the server gets internet access via cable modem via dhcpcd and the
> eth0 to the local LAN. The client and server communicate fine but
> the client does not get in
1 - 100 of 348 matches
Mail list logo
