My Ubuntu desktop at home seems to show up to windows boxes on the
home lan and vice-versa, without me having to do anything to configure
it.
Something I've done in the past in small office situations is set up a
DNS server that knows the names of all the local machines and then
proxies off to a r
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Timothy Madden wrote:
>
>
> Actually, as I was saying, I have a sub-net of 8 computers and 1 router
> (and also one switch if you want).
>
> The router is stubborn enough to make sure that no incoming connections
> or outside traffic get to the sub-net (except on t
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:59 PM, wrote:
>>
And we have our DHCP give out IP by MAC addresses, so they're
effectively static.
>>>
>>> If you've done that, you might as well put them in DNS. Linux
>>> tools
>> Um, no can do: we don't ru
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:59 PM, wrote:
>
>>> And we have our DHCP give out IP by MAC addresses, so they're
>>> effectively static.
>>
>> If you've done that, you might as well put them in DNS. Linux tools
>>>
> Um, no can do: we don't run the DNS here on campus (a US gov't
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:45 PM, wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM, wrote:
>> And we have our DHCP give out IP by MAC addresses, so they're
>> effectively static.
>
> If you've done that, you might as well put them in DN
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:45 PM, wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM, wrote:
>>>
> And we have our DHCP give out IP by MAC addresses, so they're
> effectively static.
If you've done that, you might as well put them in DNS. Linux tools
>
>>> Um, no
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM, wrote:
>>
And we have our DHCP give out IP by MAC addresses, so they're
effectively static.
>>>
>>> If you've done that, you might as well put them in DNS. Linux tools
>> Um, no can do: we don't run the DNS here on campus (a US go
On 02.12.2011 18:17, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, December 02, 2011 11:06:51 AM Craig White wrote:
>> ummm... there are WINS master browser elections on every subnet ...
>
> 'Master browser election broadcasts' != 'broadcast-based name resolution.'
>
> I have measured significant broadcast traffi
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:17 PM, wrote:
>
>>> And we have our DHCP give out IP by MAC addresses, so they're
>>> effectively static.
>>
>> If you've done that, you might as well put them in DNS. Linux tools
>> just normally make this difficult. SME server made it handy long ago
>> by combining
On Friday, December 02, 2011 01:17:19 PM m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Within our division, we
> control the horizontal, we control the vertical
And now we have reached the outer limits of topicality.
/me
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On 02.12.2011 17:01, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, December 02, 2011 06:36:25 AM Timothy Madden wrote:
>> Sorry to say the instructions did not work for me.
> ...
>> Still, no success in ping-ing other (samba) machines in my network. But
>> I could ping the same machines from a Windows workstation
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM, wrote:
>>
>> And we have our DHCP give out IP by MAC addresses, so they're
>> effectively static.
>
> If you've done that, you might as well put them in DNS. Linux tools
> just normally make this difficult. SME server made it handy long ag
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM, wrote:
>
> And we have our DHCP give out IP by MAC addresses, so they're effectively
> static.
>
If you've done that, you might as well put them in DNS. Linux tools
just normally make this difficult. SME server made it handy long ago
by combining the user entr
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, December 02, 2011 11:43:48 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Nobody cares much about hardware/network efficiency these days since
>> you are likely to have plenty except in those marginal wifi areas, but
>> broadcasts get accepted by every NI
On Friday, December 02, 2011 11:40:39 AM Craig White wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > I have measured significant broadcast traffic reduction when migrating from
> > non-WINS to WINS SMB/CIFS name resolution.
...
> As for how much broadcast occurs... A very detailed page
On Friday, December 02, 2011 11:43:48 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Nobody cares much about hardware/network efficiency these days since
> you are likely to have plenty except in those marginal wifi areas, but
> broadcasts get accepted by every NIC on the network and pushed up the
> network stacks until
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> I'm sort of surprised no one pointed out that mDNS/avahi type of name
>> resolution was probably the way to go for a heterogenous network but yes, it
>> too is not generally installed/configured on a normal Linux install.
>
> While there is
On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 12/02/2011 09:46 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2011 08:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday, December 02, 2011 08:42:42 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> [netbios naming is] like a
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> There is also certainly nothing wrong with doing dynamic dns if you have
> a linux box giving out dhcp addresses. You can run ddns and wins on the
> same box. I have both.
And we have our DHCP give out IP by MAC addresses, so they're effectively
static.
mark
_
On Dec 2, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, December 02, 2011 11:06:51 AM Craig White wrote:
>> ummm... there are WINS master browser elections on every subnet ...
>
> 'Master browser election broadcasts' != 'broadcast-based name resolution.'
>
> I have measured significant broad
On 12/02/2011 09:46 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 12/02/2011 08:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 02, 2011 08:42:42 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
[netbios naming is] like a roomfull of people yelling out their own
name all th
On Friday, December 02, 2011 11:02:18 AM Craig White wrote:
> I'm sort of surprised no one pointed out that mDNS/avahi type of name
> resolution was probably the way to go for a heterogenous network but yes, it
> too is not generally installed/configured on a normal Linux install.
While there is
On Friday, December 02, 2011 11:06:51 AM Craig White wrote:
> ummm... there are WINS master browser elections on every subnet ...
'Master browser election broadcasts' != 'broadcast-based name resolution.'
I have measured significant broadcast traffic reduction when migrating from
non-WINS to WIN
On Friday, December 02, 2011 10:47:53 AM Craig White wrote:
> I think 'recommended' is a bit of a stretch - it is a possibility.
'Recommended' if you don't want to (or can't) use either old-style NT domains
or ActiveDirectory. When you need to support routable SMB/CIFS traffic for
WinXP Home, V
On Dec 2, 2011, at 8:52 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, December 02, 2011 10:38:11 AM Craig White wrote:
>> indeed but to continue Les's fairly adept analogy, this is akin to running
>> wires & a PA system to another office so the yelling happens not just in one
>> room but in several rooms.
