Re: postfix mail routing

## Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I want to have Postfix route mail to two relays based on the sender. If the > sender is from domain1 then I want to use the relay that is authorised with > SPF for domain1, if the sender is from domain2 then I want to use the relay > that has SPF records

Re: postfix mail routing

domain2 then I want to use the relay > that has SPF records for domain2. > > Any ideas on how to do this? Postfix can't do source-based routing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

postfix mail routing

I want to have Postfix route mail to two relays based on the sender. If the sender is from domain1 then I want to use the relay that is authorised with SPF for domain1, if the sender is from domain2 then I want to use the relay that has SPF records for domain2. Any ideas on how to do this? Be

Re: Weird routing issue

> "Tarragon" == Tarragon Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tarragon> It must be an arp issue. Tarragon> Either a switch is impeding arp (via a VLAN or locking Tarragon> of ports or similar) or the bridging equipment is just Tarragon> not bridging for machines other than the on

Re: Weird routing issue

On Thursday 25 March 2004 14:10, Brian May wrote: > > "Michael" == Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Michael> netstat -rn output on the box (.7?) having issues. > > # netstat -rn | grep '^192\.168\.0' > 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U40 0 0 eth0 > 192.

Re: Weird routing issue

> "Tarragon" == Tarragon Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tarragon> It must be an arp issue. Tarragon> Either a switch is impeding arp (via a VLAN or locking Tarragon> of ports or similar) or the bridging equipment is just Tarragon> not bridging for machines other than the on

Re: Weird routing issue

8.0.0 192.168.0.8 255.255.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth0 default route: 0.0.0.0 220.244.151.9 0.0.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth1 I believe the first one should get used in favour of others. There are no other routes for 192.168.0.* Obviously this was different when

Re: Weird routing issue

On Thursday 25 March 2004 14:10, Brian May wrote: > > "Michael" == Michael Loftis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Michael> netstat -rn output on the box (.7?) having issues. > > # netstat -rn | grep '^192\.168\.0' > 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U40 0 0 eth0 > 192.

Re: Weird routing issue

8.0.0 192.168.0.8 255.255.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth0 default route: 0.0.0.0 220.244.151.9 0.0.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth1 I believe the first one should get used in favour of others. There are no other routes for 192.168.0.* Obviously this was different when

Re: Weird routing issue

netstat -rn output on the box (.7?) having issues. sounds like you have a more specific route going on or something similar. does .5 hear the ARP requests when .7 makes them? if so, does it respond? is .5 and .7 set with the CORRECT netmask on the(eth0?) interface in question? --On Thursday

Weird routing issue

Hello, I have an issue with the following network? Is anyone able to help diagnose the problem? If so, your help is appreciated. NETWORK BACKGROUND: Network structure is (or so I have been told): 192.168.0.8 | |--- microwave (bridge) 192.168.0.5 192.168.0.7 |

Re: Weird routing issue

netstat -rn output on the box (.7?) having issues. sounds like you have a more specific route going on or something similar. does .5 hear the ARP requests when .7 makes them? if so, does it respond? is .5 and .7 set with the CORRECT netmask on the(eth0?) interface in question? --On Thursday

Weird routing issue

Hello, I have an issue with the following network? Is anyone able to help diagnose the problem? If so, your help is appreciated. NETWORK BACKGROUND: Network structure is (or so I have been told): 192.168.0.8 | |--- microwave (bridge) 192.168.0.5 192.168.0.7 |

Re: routing help

> method under Linux as well, so if you find out, share it with the group > > ip route flush cache No that flushes the routing cache, not the arp cache. With the ip command you'd flush the arp cache with "ip neigh flush all", you can also cycle through all a

Re: routing help

> method under Linux as well, so if you find out, share it with the group > > ip route flush cache No that flushes the routing cache, not the arp cache. With the ip command you'd flush the arp cache with "ip neigh flush all", you can also cycle through all a

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

netmask 255.255.255.0 >> network 66.17.131.0 >> broadcast 66.17.131.255 >> gateway 66.17.131.1 >> >> auto eth0:0 >> iface eth0:0 inet static >> address 66.17.131.183 >> netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > >

