Sorry, gateway sollte doch default gateway setzen.
Mihail Issakov wrote:
Hallo,
Mit dem Eintrag im /etc/network/interfaces hast
Du 192.168.1.20 als router NUR fur Netz 192.168.1.0 gesetzt.
Erts mit route add default gw 192.168.1.20 sagts
Du dem kernel das 192.168.1.20 dafault ist, also
Hallo Alexander,
* Alexander Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [21-02-02 05:02]:
alex@annuminas:~ $ cat /etc/network/interfaces
auto lo eth0
iface lo inet loopback
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.1.10
netmask 255.255.255.0
network 192.168.1.0
broadcast
Am Donnerstag, 21. Februar 2002 17:21 schrieb Alexander Schmehl:
* Jochen Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020221 16:51]:
Nachdem ich dann manuell ein route add default gw 192.168.1.20
ausgeführt habe klappt alles:[...]
Pingen kannst den Router aber, ja?
Ja, das klappt alles. Und nach
lets start with network topology:
/\/\/\/\/\
internet
\/\/\/\/\/
|
|
-
| box A |
-
|
Obviously the issue resolves around the default gateway setup
on the machines... Box A should obviously have the ultimate default
gateway as it has the internet access directly... Box B should go to Box
A if it isn't destined for either network 192.168.9/24 or 192.168.7/24
which would go
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote:
As I'm goin on the assumption you want Box C to have an option
of which network (.9/24 or .7/24) go through and as they are equal hop
count but obviously different bandwidth I would be tempt'd to suggest
possibly running zebra on the three
Howdy
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 06:10:25PM -0800, Klaus Neumann wrote:
Maybe I should have mentioned that I'm using kernel 2.4.17 in Potato?
To run 2.4.x kernels on potato, you'll need some newer kernel-related
packages, including things like iptables, and most importantly
modutils. Have a look
Klaus Neumann, 2002-Jan-17 18:10 -0800:
On Thursday 17 January 2002 03:44 am, Jeff wrote:
Klaus Neumann, 2002-Jan-16 22:07 -0800:
Hi,
I just replaced my SuSE with Debian potato on my second computer (B).
Using computer A, still SuSE installed as router. I can ping from A to B
Hi,
I just replaced my SuSE with Debian potato on my second computer (B). Using
computer A, still SuSE installed as router. I can ping from A to B without
problem. If I ping from B to A, I loose 30% to 55% packets. What am I doing
wrong?
Cheers,
Klaus
Klaus Neumann, 2002-Jan-16 22:07 -0800:
Hi,
I just replaced my SuSE with Debian potato on my second computer (B). Using
computer A, still SuSE installed as router. I can ping from A to B without
problem. If I ping from B to A, I loose 30% to 55% packets. What am I doing
wrong?
Cheers,
On Thursday 17 January 2002 03:44 am, Jeff wrote:
Klaus Neumann, 2002-Jan-16 22:07 -0800:
Hi,
I just replaced my SuSE with Debian potato on my second computer (B).
Using computer A, still SuSE installed as router. I can ping from A to B
without problem. If I ping from B to A, I loose
Thanks folks!
After I discovered linuxconf, and played a little with its network menu, I
could suddenly connect to the internet.
Any volunteer who would help me to exchange my SuSE router with Debian?
Regards,
Klaus
Thank you very much for the reply.
Your suggestion fixed my problem.
I guess I misunderstood the option
'noipdefault'.
Again, thanks for the help.
--- Original Message ---
From: John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: PPP configuration and
routing problem
I recently did a fresh install of Debian on a machine which serves
as the internet gateway for my lan. The version installed was
Debian2.2R2. This machine is a dial-up gateway and
ip-masquerader for my other machines. The problem is that when
I initiate a connection with PON, the PPP0
Russ writes:
Route -n shows the ppp0 configured with the same local and remote IP
addresses as shown in options.ttyS1.
I assume that your modem is on ttyS1?
I initiate a connection with PON, the PPP0 interface is not properly
configured. Route -n shows the ppp0 configured with the same
Hi all,
My machine running potato has rtl8139 network card. I
have configured it as eth0 and eth0:0 with two ip
addresses. I am able to ping to machines in two ip
ranges and working fine. Now I have added one more
alias as eth0:0 with ip address 192.168.1.10 in
/etc/network/interfaces. When I am
At 12:49 a.m. 28/06/01 -0700, Debian GNU wrote:
Hi all,
My machine running potato has rtl8139 network card. I
have configured it as eth0 and eth0:0 with two ip
addresses. I am able to ping to machines in two ip
ranges and working fine. Now I have added one more
alias as eth0:0 with ip address
If it would have been a permission probelem, I would
not have been able to access the other networks. I did
as both root and ordinary user. But both gave the same
results.
