Hi,
is this the right place to ask for updated -extras- packages?
this seems to be the successor of the 8.2.x branch and contains various
bugfixes.
Thx
Rainer
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 2008-12-17, 08:37 GMT, NiftyClusters T Mitchell wrote:
> It is possible that dedicated Cisco hardware solutions will
> scale better.
Your mileage may vary, but I have terrible experience with Linux
Cisco VPN clients, so I would strongly suggest OpenVPN. Of
course, I don't know anything about
Rainer Traut wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is this the right place to ask for updated -extras- packages?
no. you want bugs.centos.org instead
> this seems to be the successor of the 8.2.x branch and contains various
> bugfixes.
also, offer to work with the packagers to test the stuff as its built.
_
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:20 +0100, Rainer Traut wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is this the right place to ask for updated -extras- packages?
>
> this seems to be the successor of the 8.2.x branch and contains various
> bugfixes.
Uhhh... this was *just* released... that's a little quick to be asking,
isn't it
Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 2008-12-17, 08:37 GMT, NiftyClusters T Mitchell wrote:
>
>> It is possible that dedicated Cisco hardware solutions will
>> scale better.
>>
>
> Your mileage may vary, but I have terrible experience with Linux
> Cisco VPN clients, so I would strongly suggest OpenVP
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 16:02 +0530, Dhaval Thakar wrote:
> I prefer non-encryption vpn.
Uhh... without encryption, you take the "p" out of "vpn"...
-I
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Am 19.12.2008 11:29, schrieb Ian Forde:
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:20 +0100, Rainer Traut wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> is this the right place to ask for updated -extras- packages?
>>
>> this seems to be the successor of the 8.2.x branch and contains various
>> bugfixes.
>
> Uhhh... this was *just* released
I'm thinking of changing raid 1 to raid 5 (phisical --> in bios, now i've got 2
disks in raid1, i want to add 3rd disk). Will centos work correctly?
cheers
Mariusz
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_
Dhaval Thakar wrote:
> I prefer non-encryption vpn.
> If I use openvpn, it will require more processing power than poptop.
> I guess creating backup server might become difficult as it works on ssl
> cert. cert created on server1 might not work with server2. Whereas in
> poptop I need to copy sin
> From: Mariusz
> I'm thinking of changing raid 1 to raid 5 (phisical --> in bios, now i've got
> 2
> disks in raid1, i want to add 3rd disk). Will centos work correctly?
If it is physical RAID, CentOS should only see logical disk(s) and not the
underlying physical disks...
I guess it all depe
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 03:17:25AM -0800, John Doe wrote:
> > From: Mariusz
> > I'm thinking of changing raid 1 to raid 5 (phisical --> in bios, now i've
> > got 2
> > disks in raid1, i want to add 3rd disk). Will centos work correctly?
>
> If it is physical RAID, CentOS should only see logical
Mariusz wrote:
> ok, thanks for reply, but logical disk(s) will be the same? after migration?
Did you ask your vendor / manufacturer of the raid layer ? What did they
say ?
- KB
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/
Karanbir Singh schrieb:
> Dhaval Thakar wrote:
>
>> I prefer non-encryption vpn.
>> If I use openvpn, it will require more processing power than poptop.
>> I guess creating backup server might become difficult as it works on ssl
>> cert. cert created on server1 might not work with server2. Wher
DISCLAIMER:
I work for ICSAlabs, an Independent Division of Verizon Business
Systems. We are the UL of security product testing.
I co-chaired the IPsec work in the IETF back in the late '90s.
I am the creator of the HIP protocol.
I have lots of standards experience, lots of testing experience,
Hi all !
Today the apt had a problem,here is the result:
[cjzjm...@localhost ~]$ sudo apt-get install
nautilus-sendtoPassword:/var/lib/apt/lists/mrepo_rhel5s-i386_RPMS.os_repodata_repomd.xml:1:
parser error : Start tag expected, '<' not found ^apt-get:
rpm/rpmindexfile.cc：645：std::string rpmRep
Rainer Duffner wrote:
>> 1500 clients is quite a lot, but not hard to handle from a single
>> machine if you select a cpu capable of doing ssl quickly. eg a power6
>> machine with a few cores would handle that without any problems.
