On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 06:30, gaston wrote:
> I tried enabling proxy arp, and now it`s working. Thank you very much for
> your help.
>
>
Hmm. Well, I am glad you got it working. I just saw your post, and was
going to suggest that you try filtering by ip address and drop the mac
address stuff.
I tried enabling proxy arp, and now it`s working. Thank you very much for
your help.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
> Message: 6
> Subject: Re: Routing problem
> to what is the variables $IP and $MAC set?
>
> again,
>
> iptables-save -c > gastonrules.out
>
> and mail me the file gastonrules.out and lets see what is actually
> making it to iptables.
>
> B
** Reply to message from gaston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 12 Sep 2003
15:32:32 -0300
> -Original Message-
> This is feeling like a firewall issue to me so lets look more closely at
> that.
>
> Not knowing your firewall script (I have lazily allowed shorewall to
> abstract my thinking to
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 13:32, gaston wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> This is feeling like a firewall issue to me so lets look more closely at
> that.
>
> Not knowing your firewall script (I have lazily allowed shorewall to
> abstract my thinking to it way of doing things) why don't we t
-Original Message-
This is feeling like a firewall issue to me so lets look more closely at
that.
Not knowing your firewall script (I have lazily allowed shorewall to
abstract my thinking to it way of doing things) why don't we take a look
at the rules as the are actually in iptables
This is feeling like a firewall issue to me so lets look more closely at
that.
Not knowing your firewall script (I have lazily allowed shorewall to
abstract my thinking to it way of doing things) why don't we take a look
at the rules as the are actually in iptables
why don't you post the output
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 09:23, gaston wrote:
> Yes, from the linux box I can reach everything.
>
> This are some things I found in /var/log/messages
>
> kernel: martian source 208.53.98.198 from 127.0.0.1, on dev eth0
> kernel: ll header: 00:50:fc:89:70:ef:00:06:28:cf:ad:e0:08:00
>
> These are the
Yes the Cisco is properly configured and working fine, routing other stuff.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Gargiullo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: redhat mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:04:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Routing problem
> Just curious, do you
ep 2003 23:15:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Routing problem
> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 22:43, gaston wrote:
> > Internet
> > |
> > |
> > |
>
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 00:15, Bret Hughes wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 22:43, gaston wrote:
> > Internet
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > | |
> > | Cisco 2600|
> > | |
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 22:43, gaston wrote:
> Internet
> |
> |
> |
> | |
> | Cisco 2600|
> | |
> IP: 208.53.98.254
>
Internet
|
|
|
| |
| Cisco 2600|
| |
IP: 208.53.98.254
|___|
|
Title: Message
thanks for your help Jason and Ivan. It worked and
got me out of a sticky situation!
- Original Message -
From:
Jason
Staudenmayer
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:21
PM
Subject: RE: routing problem
Lisa wrote:
Hi,
If anyone out there can help me with this I'd be extremely grateful..
I have a firewall with external ip 62.17.173.173
The gateway is 62.17.173.254
We have a machine inside the firewall with private ip addresses.
I need to have a setup where this machine is visible to the ou
PROTECTED]Subject: routing
problem
Hi,
If anyone out there can help me with this I'd be
extremely grateful..
I have a firewall with external ip
62.17.173.173
The gateway is 62.17.173.254
We have a machine inside the firewall with
private ip addresses.
I need to h
Hi,
If anyone out there can help me with this I'd be
extremely grateful..
I have a firewall with external ip
62.17.173.173
The gateway is 62.17.173.254
We have a machine inside the firewall with private
ip addresses.
I need to have a setup where this machine is
visible to the outside w
chard
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bret Hughes
Sent: 14 October 2002 02:47
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Routing problem (not related to Red Hat)
On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 19:00, Joseph Teo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if you gu
On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 19:00, Joseph Teo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if you guys are able to help out with a conceptual problem.
>
> Question: What does a router do, if it discovers that it is about to route an IP
>datagram back over the same network interface on which the datagram arrived
Hi,
I was wondering if you guys are able to help out
with a conceptual problem.
Question: What does a router do, if it
discovers that it is about to route an IP datagram back over the same network
interface on which the datagram arrived?
I'm guessing a ICMP redirect message would be se
I haven't seen my update to this appear on the list so apologies if this is a second
post the problem was in /etc/sysctr.conf - ip forwarding wasn't enabled
/j-p.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listi
Ok I found the problem: It was in /etc/sysctl.conf - ip forwarding was off.