Deb
--- Miguel Griffa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:49 a.m. 28/06/01 -0700, Debian GNU wrote:
Hi all,
My machine
And is does the ping works propperly to others systems in the network?
greetz,
kim
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Debian GNU [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: vrijdag 29 juni 2001 4:05
Aan: Miguel Griffa; debian-user@lists.debian.org
Onderwerp: Re: Routing Problem
If it would have
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Debian GNU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it would have been a permission probelem, I would
not have been able to access the other networks. I did
as both root and ordinary user. But both gave the same
results.
Do you have some firewall rules installed
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:16:40PM -0300, Christoph Simon wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Debian GNU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it would have been a permission probelem, I would
not have been able to access the other networks. I did
as both root and ordinary user. But
Dear Christoph,
Tnx friend. That was the problem. I was extensively
using ipchians to make this box a gateway with
firewalling. I slipped this. Thanks again.
Regards,
Deb
--- Christoph Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Debian GNU [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ezekiel:/home/thoover# route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse
Iface
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00
eth0
0.0.0.0 192.168.1.110.0.0.0 UG0 00
Internet
|
| (external NIC)
|
ariel
| |
(192.168.1.10) | | (192.168.247.10) --- (two internal NICs)
| |
| |___
Duh...thanks for pointing out the obvious...I knew that it had to be something
simple! I now remember changing ezekiel's gateway to bethel (.11) when I
needed to temporarily take ariel down for a harddrive change. I hadn't used
the laptop since that time, and I evidently forgot to change the
ezekiel nor
woody can ping paltiel (which I think confirms a routing problem). For some
reason ariel is able to properly route between paltiel and either taz or noah,
but not between paltiel and either ezekiel or woody. All machines can connect
to ariel, and ariel can connect to all other machines
.
Where does it go and what network is that connected to?
good luck!
-Matt
-Original Message-
From: Friedrich Clausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2001 12:58 AM
To: Mark Janssen
Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Routing problem.
Hi,
Sure, I should have
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 12:57:47PM +0100, Mateusz Mazur wrote:
Hello.
I would like to thanx for all replay for my mesg. If I will be have some
another problems I will be write to this list ;). Polish mailing list and
newsgroup aren't so kind.
sometimes folks around here get a bit uppity,
Hello.
I would like to thanx for all replay for my mesg. If I will be have some
another problems I will be write to this list ;). Polish mailing list and
newsgroup aren't so kind.
Mateusz Mazur
Hello.
I will be very, very greatfull for your help. I'am newbie and I have big
trouble (big for me of course). I would also apologize for my english. I'am
from Poland and english isn't my nativ language. Here is some kind of map.
It should illustrate my problem.
LAN
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:19:06PM +0100, Mateusz Mazur wrote:
Hello.
I will be very, very greatfull for your help. I'am newbie and I have big
trouble (big for me of course). I would also apologize for my english. I'am
from Poland and english isn't my nativ language. Here is some kind of map.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:19:06PM +0100, Mateusz Mazur wrote:
Hello.
I will be very, very greatfull for your help. I'am newbie and I have
big trouble (big for me of course). I would also apologize for my
english. I'am from Poland and english isn't my nativ language. Here
is some kind of map.
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 01:19:06PM +0100, Mateusz Mazur wrote:
Hello.
I will be very, very greatfull for your help. I'am newbie and I have big
trouble (big for me of course). I would also apologize for my english. I'am
from Poland and english isn't my nativ language. Here is some kind of map.
Hi.
When I upgraded to testing, I got ppp-2.4.0along with it.
Once this version of ppp was installed, the routing no longer worked
properly. In particular, with ppp-2.4.0 I get the following behavior:
-
[... not connected to anything ...]
dkatz [~] $
Hi,
I have a little problem with my ISDN internet connection. The ISDN-Card
is set up (ippp0) and I can connect to the ISP. Furthermore I have an
ethernet card, connected to a local network. My problem is, that I do
not know how to configure the Debian routing table to get the
IP-Packages using
On Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 11:04:27AM +0100, Sian Leitch wrote
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 02:27:47AM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
I'd check your ipchains/ipfwadm rules.
If you're running kernel 2.0.x, what does the output of
# ipfwadm -I -l -e
# ipfwadm -O -l -e
# ipfwadm -F -l -e
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 02:27:47AM +0930, John Pearson wrote:
I'd check your ipchains/ipfwadm rules.