On Dec 2, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
>
> Maybe I got used too much to the way this thing "just works" on a
> Windows network. But I really expected a modern Linux OS to have some
> better decentralized name resolving support off-the-box for a small,
> router-based home network. I
On Friday, December 02, 2011 10:38:11 AM Craig White wrote:
> indeed but to continue Les's fairly adept analogy, this is akin to running
> wires & a PA system to another office so the yelling happens not just in one
> room but in several rooms.
Uh, no. With properly configured WINS (both server
On Dec 2, 2011, at 7:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, December 02, 2011 08:42:42 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> [netbios naming is] like a roomfull of people yelling out their own
>> name all the time as a means of identification with no way to handle
>> those out of hearing distance or to arbitr
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 12/02/2011 08:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On Friday, December 02, 2011 08:42:42 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> [netbios naming is] like a roomfull of people yelling out their own
>>> name all the time as a means of identification with no way to
On Dec 2, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 12/02/2011 08:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On Friday, December 02, 2011 08:42:42 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> [netbios naming is] like a roomfull of people yelling out their own
>>> name all the time as a means of identification with no way to ha
On 12/02/2011 08:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, December 02, 2011 08:42:42 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> [netbios naming is] like a roomfull of people yelling out their own
>> name all the time as a means of identification with no way to handle
>> those out of hearing distance or to arbitrate du
On Friday, December 02, 2011 06:36:25 AM Timothy Madden wrote:
> Sorry to say the instructions did not work for me.
...
> Still, no success in ping-ing other (samba) machines in my network. But
> I could ping the same machines from a Windows workstation...
...
> I the end, I had to revert to stati
On Friday, December 02, 2011 08:42:42 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> [netbios naming is] like a roomfull of people yelling out their own
> name all the time as a means of identification with no way to handle
> those out of hearing distance or to arbitrate duplicates.
...
> But that's a matter of luck,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
>
>> After you've set that up, test it with 'dig @192.168.0.1 name.localdomain'.
>
> Well ... yes, you are right, the router has that reservation table in
> its DHCP settings. But if I have to include *all* my machines on the
> DHCP reservation
On 30.11.2011 17:39, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Timothy Madden
> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you all for your answers.
>>
>> Indeed, my router (D-Link DIR-100) only does DNS relay and nothing more.
>
> Errr, unless I'm looking at the wrong online manual, DNS relay does
> _exact
On 30.11.2011 17:00, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 08:54:04 AM Timothy Madden wrote:
>> Is there a way to get the name service switch to use wins, while the DNS
>> configuration is handled by DHCP client ?
>
> Yes, there is (or at least should be). While I know some will obje
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Timothy Madden
> Indeed, my router (D-Link DIR-100) only does DNS relay and nothing more.
What about in "Network Setting / DHCP Client list & reservation"?
It lists "Host Name" entries...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10073475/DIR100-Manual-En
Page 26
JD
_
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
>
> Thank you all for your answers.
>
> Indeed, my router (D-Link DIR-100) only does DNS relay and nothing more.
Errr, unless I'm looking at the wrong online manual, DNS relay does
_exactly_ what you want. You just have to give it a local do
On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 08:54:04 AM Timothy Madden wrote:
> Is there a way to get the name service switch to use wins, while the DNS
> configuration is handled by DHCP client ?
Yes, there is (or at least should be). While I know some will object strongly
to doing it this way, here's how
On 29.11.2011 20:00, Craig White wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> Sorry for the (I guess) simple question, but:
>>
>> I have 7 computers under one 8-port router (D-Link DIR-100, firmware
>> v1.13EU) in my network (actually in a sub-network) and they do
On 11/29/11 10:00 AM, Craig White wrote:
> If you want Dynamic DNS on your LAN, you are going to find that the typical
> home/SOHO routers are insufficient with short lease times, no memory storage
> for previously registered DHCP addresses and no ability to actually provide
> real DNS (other th
On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Timothy Madden wrote:
> Hello
>
> Sorry for the (I guess) simple question, but:
>
> I have 7 computers under one 8-port router (D-Link DIR-100, firmware
> v1.13EU) in my network (actually in a sub-network) and they do not see
> each other's host names.
>
> The ro
Vreme: 11/29/2011 05:58 PM, John Doe piše:
> From: Timothy Madden
>> Also, I hear Linux does not have, by default, a cache of resolved names
>> (like Windows does), and I find that to be a sad thing.
>
> Do not be sad!
> At least with CentOS 5, you can install the 'caching-nameserver' package.
Wha
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:58 AM, John Doe wrote:
>
>> Also, I hear Linux does not have, by default, a cache of resolved names
>> (like Windows does), and I find that to be a sad thing.
>
> Do not be sad!
> At least with CentOS 5, you can install the 'caching-nameserver' package.
Your router is p
From: Timothy Madden
> The router has the 'DNS relay' option enabled, and all 7 computers use
> the router as the DNS server, which in turn will forward DNS requests to
> the ISP DNS server. That way I can understand that simple, plain,
> default DNS is not enough for my boxes to see each-othe
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:14:16 AM Timothy Madden wrote:
> The router has the 'DNS relay' option enabled, and all 7 computers use
> the router as the DNS server, which in turn will forward DNS requests to
> the ISP DNS server. That way I can understand that simple, plain,
> default DNS is
Hello
Sorry for the (I guess) simple question, but:
I have 7 computers under one 8-port router (D-Link DIR-100, firmware
v1.13EU) in my network (actually in a sub-network) and they do not see
each other's host names.
The router has the 'DNS relay' option enabled, and all 7 computers use
the r
47 matches
Mail list logo
