Re: routing help

On Tuesday 27 January 2004 11:57, Demian Wandelow wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:59:03PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > I believe there is a way to force a refresh or such of the ARP cache. Not > > sure how... but it can be done somehow. I'd be interested to learn the > > method under Linux as w

Re: routing help

On Tuesday 27 January 2004 11:57, Demian Wandelow wrote: > On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:59:03PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > I believe there is a way to force a refresh or such of the ARP cache. Not > > sure how... but it can be done somehow. I'd be interested to learn the > > method under Linux as w

Re: routing help

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:59:03PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > I believe there is a way to force a refresh or such of the ARP cache. Not > sure how... but it can be done somehow. I'd be interested to learn the > method under Linux as well, so if you find out, share it with the group > :-) ip

Re: routing help

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 12:59:03PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > I believe there is a way to force a refresh or such of the ARP cache. Not > sure how... but it can be done somehow. I'd be interested to learn the > method under Linux as well, so if you find out, share it with the group > :-) ip

Re: routing help

"If it works, don't fix it" is my theory.. May be a better way but I don't know it. As Jason Lim says in his post, let the list know what happens as I'm sure others will have the problem. Only change I'd consider is using the up command (man interfaces) which would execute your script after the

Re: routing help

"If it works, don't fix it" is my theory.. May be a better way but I don't know it. As Jason Lim says in his post, let the list know what happens as I'm sure others will have the problem. Only change I'd consider is using the up command (man interfaces) which would execute your script after the

Re: routing help

> it basically cycles through the ip addresses pinging a host on just the > other side of the router so it flushes the ARP cache. Does this sound > correct or am I totally off the track here? Anyway it is all working > now but I guess I'd like to know if what I had to do was correct or > not? I

Re: routing help

Hi Rod, After a bit more playing and a bit more thinking I finally figured it out..I think What it looks like is that the router I am using as the gateway (203.220.47.153) needed to have its ARP table updated or flushed or something. I don't have control over it so I can't be sure. What I

Re: routing help

> it basically cycles through the ip addresses pinging a host on just the > other side of the router so it flushes the ARP cache. Does this sound > correct or am I totally off the track here? Anyway it is all working > now but I guess I'd like to know if what I had to do was correct or > not? I

Re: routing help

Sorry to be vague, but there was a command I remember once when I had this problem before. Seems like I had to do a route add in /network/interfaces. Seems like there is some parameter to an interface that allows you to execute a command after the interface is brought up, and I had to do a route

Re: routing help

Hi Rod, After a bit more playing and a bit more thinking I finally figured it out..I think What it looks like is that the router I am using as the gateway (203.220.47.153) needed to have its ARP table updated or flushed or something. I don't have control over it so I can't be sure. What

Re: routing help

Sorry to be vague, but there was a command I remember once when I had this problem before. Seems like I had to do a route add in /network/interfaces. Seems like there is some parameter to an interface that allows you to execute a command after the interface is brought up, and I had to do a route

RE: Routing back via incoming NIC

It is possible, take a peek at: http://www.lartc.org/howto/ http://www.lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.html hope this answers your question. BR, Boyan Krosnov, CCIE#8701 | http://boyan.ludost.net/ this time speaking for himself. -Original Message- From: Sanjeev "Ghane" Gupta [mailto:[EMAIL PR

Re: Routing with Linux

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:22, Donovan Baarda wrote: > mid 2001. The LEAF project continued the work started by LRP, and the > "based on Debian" you are referring to is probably the "Bearing" variant > of the LEAF project available at; Another thing that should be mentioned is that Portslave (which wa

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 21:09, Michelle Konzack wrote: [...] > Can be done with a 486/100 and LRP > which is based on Debian. You go to the trouble to point people at the LEAF lists in another post, but then refer to LRP here... the LRP project has not been touched sin

Re: Routing with Linux

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:22, Donovan Baarda wrote: > mid 2001. The LEAF project continued the work started by LRP, and the > "based on Debian" you are referring to is probably the "Bearing" variant > of the LEAF project available at; Another thing that should be mentioned is that Portslave (which wa

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 21:09, Michelle Konzack wrote: [...] > Can be done with a 486/100 and LRP > which is based on Debian. You go to the trouble to point people at the LEAF lists in another post, but then refer to LRP here... the LRP project has not been touched sin

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:13, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 20:42 2003-03-05 +0100 hat Russell Coker geschrieben: > >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: > > > >LRP is dead and has been for a long time. > > > >Portslave is in Debian, I don't think that LRP offers anything else of > > much use.