If you're running kernel 2.0.x, what does the output of
# ipfwadm -I -l -e
# ipfwadm -O -l -e
# ipfwadm -F -l -e
look like?
If you're running kernel 2.2.x, what does the output of
#
Weird.
Yah! :)
Firstly, can you ping hosts out on the
192.168.0. network?
Yes, there is a computer at 192.168.0.16 that i am
able to ping.
Is your cabling okay?
It appears so. The gateway computer (the one with the
ping problem) actually gets its ip address for eth0
(192.168.1.12 for the
hey there...
I have a linux computer that is supped to act as a
gateway to a school network and the internet for some
linux clients, but im having this problem right now
where the gateway itself can't even ping another
computer on the school network. The gateway's ip
address is 192.168.1.12 (er,
At 04:37 AM 8/12/00 -0700, you wrote:
##here is the out put of netstat -nr:
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U0 0 0 eth0
192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U0 0 0 eth1
looks correct
##In case
On Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 04:37:50AM -0700, Peter Welte wrote
hey there...
I have a linux computer that is supped to act as a
gateway to a school network and the internet for some
linux clients, but im having this problem right now
where the gateway itself can't even ping another
computer on
On 26 Jul 2000, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
- Nagarjuna == Nagarjuna G [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-
-Nagarjuna It is unthinkable for us that a machine can forward packets
-Nagarjuna without itself able to approach the router. !!! Pl mail if
-Nagarjuna you require more information on this.
-
-Post the
Nagarjuna == Nagarjuna G [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nagarjuna It is unthinkable for us that a machine can forward packets
Nagarjuna without itself able to approach the router. !!! Pl mail if
Nagarjuna you require more information on this.
Post the output of netstat -rn on the gateway. You can
Hi ,
This is regarding a routing problem that has cropped up since yesterday
(using potato). The setup is as follows
There are 3 entities involved in the configuration of the network
a)The Router which connects to the internet
b)The gateway which routes the packets for the entire network
I have added an extra ethernet card to one of our Linux servers so that it
can route packets between our two public Internet networks. It has been
performing the job just fine for a few weeks but I have just noticed that
one of the interfaces does not respond from outside our networks.
To
I guess you should add routes:
On the incoming machine: (10.0.0.1 / 11.0.0.1)
10.0.0.0* 255.255.255.0 eth0
11.0.0.0* 255.255.255.192 eth1
Instead of 10.0.0.2 and 11.0.0.2
Ron Rademaker
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Fraser Campbell wrote:
I have added an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I seem to have a problem. The problem is this:
I have two computers, one of them a Windows 98 box and one of them a
slink box. I am running on a residence network and they allow me
only one IP. It is 129.97.35.30 and it has to go through a gateway
Administrator
Fuller Theological Seminary
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Simon Law wrote:
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:10:47 -0500
From: Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian User debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Routing Problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I seem to have
Mark Brown writes:
If you are using diald it's easiest to *only* use diald. In your diald
configuration, you shouldn't be using something like
connect /usr/sbin/chat -f /etc/chatscripts/provider
That works just fine.
diald starts pppd itself, and the connect program should simply bring
On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 07:46:04PM +0100, Christopher Clark wrote:
dialing out (e.g. using pon) connects ok to my ISP and negotiates PPP
The reference to sl0 is presumably diald.
Could anybody give my a pointer please.
If you are using diald it's easiest to *only* use diald. In your diald
Christopher Clark writes:
The reference to sl0 is presumably diald.
Why are you trying to dial out with diald running?
Could anybody give my a pointer please.
If you really need to dial out with diald running and establish a default
route over the ppp link, put route commands in ip-up.d and
I'm almost there, thanks to various people's help. The last problem I have
has the symptoms of a routing problem, but ifconfig and route say differently.
Here are the outputs. any clues?
# route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse
Mike Patterson writes:
I'm almost there, thanks to various people's help. The last problem I
have has the symptoms of a routing problem, but ifconfig and route say
differently. Here are the outputs. any clues?
# route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask
To those who were (or weren't) having the same problem as me (PPP freezes
in kernel 2.2), I found the answer after talking with Clifford Kite on
comp.os.linux.networking (he didn't suggest it, though, he just prompted me
to get on with the diagnosing):
The modem UART type wasn't set right. On
I had the same problem.. IP masquerade isn't re-reading the firewall rules
after the link goes down. Creating a null /etc/{wherever}ipmasqueradeislocatedinthisdirectory/ppp
file.
touch /etc/ipmasq/ppp .. That should solve your problem.. ;)
If that doesn't work, uninstall ipmasq because you
Like a dolt, I didn't even recognize this. I had the exact same problem
that Kris has described, and after a reinstall, I noticed it went away
automagically. Of course, I don't have ipmasq installed this time.