>
> And what is the suggested RRP of such a thing?
> (If one may
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 03:42:08PM +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Rainer Duffner wrote:
> >> 1500 clients is quite a lot, but not hard to handle from a single
> >> machine if you select a cpu capable of doing ssl quickly. eg a power6
> >> machine with a few cores would handle that without any pro
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, cjzjm100 wrote:
Today the apt had a problem,here is the result:
[cjzjm...@localhost ~]$ sudo apt-get install
nautilus-sendtoPassword:/var/lib/apt/lists/mrepo_rhel5s-i386_RPMS.os_repodata_repomd.xml:1: parser error : Start tag expected, '<' not found ^apt-get: rpm/rpmindexf
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 03:42:08PM +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> Rainer Duffner wrote:
>>
1500 clients is quite a lot, but not hard to handle from a single
machine if you select a cpu capable of doing ssl quickly. eg a power6
machine with a few c
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> The OP did not want security, only tunneling.
use simple PPPoE perhaps?
I still think I'd recommend Juniper SSLVPN appliance hardware however.
one of their midsized boxes can easily handle 1000s of sessions at wire
speeds up to 100baseT at the server side, and has
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:00:43PM +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Mariusz wrote:
> > ok, thanks for reply, but logical disk(s) will be the same? after migration?
>
> Did you ask your vendor / manufacturer of the raid layer ? What did they
> say ?
>
> - KB
no, i haven't asked yet, but i'm going t
John R Pierce wrote:
> Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> The OP did not want security, only tunneling.
>>
>
> use simple PPPoE perhaps?
>
PPPoE does not have good behaviour over the broader Internet. Works find
for the last mile.
> I still think I'd recommend Juniper SSLVPN appliance hard
How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
Ray
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Mariusz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:00:43PM +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> Mariusz wrote:
>>
>>> ok, thanks for reply, but logical disk(s) will be the same? after migration?
>>>
>> Did you ask your vendor / manufacturer of the raid layer ? What did they
>> say ?
>>
>> - K
Hi!
I'm trying to figure out what's going wrong with a "simple" FTPS setup
and VSFTPD.
I saw references on Google and tried, and tried, and tried... without
success.
I'll start by explaining my situation: I have a WEB development server
behind a firewall. It's current
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
I've done that with a few connections - mostly connecting to Cisco
routers to pass multicast streams. I'm not sure how it would scale up
in terms of the interface numbers and managing routes but it should work.
--
Les Mikesell
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
RED can kill GRE tunnels over the net. Depends on the protocol they
carry. If it is all TCP, you see a lot of slowstart. Of course if their
path is free of congestion, then no RED.
Plus there is a lot of configuration for GRE, and most p
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:49:08PM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
> RED can kill GRE tunnels over the net. Depends on the protocol they
> carry. If it is all TCP, you see a lot of slowstart. Of course if their
> path is free of conges
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>
>> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>>
>
> I've done that with a few connections - mostly connecting to Cisco
> routers to pass multicast streams. I'm not sure how it would scale up
> in terms of the interface numbers and managing routes bu
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:49:08PM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>>
>>> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>>>
>> RED can kill GRE tunnels over the net. Depends on the protocol they
>> carry. If it is all TCP, you see a lot of slow
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:11:29PM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 12:49:08PM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> >
> >> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> >>
> >>> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
> >>>
> >> RED can kill GRE tunnels over the ne
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 03:42:08PM +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Rainer Duffner wrote:
>>>
>>>
> 1500 clients is quite a lot, but not hard to handle from a single
> machine if you select a cpu capable of d
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008, Guy Boisvert wrote:
>Hi!
>
> I'm trying to figure out what's going wrong with a "simple" FTPS setup
>and VSFTPD.
>
> I saw references on Google and tried, and tried, and tried... without
>success.
>
> I'll start by explaining my situation: I have a WEB deve
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:41 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> I still think I'd recommend Juniper SSLVPN appliance hardware however.
> one of their midsized boxes can easily handle 1000s of sessions at wire
> speeds up to 100baseT at the server side, and has really good
I was an end user of a Juniper
On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
Well PPTP is PPP over GRE, so that's basically it.
PPTP can run without encryption too if the OP really doesn't care
about encryption.
