[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Templin) wrote on 18.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Let me try some somewhat off-topic questions here: I really think the ISP
> is clueless and not communicating the presence of our network to its
> upstream provider. Could a bunch of you developers please try the
> foll
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997, Heiko Schlittermann wrote:
> : I seem to get caught in a routing loop at fngw-T3-prolog.NEREP.NET when I
> : try the second and third command, and it looks to me like that router is
> : misconfigured. The ISP claims that traceroute (and ping) won't work until
> : DNS is read
On Jun 18, Pete Templin wrote
:
:
: Let me try some somewhat off-topic questions here: I really think the ISP
: is clueless and not communicating the presence of our network to its
: upstream provider. Could a bunch of you developers please try the
: following three traceroute commands and tell
> You're using diald, right? This looks fairly good. However, I'm not sure
> about the metrics; you might want to convince diald to make the modem/
> default route more "expensive" - say, still have eth0 at 0, have ppp0
> (when it's up) at 10, and sl0 (where diald is listening) at 100, or
> someth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Templin) wrote on 13.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The question is this: I've compiled a lean, mean kernel with the
> appropriate IP forwarding enabled (no firewalling or masquerading is being
> used). Will it "route" by default, or do I need to add a specific pac
5 matches
Mail list logo
