Today at 09:54, Derek Jennings wrote:
> Yes shorewall will by default block pings from both the Internet and
> the local network. It will also block ALL traffic from the local
> network to the firewall. So if you want to run as a firewall AND as a
> server you must open up traffic to the local netw
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 06:32, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> Today at 00:22, Greg Meyer wrote:
> > On Monday 25 October 2004 09:04 pm, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> > > Ok, I got the switch, installed it, and the two hosts can ping each
> > > other, but neither can ping the server, and when I try to pin
Today at 00:22, Greg Meyer wrote:
> On Monday 25 October 2004 09:04 pm, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> > Ok, I got the switch, installed it, and the two hosts can ping each
> > other, but neither can ping the server, and when I try to ping either
> > host from the server I get this error message:
> >
On Monday 25 October 2004 09:04 pm, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> Ok, I got the switch, installed it, and the two hosts can ping each
> other, but neither can ping the server, and when I try to ping either
> host from the server I get this error message:
> ping: sendmsg: Operation not permitte
Wednesday at 10:49, Anne Wilson wrote:
> Russell, if you don't mind me saying so, you are a sucker for punishment ;-)
> Get your switch. It's a doddle after that. You won't believe how easy it is
> after what you were trying to do.
Ok, I got the switch, installed it, and the two hosts can pin
On Wednesday 20 October 2004 22:46, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> extra ports for future expansion. I figure that someday I'll throw
> together on old system, as an X-term put it in my woodshop, and run a
> cable from there to the switch, that way I'll be able to log in from the
> woodshop office witho
Today at 21:25, bascule wrote:
> re: crossover cables Russell, while in general it's true you will need
> crossover for machine to machine, there are nics that do autodetection of the
> cable and adjust accordingly, as far as I'm aware that's hardware based, if
> you happened to have such a nic
On Wednesday 20 Oct 2004 08:43, Russell W. Behne wrote:
>
> The switch should solve this too, shouldn't it? I hope so. With the
> switch they'll be put back on the same subnet. I'll probably be back
> with other problems after the switch is installed --- and hopefully
> running right.
>
Russell, if
Today at 08:57, H.J.Bathoorn wrote:
> You're getting there:) Apparently you have crossover cabling otherwise
> you wouldn't be able to ping directly.
Actually, I discovered that's not what's happening. I was wondering why
I was getting ping responses, but nothing else works. I did a telnet
jackie
On Sunday 31 October 2004 02:17, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> Oct 20 at 01:38, H.J.Bathoorn wrote:
> > For one: I've never used 2 or more networkcards for the same net on
> > the same PC before (I use a hubcheap&efficient) but I don't think
> > it poses a problem. They should be connected with a "
Oct 19 at 23:20, Greg Meyer wrote:
> A simple 4-5 port switch (switch is better than hub) should run you
> $20-$30 US.
What's the actual difference between a hub and switch? As you can
probably guess, I'll only want the most bare-bones one that connects the
two hosts directly to my server, and l
On Saturday 30 October 2004 11:00 pm, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> Thanks for the info on the crossover cable/hub, Greg. One or two last
> questions, about how much do hubs run? What's the cheapest I can expect?
A simple 4-5 port switch (switch is better than hub) should run you $20-$30
US. One wit
On Saturday 30 October 2004 09:17 pm, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> Oct 20 at 01:38, H.J.Bathoorn wrote:
> > For one: I've never used 2 or more networkcards for the same net on
> > the same PC before (I use a hubcheap&efficient) but I don't think
> > it poses a problem. They should be connected wit
Oct 20 at 01:38, H.J.Bathoorn wrote:
> For one: I've never used 2 or more networkcards for the same net on
> the same PC before (I use a hubcheap&efficient) but I don't think
> it poses a problem. They should be connected with a "crossover cable"
> (comparable to a "nul modem" serial cable) oth
On Sunday 31 October 2004 01:09, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> So both cards are now reecognised by the kernel. But pings to
> 192.168.0.11 and 192.168.0.12 aren't answered; doing a traceroute to
> 192.168.0.11 shows that the pings are going out the cable modem on eth0
> to my ISP's private network in
Oct 20 at 00:20, Derek Jennings wrote:
> If you look at the ifconfig display for eth1 and eth2 you will notice that you
> have not assigned them an IP address.
> You need to create files called /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1 and
> ifcfg-eth2 containing for example
> DEVICE=eth1
> BOOT
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> Ok. I'm at the point where I have the 2 extra network cards installed.
> eth0 goes to my cable modem, and is the default route. eth1 and eth2 are
> for the 2 kids computers. When I do ifconfig I get this:
>
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr
On Sunday 31 October 2004 00:09, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> Ok. I'm at the point where I have the 2 extra network cards installed.
> eth0 goes to my cable modem, and is the default route. eth1 and eth2 are
> for the 2 kids computers. When I do ifconfig I get this:
>
> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet
Ok. I'm at the point where I have the 2 extra network cards installed.
eth0 goes to my cable modem, and is the default route. eth1 and eth2 are
for the 2 kids computers. When I do ifconfig I get this:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:B5:C0:C0:40
inet addr:67.21.58.221 Bca
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> I want to network 2 computers off of my host. (One for each of my kids.)
> Right now both new boxes are windows only. I have a couple old hard
> drives that I will install, one in each box, to use for Linux. I want:
>
> 1. Both computers to be
Russell W. Behne wrote:
I want to network 2 computers off of my host. (One for each of my kids.)
Right now both new boxes are windows only. I have a couple old hard
drives that I will install, one in each box, to use for Linux. I want:
1. Both computers to be able to dual boot using lilo, Linux as
On Tuesday 19 October 2004 03:50, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> I want to network 2 computers off of my host. (One for each of my kids.)
> Right now both new boxes are windows only. I have a couple old hard
> drives that I will install, one in each box, to use for Linux. I want:
>
> 1. Both compu
On Tuesday 19 October 2004 09:32, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> H Actually, it would be nice if y'all do drop in and do it all
> for me, but I'd just as soon everyone just guide me and I'll do all the
> configuring myself, so that I get familiar with what's what. That way,
> once it's done, sho
Today at 08:54, H.J.Bathoorn wrote:
> the address 127.0.0.1 is reserved as "local host" and you'll be having
> some trouble trying t get that range of numbers to work. On a private
> lan you should use ranges like 192.168.0.xxx or 192.168.1.xxx where
> xxx goes up to 254.
That right. I didn't
On Tuesday 19 October 2004 04:50, Russell W. Behne wrote:
> I want to network 2 computers off of my host. (One for each of my kids.)
> Right now both new boxes are windows only. I have a couple old hard
> drives that I will install, one in each box, to use for Linux. I want:
>
> 1. Both com
I want to network 2 computers off of my host. (One for each of my kids.)
Right now both new boxes are windows only. I have a couple old hard
drives that I will install, one in each box, to use for Linux. I want:
1. Both computers to be able to dual boot using lilo, Linux as
defa
26 matches
Mail list logo