-Ross
___
CentOS mail
on 12-19-2008 7:49 AM Ray Van Dolson spake the following:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 03:42:08PM +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> Rainer Duffner wrote:
1500 clients is quite a lot, but not hard to handle from a single
machine if you select a cpu capable of doing ssl quickly. eg a power6
>>
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:14:34PM -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>
> > How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>
> Well PPTP is PPP over GRE, so that's basically it.
>
> PPTP can run without encryption too if the OP really doesn't care
> abou
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>
>>> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>>>
>> I've done that with a few connections - mostly connecting to Cisco
>> routers to pass multicast streams. I'm not sure how it would scale up
>> in terms of the interface numbers and managing routes but it should work
Bill Campbell wrote:
> As a rule, we require external developers to access our servers
> using OpenVPN which provides a simple means of getting secure
> access without having to deal with multiple server components.
>
and, at work, our GNOC guys use SSL-VPN's from Juniper, which for
business p
>
> When i try, i get this error message:
>
> SSL/TLS client handshake failed (Error = 0x80090308)
>
>
>
> Does anybody could give me a pointer on this?
>
>
I really hope you post the end fulfillment of this problem as I want to do
ssl with my vsftp and have not gotten around to it.
Have
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:37:55PM -0500, Bob Hoffman wrote:
>
> >
> > When i try, i get this error message:
> >
> > SSL/TLS client handshake failed (Error = 0x80090308)
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anybody could give me a pointer on this?
> >
> >
>
> I really hope you post the end fulfillment of
on 12-19-2008 10:33 AM Les Mikesell spake the following:
> Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>
How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>>> I've done that with a few connections - mostly connecting to Cisco
>>> routers to pass multicast streams. I'm not sure how it would scale up
>>> in term
William Warren wrote:
> Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 03:42:08PM +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Rainer Duffner wrote:
>> 1500 clients is quite a lot, but not hard
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:14:34PM -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
>
>> On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>>>
>> Well PPTP is PPP over GRE, so that's basically it.
>>
>> PPTP can run without encryption
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guy Boisvert wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm trying to figure out what's going wrong with a "simple" FTPS setup
> and VSFTPD.
...
> When i try, i get this error message:
>
> SSL/TLS client handshake failed (Error = 0x80090308)
How are you trying to conn
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>>> I've done that with a few connections - mostly connecting to Cisco
>>> routers to pass multicast streams. I'm not sure how it would scale up
>>> in terms of th
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Dag Wieers wrote:
>> But it would be nice if the centos-release package would contain an apt
>> configuration file.
>
> easy to drop in, please post a recommended config stanza, into an issue
> at bugs.centos.org/ and it can be taken from there.
Added
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:54:32PM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 01:14:34PM -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
> >>>
> >> Well
Scott Silva wrote:
>
> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>
I've done that with a few connections - mostly connecting to Cisco
routers to pass multicast streams. I'm not sure how it would scale up
in terms of the interface numbers and managing routes but it sh
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>
>
I've done that with a few connections - mostly connecting to Cisco
routers to pass multicast streams. I'm not sure how it would scale up
in terms of the interface numbers and
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>
>
>> How about lots of GRE tunnels? :-)
>>
>>
>>
> I've done that with a few connections - mostly connecting to Cisco
> routers to pass multicast streams. I'm not sure
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:02 -0800, Dnk wrote:
> Can anyone recommend one to run under CentOS?
OpenVPN?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Dnk wrote:
> Can anyone recommend one to run under CentOS?
>
I'd recommend OpenVPN as /the/ VPN to use with a Linux VPN server...
but, web based? its SSL based.the only 'web based' stuff I'm aware
of is when the VPN client is embedded in a client side web 'object' like
ActiveX, the
On 19-Dec-08, at 1:09 PM, Adam Tauno Williams
wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 13:02 -0800, Dnk wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend one to run under CentOS?
>
> OpenVPN?
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/li
On 19-Dec-08, at 1:03 PM, Tim Nelson wrote:
> Have you looked at SSL-Explorer? Erm... I mean Adito? SSL-Explorer
> appears to have been taken over by Barracuda but still forked into
> Adito.