/j-p.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Thanks Edward... that was indeed my error.
regards
/j-p.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Edward Marczak wrote:
> On 9/26/02 10:06 AM, "john-paul delaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapped the keys:
>
> > Hello List...
> >
> > I've just upgraded a home server from 7.0 to 7.3. It's dual-homed, one side
> > co
I've been having mail problems getting sendmail to work again... so this message
wasn't posted to the list (though was sent). Basically the problem was caused by ip
forwarding turned off in /etc/sysctl.conf.
/j-p.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, john-paul delaney wrote:
> Hello List...
>
> I've just
On 9/26/02 10:06 AM, "john-paul delaney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapped the keys:
> Hello List...
>
> I've just upgraded a home server from 7.0 to 7.3. It's dual-homed, one side
> connecting to the inside LAN (10.11.11.1/24), the other side (192.168.1.2/24)
> connecting to an ADSL router on etherne
Hello List...
I've just upgraded a home server from 7.0 to 7.3. It's dual-homed, one side
connecting to the inside LAN (10.11.11.1/24), the other side (192.168.1.2/24)
connecting to an ADSL router on ethernet (internal address 192.168.1.1, and external
public static ip). All working fine bef
192.168.1.40 is mach1; 192.168.1.41 and 192.168.2.1 are mach2. I see
that I srewed up in my first message, and put 192.168.1.40 as mach2's
eth0 IP instead of 192.168.1.41. If it weren't for typos, I'd have no
typing at all! :)
The problem is fixed now. When I went to bed last night, I shut dow
Hi Ben
Do you have the routing table for 192.168.1.41? The second thing both
mach1 and mach2 have the same ip address 192.168.1.40. My guess is mach2
is supposed to have 192.168.1.41.
You will need IP forwarding on all the boxes except mach4 as well.
david
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Ben Logan wrote
Yes. I didn't to begin with, but then turned it on. Still have the
same problem though.
Ben
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 11:11:21PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do you have IP fowarding turn on? if not turn it on. I have a DSL connection
> using ppp0 and the rest of my network is a 198.X.X.X.
Do you have IP fowarding turn on? if not turn it on. I have a DSL connection using ppp0 and the rest of my network is a 198.X.X.X. I used IP forwarding and squid for a proxy server. It works great,,, then I setup SNMP on my ppp0, eth0, and eth1 inferfaces so I can bench mark using MRTG.
Brian
I'm sure this is a very simple routing issue to someone. The
frustrating thing is that I had it figured out the other day, but then
my hard disk crashed today. Now I can't get it right again.
I have a home network of 4 computers. mach1-mach4. It is a 10Base-T
ethernet LAN, and I don't have a
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Kiran Kumar M wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a network structure as following.
>
> eth1 - 192.168.1.254<---Internal Network
> eth0 - xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx <---External Network
> eth2 - yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy <---Management Port
>
> I am using ipchains
Hi,
I have a network structure as following.
eth1 - 192.168.1.254<---Internal Network
eth0 - xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx <---External Network
eth2 - yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy <---Management Port
I am using ipchains for communication (routing between) eth0 and eth1. My
rou
Thanks, thats what I needed.
RB
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Thierry ITTY wrote:
> >Could someone please tell me where to read about arp? I can't find it in
> >the kernel docs and I can't find a howto with much about it. man arp is
> >mostly about the command, not the protocol.
>
> ARP is defined in
>Could someone please tell me where to read about arp? I can't find it in
>the kernel docs and I can't find a howto with much about it. man arp is
>mostly about the command, not the protocol.
ARP is defined in rfc826, so have a look at it
but i think you might have to read some other rfc's, as 82
Hi,
Could someone please tell me where to read about arp? I can't find it in
the kernel docs and I can't find a howto with much about it. man arp is
mostly about the command, not the protocol.
Robert
___
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Robert wrote:
>
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > I posted the following to the Mandrake experts list about a week ago, but
> > no replies, so I'm hoping someone here will be able to help.
> >
> >===
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Robert wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> I posted the following to the Mandrake experts list about a week ago, but
> no replies, so I'm hoping someone here will be able to help.
>
>=
>
> I have a network of 2 machines connected with crossover
hi,
I posted the following to the Mandrake experts list about a week ago, but
no replies, so I'm hoping someone here will be able to help.
=
I have a network of 2 machines connected with crossover ethernet utp. One
is a 486 with Redhat 5.1 and the
Hello All;
A little routing question, hopefully easy for one of you gurus to answer.