Re: Routing with Linux

Hello, Am 17:20 2003-03-05 +0100 hat Burner geschrieben: >I've read some iptables and iproute2 howtos, but i realy do not know where to >begin, i dont even know if the hardware will be sufficient. P3/800 128Mb ram >and two good NIC's. Hmmm, do you like to root an OC3 with heavy traffic ???

Re: Routing with Linux

Am 20:42 2003-03-05 +0100 hat Russell Coker geschrieben: > >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: >LRP is dead and has been for a long time. > >Portslave is in Debian, I don't think that LRP offers anything else of much >use. > >Just install a small Debian system. It is not death... Lo

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:13, Michelle Konzack wrote: > Am 20:42 2003-03-05 +0100 hat Russell Coker geschrieben: > >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: > > > >LRP is dead and has been for a long time. > > > >Portslave is in Debian, I don't think that LRP offers anything else of > > much use.

Re: Routing with Linux

Hello, Am 17:20 2003-03-05 +0100 hat Burner geschrieben: >I've read some iptables and iproute2 howtos, but i realy do not know where to >begin, i dont even know if the hardware will be sufficient. P3/800 128Mb ram >and two good NIC's. Hmmm, do you like to root an OC3 with heavy traffic ???

Re: Routing with Linux

Am 20:42 2003-03-05 +0100 hat Russell Coker geschrieben: > >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: >LRP is dead and has been for a long time. > >Portslave is in Debian, I don't think that LRP offers anything else of much >use. > >Just install a small Debian system. It is not death... Lo

Re: Small Debian Installs (was Re: Routing with Linux)

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Randy Kramer wrote: > What's the smallest someone on the list has installed, and what's the > easiest way to go about doing it? One floppy. This is the smallest one I know of: http://www.zelow.no/floppyfw/ Not a Debian, but based on and built using Debian. Actively maintai

Re: Small Debian Installs (was Re: Routing with Linux)

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Randy Kramer wrote: > What's the smallest someone on the list has installed, and what's the > easiest way to go about doing it? One floppy. This is the smallest one I know of: http://www.zelow.no/floppyfw/ Not a Debian, but based on and built using Debian. Actively maintai

Re: Routing with Linux

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Volker Tanger wrote: > Greetings! > > On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:38:08 +0100 > "Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Depens on the harware. > > We got 750 mbits on a single box with a 2 channel intel gigabit card > > (Intel PRO/1000 MT

Re: Routing with Linux

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Volker Tanger wrote: > Greetings! > > On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:38:08 +0100 > "Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Depens on the harware. > > We got 750 mbits on a single box with a 2 channel intel gigabit card > > (Intel PRO/1000 MT

Re: Small Debian Installs (was Re: Routing with Linux)

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 07:08:45AM -0500, Randy Kramer wrote: > What's the smallest someone on the list has installed, and what's the > easiest way to go about doing it? $ df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda2 129M 111M 11M 91% / $ That i

Re: Routing with Linux

Volker Tanger schrieb: Greetings! On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:38:08 +0100 "Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Depens on the harware. We got 750 mbits on a single box with a 2 channel intel gigabit card (Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port (64bit/66MHZ PCI) in a Fujits-Siemens PRIMERGY L200 with

Re: Small Debian Installs (was Re: Routing with Linux)

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 07:08:45AM -0500, Randy Kramer wrote: > What's the smallest someone on the list has installed, and what's the > easiest way to go about doing it? $ df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda2 129M 111M 11M 91% / $ That i

Re: Routing with Linux

Greetings! On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:38:08 +0100 "Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Depens on the harware. > We got 750 mbits on a single box with a 2 channel intel gigabit card > (Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port (64bit/66MHZ PCI) in a Fujits-Siemens > PRIMERGY L200 with 2 Intel P

Re: Routing with Linux

Burner schrieb: [-snip-] i guess iptables will do the trick with somthing like this: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth3 -s 192.168.1.135 -j SNAT --to 1.2.3.135 yup and ja can add a snat rule for the returning traffic too :-) iproute2 looks way more flexible than iptables though, is this flexibi

Re: Routing with Linux

Volker Tanger schrieb: Greetings! On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:38:08 +0100 "Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Depens on the harware. We got 750 mbits on a single box with a 2 channel intel gigabit card (Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port (64bit/66MHZ PCI) in a Fujits-Siemens PRIMERGY L200 wit