*doh!*
BTW, HTML-mail SUCKS. :)
Sean
Johnny Thompson wrote:
I had the same
In reply to Johnny Thompson:
I had the same problem.. IP masquerade isn't re-reading
the firewall rules after the link goes down. Creating a
null /etc/{wherever}ipmasqueradeislocatedinthisdirectory/ppp
.file.
touch /etc/ipmasq/ppp .. That should solve your problem.. ;)
If that
{blush} You can tell I follow the digest now... darn. Apologies for the
waste of bandwidth, but it's for archive continuity (and so people actually
know wts(meg) I was going on about). Re-send, in reply to Sean
[EMAIL PROTECTED], with the correct subject:
snip suggestion about killing inetd,
In reply to John Pearson:
These [Exim things in ps ax output] should run briefly when you start
your session, and then be gone.
If they are still running it may be that there is a problem with exim's
setup that is preventing it from quitting in a timely manner, or it may
just be a further
At 19:35 16/05/1999 +, you wrote:
After I got everything installed, I
immediately downloaded, installed and ran apt-get, and promptly upgraded to
Slink, just as I had done when Slink first went stable. And now I can't use
any of the 2.0.x kernels AND have ppp work. I've tried everything
A quick kludge that might fix your problem (it fixed it on my machine under
hamm, and after I get done upgrading to slink, I'm going to try it there) is
to kill inetd. I think the problem revolves around the netbase script in
the /etc/init.d folder trying to use ifwadm(or something like that)
On 17-May-99 Sean wrote:
A quick kludge that might fix your problem (it fixed it on my machine under
hamm, and after I get done upgrading to slink, I'm going to try it there) is
to kill inetd. I think the problem revolves around the netbase script in
the /etc/init.d folder trying to use
Subject: Kernel 2.2.x: PPP routing problem?
Date: Sat, May 15, 1999 at 05:46:14PM +0100
In reply to:Kris
Quoting Kris([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Problem: PPP works fine under kernel 2.0.36; under 2.2.x it connects, but
it seems like no packets go in or out. tcpdump only shows what
At 20:21 15/05/1999 +, you wrote:
Ppp is known to have problems with 2.2.X.
Indeed it does. *thwap*
How about the far end of the ppp link?
Nope; the only thing I can ping or otherwise communicate with is localhost
the dynamic IP which I'm assigned (from /var/log/ppp.log).
Option names
At 08:32 16/05/1999 +, you wrote:
I have a working ppp on kernel 2.2.9. my pppd command is
exec /usr/sbin/pppd /dev/ttyS0 115200 lock modem crtscts \
asyncmap 0 defaultroute connect $DIALER_SCRIPT
pppd --version
(pppd version 2.3 patch level 5)
egrep -v '#|^ *$' /etc/ppp/options
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org debian-user@lists.debian.org
Date: Sunday, May 16, 1999 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.2.x: PPP routing problem?
At 08:32 16/05/1999 +, you wrote:
I have a working ppp on kernel 2.2.9. my pppd command is
exec /usr/sbin/pppd /dev/ttyS0
Kris writes:
# cat /etc/resolv.conf
domain globalnet.co.uk # - Tried with, without,
search globalnet.co.uk # - and combinations of.
nameserver 194.126.82.5
nameserver 194.126.86.9
The 'domain' and 'search' directives won't affect your problem (In fact
they are rarely needed at all).
#
Problem: PPP works fine under kernel 2.0.36; under 2.2.x it connects, but
it seems like no packets go in or out. tcpdump only shows what looks like
things trying to get out, but not getting anything back (really technical,
huh?). I can ping myself (localhost local IP), but not _any_ remote IPs
Kris writes:
Problem: PPP works fine under kernel 2.0.36; under 2.2.x it connects, but
it seems like no packets go in or out.
Ppp is known to have problems with 2.2.X.
...not _any_ remote IPs (including my nameservers).
How about the far end of the ppp link?
-am and -vj make no difference.
Hallo erstmal!
Jeff Katcher ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Rainer Clasen wrote:
Hi!
This may be offtopic - its not debian-specific. But I'm not sure where to
ask at all (linux-net is announced as development list ...). I appreciate
pointers to the correct forum.