:-)
Using dial-up, sometimes I get disconnected from the ISP for one reason or
another. After redialing, I can't go anywhere; "host can't be found" kind of
errors.
The ISP uses dynamic IP addressing. After runn
Yes - there is - that's what's so weird - everything looks as though it
should work...
My ISP programmed this router w/ source & remote addresses, as well as
assigning one of my new
Useable IP's to the ethernet port on the router. The other IP was assigned
to the "outside" NIC
on my linux server.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, you wrote:
> Greetings all!
>
> I am having a problem with Redhat 6.2 routing the connection to my LAN.
>
> I was recently placed on what my ISP calls a "routed connection", rather
> than a connection using a DSL modem.
>
> I was using my Linux box to monitor & log traffic,
Greetings all!
I am having a problem with Redhat 6.2 routing the connection to my LAN.
I was recently placed on what my ISP calls a "routed connection", rather
than a connection using a DSL modem.
I was using my Linux box to monitor & log traffic, use ipchains, and several
other functions, in a
Jan 5, at 15:40, Peter Peltonen sent through the Star Gate:
>Glen Lee Edwards wrote:
>
>> I was using the above with IP masquerading. Eth0 on the Cisco was set to
>> my static IP address, but aliased to 10.0.0.1. I set eth0 on the Linux
>> router to 10.0.0.2 (didn't use pump or dhcp in the Linu
David Brett wrote:
> The router has two routes out of it. one to the internet and the second to
> your network. Any route it does not know about it will drop or send to
> the default route, if it exists. Since the internet is a larger network
> the default is the internet and your network not v
comments below
david
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Peter Peltonen wrote:
> David Brett wrote:
> >
> > The possible locations for the problems are:
> >
> > Linux box is not routing properly.
>
> It should be:
>
> # /sbin/route -n
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Are you sure you enabled IP forwarding on the router? Do you have an entry
> net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1
> in /etc/sysctl.conf?
My /etc/sysctl.conf:
--snip--
# Enables packet forwarding
net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1
# Enables source route verification
net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_
David Brett wrote:
>
> The possible locations for the problems are:
>
> Linux box is not routing properly.
It should be:
# /sbin/route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface
192.168.0.253 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH
Hi Peter,
> I've finally got my ISP to configure the CISCO router. They made "a
> a static route for xxx.xx.xxx.128/25 and configured xxx.xx.xxx.253 as a
> forwarding router".
> But no go. Still the same situation: client can ping linux and vice versa, but
> client cannot ping t
The possible locations for the problems are:
Linux box is not routing properly.
The cisco router is not routing properly. It needs the following
statements to work
ip route x.x.x.190 255.255.255.128 x.x.x.253
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ip of ISP
ISP has missconfigured its end
The easiest way t
Here we go again...
I've finally got my ISP to configure the CISCO router. They made "a
a static route for xxx.xx.xxx.128/25 and configured xxx.xx.xxx.253 as a
forwarding router". The network looks like this at the moment:
ISP
|
|
HDSL
|
|
CISCO
eth0 ip xxx.xx.xxx.254, mask /??
|
|
eth0
Glen Lee Edwards wrote:
> I was using the above with IP masquerading. Eth0 on the Cisco was set to
> my static IP address, but aliased to 10.0.0.1. I set eth0 on the Linux
> router to 10.0.0.2 (didn't use pump or dhcp in the Linux box), then set
> eth1 in the Linux router (computer) to a LAN ad
Peter,
>Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
>> So, let's try again. What about the configuration of the CISCO? Guess you'll
>> have to configure this router to add an extra hop to the Linux router. No need
>> to contact your ISP over this if they route all your traffic over the CISCO('s
>
>Unfortunate
Hi Peter,
> 'Why don't you just "steal" the net252/m252 from the net192/m128? That way you
> would have only two networks xxx.xx.xxx.128/25 and xxx.xx.xxx.252./30. The
> networks will go to eachother's territory but that shouldn't matter because
> routing happens always using the
Hi Peter,
> I could specify _two_ ip addresses for eth0. One being private and
> talking with the CISCO and another being a public address belonging to the
> net128/m128 and doing the masquerading.
This wouldn't solve anything, since the Cisco would still have to listen and
ro
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> If you'ld use a public IP for eth0 on the router the router itself couldn't
> be talking to the outside world, so masquerading would fail. I am not sure if
> plain routing would work, although I think this might work if the Cisco
> supports routing local addresses
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Well, I guess you could get yourself a few more usable addresses by adding
> 240/248 and 248/252. And in your first setup you didn't use so many subnets.