Re: Routing with Linux

Randy Kramer schrieb: On Wednesday 05 March 2003 02:41 pm, Burner wrote: load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is webcontent. That seems to be large volume -- three to seven T1s unless my math is off (my coffee hasn't kicked in yet). I'd almost expect a firewall per T1,

Re: Routing with Linux

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 13:16, Randy Kramer wrote: > On Wednesday 05 March 2003 02:41 pm, Burner wrote: > > load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is > > webcontent. > > That seems to be large volume -- three to seven T1s unless my math is > off (my coffee hasn't kicked in

Re: Routing with Linux

Greetings! On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:38:08 +0100 "Uwe A. P. Wuerdinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Depens on the harware. > We got 750 mbits on a single box with a 2 channel intel gigabit card > (Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port (64bit/66MHZ PCI) in a Fujits-Siemens > PRIMERGY L200 with 2 Intel P

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 02:41 pm, Burner wrote: > load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is > webcontent. That seems to be large volume -- three to seven T1s unless my math is off (my coffee hasn't kicked in yet). I'd almost expect a firewall per T1, or what kind of p

Re: Routing with Linux

Burner schrieb: [-snip-] i guess iptables will do the trick with somthing like this: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth3 -s 192.168.1.135 -j SNAT --to 1.2.3.135 yup and ja can add a snat rule for the returning traffic too :-) iproute2 looks way more flexible than iptables though, is this flexi

Small Debian Installs (was Re: Routing with Linux)

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 02:42 pm, Russell Coker wrote: > Just install a small Debian system. That might be exactly what I want to do (for a different purpose). What's the smallest someone on the list has installed, and what's the easiest way to go about doing it? I'd like to have a small Lin

Re: Routing with Linux

Randy Kramer schrieb: On Wednesday 05 March 2003 02:41 pm, Burner wrote: load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is webcontent. That seems to be large volume -- three to seven T1s unless my math is off (my coffee hasn't kicked in yet). I'd almost expect a firewall per T

Re: Routing with Linux

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 13:16, Randy Kramer wrote: > On Wednesday 05 March 2003 02:41 pm, Burner wrote: > > load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is > > webcontent. > > That seems to be large volume -- three to seven T1s unless my math is > off (my coffee hasn't kicked in

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 02:41 pm, Burner wrote: > load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is > webcontent. That seems to be large volume -- three to seven T1s unless my math is off (my coffee hasn't kicked in yet). I'd almost expect a firewall per T1, or what kind of p

Small Debian Installs (was Re: Routing with Linux)

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 02:42 pm, Russell Coker wrote: > Just install a small Debian system. That might be exactly what I want to do (for a different purpose). What's the smallest someone on the list has installed, and what's the easiest way to go about doing it? I'd like to have a small Lin

Re: Routing with Linux

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 07:16, Peter Hicks wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:57PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: [...] > >> If the volume is higher or you just want a linux box then: > >> www.linuxrouter.org -- linux router project. > > > >LRP is dea

Re: Routing with Linux

On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 07:16, Peter Hicks wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:57PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: [...] > >> If the volume is higher or you just want a linux box then: > >> www.linuxrouter.org -- linux router project. > > > >LRP is dea

Re: Routing with Linux

Burner, Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:20:37PM +0100: > Hi > > My boos just asked me to build a Linux firewall to protect our servers, we > have about 20 servers, all configured with only the public (internet) IP, and > connected through a switch directly to our IPS's router. > I've only build firewal

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 19:54, Fraser Campbell wrote: > On Wednesday 05 March 2003 11:20, Burner wrote: > > I would like to keep the public IP addresses on the servers if possible. > > Your servers can keep their public addresses if you wish, that should make > the job of firewalling a little ea

Re: Routing with Linux

Burner, Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:20:37PM +0100: > Hi > > My boos just asked me to build a Linux firewall to protect our servers, we > have about 20 servers, all configured with only the public (internet) IP, and > connected through a switch directly to our IPS's router. > I've only build firewal

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:57PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: >> You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a >> contridiction. >> >> If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work. >> There will be

Re: Routing with Linux

Thanks for the quick answer :) On Wednesday 05 March 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: > You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a > contridiction. > load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is webcontent. > If the volume is small, many of th

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: > You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a > contridiction. > > If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work. > There will be some work redirecting IP through the firewall. > > If the volume is

