Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-21 Thread Matt . Carpenter
cc: Sent by:Subject: Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535 linux-users-admi

Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-21 Thread Joel Hammer
My suspicion is that we on the @HOME network are in reality on a private network where those 192 ip's can be used. I think that would be possible but I am just guessing. Joel ___ http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe,

RE: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-21 Thread Wil McGilvery
www.lynchdigital.com -Original Message- From: Joel Hammer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535 My suspicion is that we on the @HOME network are in reality

Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-21 Thread Ian Marchak
Quoting Joel Hammer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: My suspicion is that we on the @HOME network are in reality on a private network where those 192 ip's can be used. I think that would be possible but I am just guessing. Joel Good guess then. You are correct (unless they have changed things). I

Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-20 Thread Matt . Carpenter
First off, the 192.168.x.x is a reserve address space, which you should NOT be seeing, unless you don't have any registered ip addresses and your border router is a 192.168.x.x address as well. Secondly, this is multicast traffic, which is pretty selectively allowed. Route discovery protocols

Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-20 Thread Joel Hammer
On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 07:11:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First off, the 192.168.x.x is a reserve address space, which you should NOT be seeing, unless you don't have any registered ip addresses and your border router is a 192.168.x.x address as well. Secondly, this is multicast

Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-19 Thread Marianne Taylor
I have seen the same problem. Took care of it by not logging this activity. But I would like to know more about what it is, and why it happens? Can you elaborate more Ronnie? Marianne Taylor On Saturday 18 August 2001 01:01, you wrote: Enable ip defragmentation, probably in

Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-19 Thread Ian Marchak
Joel Hammer wrote: PROTO=2 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535 Does anyone know what this activity on my external NIC means? My machine is neither of these two ip's. This occurs all day, about 5000 hits in the last 5 days. Been going on for months. My /etc/protocol gives the following

Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-19 Thread Ronnie Gauthier
It is packet fragmentaion. In this case I suspect it is from within his own network. I think he plays with video and is trying to broadcast or accept traffic via IGMP, the Internet MultiCast Protocal. When a packet is fragmeted the part with the header is readable but the rest is not, thus it

Re: Firewall log 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535

2001-08-18 Thread Ronnie Gauthier
Enable ip defragmentation, probably in etc/sysconfig/network, use /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_always_defrag. I think snort suck them up also. On Friday 17 August 2001 15:23, Joel Hammer wrote: PROTO=2 192.168.100.1:65535 224.0.0.1:65535 Does anyone know what this activity on my external NIC means?