Re: routing help

netmask 255.255.255.0 >> network 66.17.131.0 >> broadcast 66.17.131.255 >> gateway 66.17.131.1 >> >> auto eth0:0 >> iface eth0:0 inet static >> address 66.17.131.183 >> netmask 255.255.255.0 >> > >

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

n which case someone here will correct me. Rod Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask

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

broadcast 66.17.131.255 gateway 66.17.131.1 auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 inet static address 66.17.131.183 netmask 255.255.255.0 Of course, I could be 100% wrong, in which case someone here will correct me. Rod > Hi, > > I have an issue with routing that I just can'

Re: routing help

ng, in which case someone here will correct me. Rod Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genma

routing help

Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 203.221.

Re: routing help

broadcast 66.17.131.255 gateway 66.17.131.1 auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 inet static address 66.17.131.183 netmask 255.255.255.0 Of course, I could be 100% wrong, in which case someone here will correct me. Rod > Hi, > > I have an issue with routing that I just can'

routing help

Hi, I have an issue with routing that I just can't figure out. What I have at the moment is a box set up with an IP and route as follows (some of the details have route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 203.221.

RE: Routing back via incoming NIC

lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 10:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Routing back via incoming NIC Folks, I have a machine with 2 NICs, both connected to the net. One (A) is used for "low pirority" traffic, surfing, etc. The other (B) is used for mail, ssh,

Routing back via incoming NIC

Folks, I have a machine with 2 NICs, both connected to the net. One (A) is used for "low pirority" traffic, surfing, etc. The other (B) is used for mail, ssh, etc. What I want is that when a connection is opened to the machine, it should reply back via the interface the connection came in. Curr

Problems using Gateway/Routing

hey list! i've setup a linux router/firewall based on debian 3.0 kernel release 2.4.19 at one of our customers networks. the netfilter package (iptables) is used (rc. 1.2.6a). this box has a DSL connection to the internet. the problem is now, that the clients can't connect sometimes to the inter

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

with heavy traffic ??? I have a client with a 34 MBit and the Roter is an old K5 166 with 32 MByte of memory... The monthly middle is arround 1.3 MByte/Second >We don't need any advanced routing like bandwith balancing etc. I just need >to block most ports from public access and all

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

with heavy traffic ??? I have a client with a 34 MBit and the Roter is an old K5 166 with 32 MByte of memory... The monthly middle is arround 1.3 MByte/Second >We don't need any advanced routing like bandwith balancing etc. I just need >to block most ports from public access and all

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

flexibility at the cost of performance, or is it just a new wonderland for network admins? :) iproute2 (ip) is used for routing not for setting nat or packet filter rules you can do everthing you used ifconfig and route for an a lot more have a look at the "Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Cont

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

fic.) To give some indication: we run a complete ISP backbone based on Debian boxes running Zebra for routing. This is all done on fairly standard hardware (usually Pentium III, 256Mb RAM), which can easily handle the load. Actually, the greater part of the load is caused by SNMP calls and user interact

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

flexibility at the cost of performance, or is it just a new wonderland for network admins? :) iproute2 (ip) is used for routing not for setting nat or packet filter rules you can do everthing you used ifconfig and route for an a lot more have a look at the "Linux Advanced Routing & Traffi

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

fic.) To give some indication: we run a complete ISP backbone based on Debian boxes running Zebra for routing. This is all done on fairly standard hardware (usually Pentium III, 256Mb RAM), which can easily handle the load. Actually, the greater part of the load is caused by SNMP calls and user interact

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

to get going. > 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. Might want to increase RAM if you want to run a NIDS like snort. > > We don

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

to get going. > 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. Might want to increase RAM if you want to run a NIDS like snort. > > We don

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

7;ll have a look and hope it'll fit my needs. > It maybe that you can port scan your network and turn off everything but > what you really want on. > > Best of luck. > > -Original Message- > From: Burner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05

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

From: Burner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:21 AM > To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org > Subject: Routing with Linux > > > Hi > > My boos just asked me to build a Linux firewall to protect our > servers, we have about 20 servers, all configured wit