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 11:20, Burner wrote: > I would like to keep the public IP addresses on the servers if possible. Your servers can keep their public addresses if you wish, that should make the job of firewalling a little easier (no masquerading to worry about). Let's say you had a publ

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 19:54, Fraser Campbell wrote: > On Wednesday 05 March 2003 11:20, Burner wrote: > > I would like to keep the public IP addresses on the servers if possible. > > Your servers can keep their public addresses if you wish, that should make > the job of firewalling a little ea

Re: Routing with Linux

like Greg(ory) says, knowing the volume is important -- or at least tell us what kind of connection you have to your ISP -- dial up ;-), DSL, ISDN, Cable, T1, T3. If DSL or Cable, do you know what kind of uplink and downlink bandwidth you are allowed (or use)? Randy Kramer On Wednesday 05 Ma

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:42:57PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: >On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: >> You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a >> contridiction. >> >> If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work. >> There will be

Re: Routing with Linux

Thanks for the quick answer :) On Wednesday 05 March 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: > You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a > contridiction. > load average is about 5Mbyte/s spikes at 10MByte/s, all traffic is webcontent. > If the volume is small, many of th

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:14, Gregory Wood wrote: > You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a > contridiction. > > If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work. > There will be some work redirecting IP through the firewall. > > If the volume is

Re: Routing with Linux

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 11:20, Burner wrote: > I would like to keep the public IP addresses on the servers if possible. Your servers can keep their public addresses if you wish, that should make the job of firewalling a little easier (no masquerading to worry about). Let's say you had a publ

RE: Routing with Linux

You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a contridiction. If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work. There will be some work redirecting IP through the firewall. If the volume is higher or you just want a linux box then: www.linuxrouter.

Re: Routing with Linux

like Greg(ory) says, knowing the volume is important -- or at least tell us what kind of connection you have to your ISP -- dial up ;-), DSL, ISDN, Cable, T1, T3. If DSL or Cable, do you know what kind of uplink and downlink bandwidth you are allowed (or use)? Randy Kramer On Wednesday 05 Ma

RE: Routing with Linux

You didn't mention volume. Also, public address and firewall seems to be a contridiction. If the volume is small, many of the $100 USD firewall boxes will work. There will be some work redirecting IP through the firewall. If the volume is higher or you just want a linux box then: www.linuxrouter.

Re: Re Routing

On December 6, 2002 04:48 am, the great Samantha Scafe wrote: > I have it so it can do either but not both > > 203.24.120.0/24 and 202.129.104.0/24 on eth0 > 203.55.214.0/24 is on the ppp0 interface I think I understand what you want to do. You need to use multiple routing tables enabled by adv

Re: Re Routing

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:48:24PM +1000, Samantha Scafe wrote: > On eth0 I have 2 class c's > On ppp0 I have another one (our isdn has gone kaput and this is a temp > measure) > > I have another class c on the ppp0 > > I need to make the machine visable on the eth0 and also I need the machine >

Re Routing

Hi peoples I am doing something wrong here and cant figure it out(must be a friday thing) On eth0 I have 2 class c's On ppp0 I have another one (our isdn has gone kaput and this is a temp measure) I have another class c on the ppp0 I need to make the machine visable on the eth0 and also I need

Re: routing policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 25 November 2002 01:02, Donovan Baarda wrote: > the ISDN stuff is a mess... stuff scattered between /etc/isdn/ and > /etc/ppp. man interfaces "The ppp Method This method uses pon/poff to configure a PPP interface. See those commands fo

Re: routing policy

On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:02:26 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) wrote: >On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 07:30:49PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: >> Add your routes in the up and down clause in /etc/network/interfaces. > >Does this work for ppp, ippp and other such devices? Not yet flawlessly. >the ISDN

Re: routing policy

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 07:30:49PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:19:47 +0100, mathias daus > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >i wonder if there is a debian policy how to handle routing on boot time. > >is there any solution as ifupdown? > > > >i read something about iproute. but i

Re: routing policy

On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:19:47 +0100, mathias daus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >i wonder if there is a debian policy how to handle routing on boot time. >is there any solution as ifupdown? > >i read something about iproute. but i'm not sure if i like it. > >till now i have a self made script called /

Re: Routing which depends on source address?