> Why not fuse 192/240 + 208/240 = 192/224?
That seems reasonable, yes.
Another suggestion I got was this:
Hi Peter,
> I've been suggested to use a private network between CISCO and LINUX which
> would be otherwise ok but I'm planning to add a masqueraded network to LINUX
> and if I've undestood correctly in that case I need to have a public ip address
> for eth0?
If you'ld use a pub
Hi everybody,
and thanks for your time that you've put to help me. The problem I'm having
obiviously is that the CISCO router is not aware of the Linux router I've put
there. I've asked my ISP to configure the CISCO router. I've asked them for a
small additional network between the CISCO and the
; > |
> > > |
> > > Linux
> > >
> > > And there is only one ethernet port in the router.
> >
> > I have understood this is your setup.
>
> Well I guess I didn't. Thought you meant your linux router by the CISCO and
> the Linux cl
t; > Linux
> >
> > And there is only one ethernet port in the router.
>
> I have understood this is your setup.
Well I guess I didn't. Thought you meant your linux router by the CISCO and
the Linux client by Linux. It seems your simple routing problem is getting
even
Please supply the routing table of the cisco router and the ip adresses of
the networks.
The following have to exist for your network to work.
The ip addresses on your network (past the cisco router) has to be public
ip addresses your ISP knows about. If not the router has to do ip address
tran
Hi Peter,
The fact that the routing by your ISP is probably your problem can be checked
by using a single subnet (xxx.xxx.xxx.128/255.255.255.128) for a test setup.
Bye,
Leonard.
___
Hi Peter,
Read the post by Brat.
> I wasn't clear enought about my setup. As you can see from my previous post,
> the configuration actually is like this:
>
> HDSL
> |
> |
> CISCO
> |
> |
> Linux
>
> And there is only one ethernet port in the router.
I have understood th
Hi David,
> Bret's explaination is close. The basic rule is if the router has a route for
> the the IP address is will route it. This includes default route. The other
> thing that will mess up routing is incorrect subnetting. This will can have
> very strange effect on routin
Bret's explaination is close. The basic rule is if the router has a route
for the the IP address is will route it. This includes default route.
The other thing that will mess up routing is incorrect subnetting. This
will can have very strange effect on routing.
My guess without looking into a
Peter Peltonen wrote:
> Bret Hughes wrote:
>
> > I have not really looked at the subneting but are you sure your isp is sending
> > packets to you router, or are they merely sending them in that direction from
> > theirs? I believe they need to know that all packets destined for your
>
> I belie
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Can you plug multiple machines into the HDSL?
>
> HDSL .254 --- eth0 .129 Linux-client
> |
> |
> eth0 .253
> Linux-router
> eth1 .158
>
> Where does the HDSL send the packets? To the router or to every machine?
I wasn't clea
Kiran Kumar M wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> You have to forward the packets by using ipchains.
>
> I think it will solve your problem.
I should be able to get the routing going without using ipchains, shouldn't I?
That's what I want to accomplish before firing up my firewall...
Peter
Bret Hughes wrote:
> I have not really looked at the subneting but are you sure your isp is sending
> packets to you router, or are they merely sending them in that direction from
> theirs? I believe they need to know that all packets destined for your
I believe this is the problem, yes. My ac
Hi Peter,
Can you plug multiple machines into the HDSL?
HDSL .254 --- eth0 .129 Linux-client
|
|
eth0 .253
Linux-router
eth1 .158
Where does the HDSL send the packets? To the router or to every machine?
Bye,
Hi Peter, Paul and Bret,
> The way you have things setup the default gateway for your clients is
> outside the mask you have set for the client so that the default gateway is
> unreachable.
No, 190 ([10]10) is inside the mask for 129 ([10]01).
I guess Bret might be righ
Peter,
You have to forward the packets by using ipchains.
I think it will solve your problem.
Kiran
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Bret Hughes wrote:
> Peter Peltonen wrote:
>
> > Okay, I've updated my subnet plan to look like this:
> >
> > net namenetmaskip
> >
> > 128 dmz1.2
Peter Peltonen wrote:
> Okay, I've updated my subnet plan to look like this:
>
> net namenetmaskip
>
> 128 dmz1.224 .129 - .158
> 224 router .224 .225 - .224
>
> I've changed the network settings accordint to this plan. I made .158 the new
> dmz gateway. S
Okay, I've updated my subnet plan to look like this:
net namenetmaskip
.128 dmz1.224 .129 - .158
.224 router .224 .225 - .224
I've changed the network settings accordint to this plan. I made .158 the new
dmz gateway. So my network looks like this:
HD
Thanks for your quick reply!