>
> Linky links: http://sourceforge.net/projects/adito
>
> BTW: Sent from my web based mail system o
I used it about 1-1.5 years ago when it was still SSL-Explorer. At the time, it
"worked" but not all the time. It certainly wasn't what I would call reliable.
Hence it was nothing more than a plaything, definitely not production worthy. I
couldn't tell if it was the super shiny AJAX interface or
Can anyone recommend one to run under CentOS?
Dnk
Sent from my iPhone
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Have you looked at SSL-Explorer? Erm... I mean Adito? SSL-Explorer appears to
have been taken over by Barracuda but still forked into Adito.
Linky links: http://sourceforge.net/projects/adito
BTW: Sent from my web based mail system on my workstation at my desk in my
office in Duluth, Minnesota,
Dnk wrote:
> That is what I am currently using. One of our vp's had a "web" based
> one at his last job. But to connect, they go to a web page, login, and
> they gain VPN access. Then there are No client software to install
> either. I know some sonic wall, barracuda, etc devices do this.
Bill Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008, Guy Boisvert wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out what's going wrong with a "simple" FTPS setup
>> and VSFTPD.
>>
>> I saw references on Google and tried, and tried, and tried... without
>> success.
>>
>> I'll start by explaining
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 6:21 PM, MHR wrote:
> TigerDirect.com has a $99 box available, and it's pretty low end, but
> it might suit your purposes.
As I wrote a couple of nights ago, if I was in the USA, I would order
one of those, without giving it a second thought. Wonderful! Next
Monday mor
John R Pierce wrote:
> Bill Campbell wrote:
>> As a rule, we require external developers to access our servers
>> using OpenVPN which provides a simple means of getting secure
>> access without having to deal with multiple server components.
>>
>
> and, at work, our GNOC guys use SSL-VPN's from
Bob Hoffman wrote:
>> When i try, i get this error message:
>>
>> SSL/TLS client handshake failed (Error = 0x80090308)
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anybody could give me a pointer on this?
>>
>>
>
> I really hope you post the end fulfillment of this problem as I want to do
> ssl with my vsftp and have not got
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>
> To the OP (sorry, jumping into a lot of threads late); what version of
> vsftpd are you using?
>
> A few months back FileZilla released a new version that "broke" TLS/SSL
> support with a number of FTP servers. I ran into the problem with
> ProFTPD specifically:
>
>
Alain Reguera Delgado wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Guy Boisvert wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm trying to figure out what's going wrong with a "simple" FTPS setup
>> and VSFTPD.
> ...
>> When i try, i get this error message:
>>
>> SSL/TLS client handshake failed (Erro
Guy Boisvert wrote:
> Bob Hoffman wrote:
>
>>> When i try, i get this error message:
>>>
>>> SSL/TLS client handshake failed (Error = 0x80090308)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does anybody could give me a pointer on this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I really hope you post the end fulfillment of this problem as I wa
John R Pierce wrote:
>
> I don't know if you can do that with FTPS...FTP uses a seperate
> dynamic port for the data socket, and the mode this port is assigned is
> at the whim of the *client* software, it can either be PORT or PASSIVE
> mode, this makes NAT address translation of FTP a rea
Guy Boisvert wrote:
> FTPS is supposed to be directly supported by DreamWeaver, so that why
> am asking about it.
>
does Dreamweaver support WebDAV over HTTPS as an update method? this
would be a LOT EASIER to get working behind a firewall
if they can access your website with htt
John R Pierce wrote:
> Guy Boisvert wrote:
>> FTPS is supposed to be directly supported by DreamWeaver, so that why
>> am asking about it.
>>
>
> does Dreamweaver support WebDAV over HTTPS as an update method? this
> would be a LOT EASIER to get working behind a firewall
>
> if th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guy Boisvert wrote:
...
>>> Does anybody could give me a pointer on this?
>> please, take a lookt at:
>> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Chroot_Vsftpd_with_non-system_users
...
> This link is interesting but the problem is not that i don't want to use
>
> If you could use a lower CPU intensive crypt like blowfish, it would be
> easier.
>
> Are all these trading partners in different locations or are there semi large
> groups in the same locations?
>
all these are end users.
they connect software from home / offices.
> Maybe a hundred or so sh
71 matches
Mail list logo