On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 04:42:37PM +0100, Markus Garscha wrote: > the gw is running debian. the goal is to use two different dialups depending > on the source address, e.g use default route over ppp0 device when data > comes from 192.168.1.11 and use default route over ppp0 device when data > comes

Re: Routing which depends on source address?

ip rule add from 192.168.1.11 table 10 ip route add default via xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx table 10 ip rule add from 192.168.1.12 table 11 ip route add default via xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx table 11 pretty easy really. The ip command is in the iproute2 package. Markus Garscha wrote: > > hi! > > I've the followi

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 17:44:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Wagner) wrote: >While we're on this subject, does anyone know what IANA plans to do with the >vast number of "reserved" ip ranges. There are atleast 75 reserved class A >ranges that I don't know what they're reserved for. People are cla

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 17:44:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Wagner) wrote: >While we're on this subject, does anyone know what IANA plans to do with the >vast number of "reserved" ip ranges. There are atleast 75 reserved class A >ranges that I don't know what they're reserved for. People are cl

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

While we're on this subject, does anyone know what IANA plans to do with the vast number of "reserved" ip ranges. There are atleast 75 reserved class A ranges that I don't know what they're reserved for. People are claiming we're running out of ip addresses but as far as I can see there's more th

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

While we're on this subject, does anyone know what IANA plans to do with the vast number of "reserved" ip ranges. There are atleast 75 reserved class A ranges that I don't know what they're reserved for. People are claiming we're running out of ip addresses but as far as I can see there's more t

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Tue, 22 May 2001 08:00:01 +0200, Robert Waldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 22 May 2001 01:26:56 EDT, Chris Wagner writes: >>We should probably clarify "non-routable" by saying "non-publicly routable". > >Well, we could also say RFC1918, couldn´t we ;-? I prefer to say "site local" whic

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Mon, 21 May 2001 07:27:44 +0200, Robert Waldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Yes, but you should specify the netmask in 255.x.x.x-notation, route on > linux sometimes tends to get classful when facing /-notation... I'd recommend the ip program from the iproute package which groks prefix notatio

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Tue, 22 May 2001 08:00:01 +0200, Robert Waldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Tue, 22 May 2001 01:26:56 EDT, Chris Wagner writes: >>We should probably clarify "non-routable" by saying "non-publicly routable". > >Well, we could also say RFC1918, couldn´t we ;-? I prefer to say "site local" whi

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Mon, 21 May 2001 07:27:44 +0200, Robert Waldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Yes, but you should specify the netmask in 255.x.x.x-notation, route on > linux sometimes tends to get classful when facing /-notation... I'd recommend the ip program from the iproute package which groks prefix notati

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

At 08:00 AM 5/22/01 +0200, Robert Waldner wrote: > >On Tue, 22 May 2001 01:26:56 EDT, Chris Wagner writes: >>We should probably clarify "non-routable" by saying "non-publicly routable". > >Well, we could also say RFC1918, couldn´t we ;-? LOL >- DNS, you´ll have to set up split DNS for your RFC191

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Tue, 22 May 2001 01:26:56 EDT, Chris Wagner writes: >We should probably clarify "non-routable" by saying "non-publicly routable". Well, we could also say RFC1918, couldn´t we ;-? >Routers have no concept of restricted ip ranges other than what is programed >into them. As long as you are debu

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

At 07:27 AM 5/21/01 +0200, Robert Waldner wrote: >On Mon, 21 May 2001 13:46:14 +1000, Jeremy Lunn writes: >>I know this isn't Debian specific. But I'm just wondering if it's fine >>to route routable IP addresses over non-routable IP addresess. > >Yes, although many would consider it bad practice (

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

At 08:00 AM 5/22/01 +0200, Robert Waldner wrote: > >On Tue, 22 May 2001 01:26:56 EDT, Chris Wagner writes: >>We should probably clarify "non-routable" by saying "non-publicly routable". > >Well, we could also say RFC1918, couldn´t we ;-? LOL >- DNS, you´ll have to set up split DNS for your RFC19

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Tue, 22 May 2001 01:26:56 EDT, Chris Wagner writes: >We should probably clarify "non-routable" by saying "non-publicly routable". Well, we could also say RFC1918, couldn´t we ;-? >Routers have no concept of restricted ip ranges other than what is programed >into them. As long as you are deb

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

At 07:27 AM 5/21/01 +0200, Robert Waldner wrote: >On Mon, 21 May 2001 13:46:14 +1000, Jeremy Lunn writes: >>I know this isn't Debian specific. But I'm just wondering if it's fine >>to route routable IP addresses over non-routable IP addresess. > >Yes, although many would consider it bad practice