Ok, first some
Hi!
This may be offtopic - its not debian-specific. But I'm not sure where to
ask at all (linux-net is announced as development list ...). I appreciate
pointers to the correct forum.
Ok, first some ASCII-art to confuse the reader ;-)
10base2
|
Rainer Clasen wrote:
Hi!
This may be offtopic - its not debian-specific. But I'm not sure where to
ask at all (linux-net is announced as development list ...). I appreciate
pointers to the correct forum.
Ok, first some ASCII-art to confuse the reader ;-)
10base2
Hi,
After a _disastrous_ upgrade from 1.3-2.0 (my Linux Actual CD had a
corrupted cd_autoup.sh *half way thru* leaving my system in an unusable
state - reinstall [there were no decent documents on what to do by hand
should things go wrong/should one chose to do it by hand, and apt just
puked
Martin Waller writes:
This is your problem:
route add default gw ${GATEWAY} metric 1
You are adding a default route to your LAN. pppd sees this and refuses to
add a default route to the ppp link, and so your packets get sent to the
LAN. There is no reason to have a defaulte route to your LAN
Hi,
I want to connect my IPX-Network via dialup to another IPX-network. The
dialing PC should be the Gateway. I know, how to get this working for
TCP/IP:
ipfwadm -F -p deny
ipfwadm -F -a m -S 192.168.1.0/24 -D 0.0.0.0/0
(With these two lines i connect my localnet to the Internet)
How can i
Look at the IP Masquerade Resources page. http://ipmasq.home.ml.org
And then follow the link to the Masquerade Applications List, then
Miscellaneous, then IPX
Basically, you build an IPX bridge between your inner and outer interfaces
on your Masquerading machine using software from
Weird routing problem here. I have a network which looks like this:
pc1 -ethernet- linux1 -ppp- central -ppp- linux2 -ethernet- pc2
|
V
internet
That is, there are two separate ethernets
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Mar 9 19:11:47 1997
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Steve Izma wrote:
I've been setting up Debian 1.2.4 (25 Jan.: Cheapbytes distribution)
on two new Pentium 150 systems and I can't get network routing over
ethernet to work.
I'm using the D-link DE220P, which the
.
Trying ftp produces the error: no route to host.
So I assume this is some sort of routing problem.
no, it's not routing. you get that same 'no route to host' message when
your computer can't figure out a host's ethernet address using arp. to
send a packet to a host on the local ethernet, your
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Steve Izma wrote:
Installation of netbase and netstd seemed to go well
using dselect, except for an unsurprising temporary problem in
finding the right i/o port for the ethernet card. I'm using the
D-link DE220P, which the ne driver easily finds. Ifconfig gives
this
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Steve Izma wrote:
Installation of netbase and netstd seemed to go well
using dselect, except for an unsurprising temporary problem in
finding the right i/o port for the ethernet card. I'm using the
D-link DE220P, which the ne driver easily finds. Ifconfig gives
this
into the network in different locations in the office.
Trying ftp produces the error: no route to host.
So I assume this is some sort of routing problem. The problem is
identical on both machines with the new distribution. I've
compared everything I can think of to another machine we have
running Debian 1.1
OK, i've got it. but i think this means i've found a bug, or at least
something that needs fixing.
Under the beta releases with 1.3.9x, the following file is created:
#! /bin/sh
ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
route add 127.0.0.1
IPADDR=129.186.31.38
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
NETWORK=129.186.31.38
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Rick Hawkins wrote:
Under the beta releases with 1.3.9x, the following file is created:
#! /bin/sh
ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
route add 127.0.0.1
IPADDR=129.186.31.38
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
NETWORK=129.186.31.38
BROADCAST=129.186.31.255
GATEWAY=129.186.31.254
The reason the last route add -net ${NETWORK} is not working is that it
is expecting a network address (ending in .0) and it is getting a host
address instead. In the above example, change the NETWORK=129.186.31.38
line to NETWORK=129.186.31.0 and things should work. If this is indeed
: NETWORK=129.186.31.38
IPADDR as the same as the NETWORK address?? Strange, isn't it?
err, forgot about this in the message i just sent.
On these machines, i found that i had to use their own address as teh
network address, rather than the .0 address; otherwise they wouldn't
talk to
The installation menu provides a prototype network number made from the
logical AND of your IP address and your netmask. If the user types in the
wrong netmask or overrides the prototype network number (which I think is
what happened here), they can get an incorrect value. I'll have to look at
101 - 187 of 187 matches
Mail list logo