Paul Anderson wrote:
>
> 1. The best network calculator on the web is:
>
> http://www.agt.net/public/sparkman/netcalc.htm
That looks like a handy tool.
A question: the calculator gives me only options for 2 or 4 networks. Is it
then impossible to do 3 networks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Peltonen
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 8:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: simple routing problem
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO
-
I'm trying to connect a network with p
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO
-
I'm trying to connect a network with public ip-addresses to the Internet
via a Linux (Red Hat 6.2) router.
THE PROBLEM
---
No routing is happening. I can ping from the router both the Internet and
my own net, but can not ping from my own net
on 23/2/2000 10:37 AM, matt boex shot down the bitstream:
> now, the "inside box name" is in my hosts file so i
> figure it can resolve that ip and know where to go.
Sendmail does not resolve using the host file (without an explicit switch -
which I forget right now). Get that machine into DNS,
here are some suggestions:
>
> i have two domain names registerd for my one ip. i am
> trying to allow mail for both of them. one domain is
> allowing mail through, the other is not. i did enter
> the name in the mailertable-
>
> myotherdomain.comRELAY:[inside box name]
try using
Are you running DNS? This is a DNS problem. I encountered the same thing.
My solution was to have the name server, mail server and machine name all
the same. And make sure your DNS tables reflect this.
>i have two domain names registerd for my one ip.
@INNS your.domain.com.
i have two domain names registerd for my one ip. i am
trying to allow mail for both of them. one domain is
allowing mail through, the other is not. i did enter
the name in the mailertable-
myotherdomain.comRELAY:[inside box name]
now, the "inside box name" is in my hosts file so i
f
> I am running linux as a client through a router. When I type route I get:
> two entries
> 192.168.200.0 and
> loopback
Need more information. What kind of router is this, and how is it
configured? Are you running routed? (don't) Also, does your router support
IP address masquerading?
You ar
I am running linux as a client through a router. When I type route I get:
two entries
192.168.200.0 and
loopback
The entries come up right away as does netstat -r. I add the gateway to the
routing table (route add default gw 111.222.333.444). Now, when type route
or netstat -r, there is a delay o
]
Subject: routing problem
I setup a default gateway using the route command and now I can ping any
ip
address on the Internet. The problem is I cannot use any domain names. I
put
the nameserver addresses in the /etc/resolv.conf and I have the standard
"host files dns" in the nsswitch
At 11:16 PM 11/25/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I setup a default gateway using the route command and now I can ping any ip
>address on the Internet. The problem is I cannot use any domain names. I put
>the nameserver addresses in the /etc/resolv.conf and I have the standard
>"host files dns" in the ns
I setup a default gateway using the route command and now I can ping any ip
address on the Internet. The problem is I cannot use any domain names. I put
the nameserver addresses in the /etc/resolv.conf and I have the standard
"host files dns" in the nsswitch.conf file. I still cannot resolve i
I probably overlooked something obvious, but here's
my problem:
I've got two NICs in a old 486 that I am trying to configure
as a proxy firewall. Acording to the Firewall-HOWTO, it is
to the point where I should be able to ping machines on either
side of the firewall, but eth0 seems to be the i
On Thu, 7 May 1998, Alfonso Barreto Lopez wrote:
> I need to connect to a computer that is phisically in other place from my
> local network, but it has the same domain that my network, is there a way
> to say not to search in the local network but to search directly
> out?
Do not quite understan
I need to connect to a computer that is phisically in other place from my
local network, but it has the same domain that my network, is there a way
to say not to search in the local network but to search directly
out?
Thanks for your time
__
When you set up a static route, you are really telling the Linux box where the
next hop is must send packets to reach its destination. This next hop is a
router (or such) that must exist on your network.
In your scenario, your Linux box must send the packets to the 108.62.62.137
address. Once t
I'm trying to add a static route to a remote network, but I keep getting
"network is unreachable". The topography looks like this:
++ ++ ++ +---+ +---+
| linux | | router | | router | | host | | other net |
| 108.10 |---|108.6
92 matches
Mail list logo