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Mon, 21 May 2001 13:46:14 +1000, Jeremy Lunn writes: >I know this isn't Debian specific. But I'm just wondering if it's fine >to route routable IP addresses over non-routable IP addresess. Yes, although many would consider it bad practice (I am an example), because you´ll face trouble when

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

Yes, many people do it with ciscos all the time, linux should be no different. However, there are a couple of downsides (speaking from cisco experience only) It hurts for troubleshooting... you cant trace/ping directly to an interface, only a net... On Mon, 21 May 2001, Jeremy Lunn wrote: > I kn

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

On Mon, 21 May 2001 13:46:14 +1000, Jeremy Lunn writes: >I know this isn't Debian specific. But I'm just wondering if it's fine >to route routable IP addresses over non-routable IP addresess. Yes, although many would consider it bad practice (I am an example), because you´ll face trouble when

Re: routing routable IPs over non-routable IPs

Yes, many people do it with ciscos all the time, linux should be no different. However, there are a couple of downsides (speaking from cisco experience only) It hurts for troubleshooting... you cant trace/ping directly to an interface, only a net... On Mon, 21 May 2001, Jeremy Lunn wrote: > I k

Re: Routing problem.

Hello, For your problem you maybe can solve it with a arp publication on box2 ? eg: ARP -i fxp0 -Ds 213.219.39.198 fxp1 pub Friedrich Clausen wrote: > > Greetings all, > > I will try and make myself as clear as possible so please excuse my poor ascii > picture but it seems to help explanation

Re: Routing problem.

Hello, For your problem you maybe can solve it with a arp publication on box2 ? eg: ARP -i fxp0 -Ds 213.219.39.198 fxp1 pub Friedrich Clausen wrote: > > Greetings all, > > I will try and make myself as clear as possible so please excuse my poor ascii > picture but it seems to help explanatio

Re: Routing problem.

Hi, Sure, I should have checked that as well, here they are : Box1 : Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 213.219.39.196 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U40 0 0 eth1 213.219.39.200 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U40 0

Re: Routing problem.

On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Friedrich Clausen wrote: > Greetings all, > Could you include the output of 'netstat -nr' from all 3 boxes... ?? It could help trying to solve your problem -- Mark Janssen Unix Consultant @ SyConOS IT E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Gnu

Re: Routing problem.

Hi, Sure, I should have checked that as well, here they are : Box1 : Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 213.219.39.196 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U40 0 0 eth1 213.219.39.200 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U40 0

Re: Routing problem.

On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 02:45:21PM +0100, Friedrich Clausen wrote: > Greetings all, > Could you include the output of 'netstat -nr' from all 3 boxes... ?? It could help trying to solve your problem -- Mark Janssen Unix Consultant @ SyConOS IT E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Gn

Re: Routing Question

> "nr" == Nathan Ridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: nr> Im setting a broadband Internet connection on a Debian box, I nr> have the sat interface installed and working and can see the nr> icmp packets coming in from a ping on the sat interface using nr> tcpdump so im confident th

Re: Routing Question

> "nr" == Nathan Ridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: nr> Im setting a broadband Internet connection on a Debian box, I nr> have the sat interface installed and working and can see the nr> icmp packets coming in from a ping on the sat interface using nr> tcpdump so im confident t

RE: routing

You are setting 255.255.255.0 netmasks so the machines are expecting to find .1 .2 .3 machines on the local ethernet interfaces. I don't know why you are doing it like that, but what would fix your problem is getting the Linux router machine to do a proxy-arp. You can turn this on by echo'ing t

RE: routing

Alright I've run into another problem or maybe I'm just dumb. 208.3.69.1 is the main router connected to the internet. 208.3.69.2 (eth0) is the device connected via ethernet to the main router on the linux router/bridge. 208.3.69.4 (eth1) goes to the client (208.3.69.3). The main route

RE: routing

You are setting 255.255.255.0 netmasks so the machines are expecting to find .1 .2 .3 machines on the local ethernet interfaces. I don't know why you are doing it like that, but what would fix your problem is getting the Linux router machine to do a proxy-arp. You can turn this on by echo'ing

RE: routing

Alright I've run into another problem or maybe I'm just dumb. 208.3.69.1 is the main router connected to the internet. 208.3.69.2 (eth0) is the device connected via ethernet to the main router on the linux router/bridge. 208.3.69.4 (eth1) goes to the client (208.3.69.3). The main rout

  1   2   >