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

7;ll have a look and hope it'll fit my needs. > It maybe that you can port scan your network and turn off everything but > what you really want on. > > Best of luck. > > -Original Message- > From: Burner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05,

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

bject: Routing with Linux 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 firewalls for small lan networks

Re: Routing with Linux

From: Burner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Routing with Linux > > > Hi > > My boos just asked me to build a Linux firewall to protect our > servers, we have about 20 servers, all configured with only

Routing with Linux

s/ipchains. 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. We don't need any advanced routing like bandwith balancing etc. I just need to block most por

RE: Routing with Linux

then: www.linuxrouter.org -- linux router project. It maybe that you can port scan your network and turn off everything but what you really want on. Best of luck. -Original Message- From: Burner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Routing

Routing with Linux

s/ipchains. 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. We don't need any advanced routing like bandwith balancing etc. I just need to block most por

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 table

Re: Re Routing

got the correct routes set on all your machines? where does your default route point to??? Regards Andrew PS: Classful routing isnt really used anymore today... so its probably better to refer to a /24 and not a 'class c' network -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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? > > > >

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 h

routing policy

hi folks! 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 /etc/init.d/route. it's simply adding all routes. i will b

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

Thedore Knab schrieb: After reading more on this issue, I have decided that I have 2 choices. Use FreeBSD for a Bridging Bandwidth Shaper/ Firewall or use Linux as a Routing/ Bandwidth Shaping firewall. The later seems to be the best idea since I know more about Linux. I found that Linux does

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

Thedore Knab schrieb: After reading more on this issue, I have decided that I have 2 choices. Use FreeBSD for a Bridging Bandwidth Shaper/ Firewall or use Linux as a Routing/ Bandwidth Shaping firewall. The later seems to be the best idea since I know more about Linux. I found that Linux

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

> I found that Linux does provide Bridging support, but the bridging > support in 2.4.x Kernels is not tied into any firewall support. > FreeBSD does have this, so does the 2.5.x Linux kernel. I guess if > people want to use Linux as a bandwidth shaping/ firewall bridge they > will have to wait for

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

> I found that Linux does provide Bridging support, but the bridging > support in 2.4.x Kernels is not tied into any firewall support. > FreeBSD does have this, so does the 2.5.x Linux kernel. I guess if > people want to use Linux as a bandwidth shaping/ firewall bridge they > will have to wait fo

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

After reading more on this issue, I have decided that I have 2 choices. Use FreeBSD for a Bridging Bandwidth Shaper/ Firewall or use Linux as a Routing/ Bandwidth Shaping firewall. The later seems to be the best idea since I know more about Linux. I found that Linux does provide Bridging

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

After reading more on this issue, I have decided that I have 2 choices. Use FreeBSD for a Bridging Bandwidth Shaper/ Firewall or use Linux as a Routing/ Bandwidth Shaping firewall. The later seems to be the best idea since I know more about Linux. I found that Linux does provide Bridging

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

After reading the lot (not the configs: not accessibles) if you say that there is a trunk between the 7200 (which does not looks from the route definition you have), and is properly configured (sub interfaces on the 7200 and same definition on the cat 5K RSM (if you have one which i suppose as you

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

yep, but you potentially need a patch for your nic driver to accept bigger max packet size. On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:21:56PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:47:34 +0300, Hasso Tepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >Yes, it supports 802.1q. No ISL AFAIK. > > > >http://www.candel

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

After reading the lot (not the configs: not accessibles) if you say that there is a trunk between the 7200 (which does not looks from the route definition you have), and is properly configured (sub interfaces on the 7200 and same definition on the cat 5K RSM (if you have one which i suppose as yo

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

yep, but you potentially need a patch for your nic driver to accept bigger max packet size. On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 08:21:56PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:47:34 +0300, Hasso Tepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >Yes, it supports 802.1q. No ISL AFAIK. > > > >http://www.cande

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

* Cuenta la leyenda que Thedore Knab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) escribió: > (I hope he ISNT annoucing them as /24s! into the BGP). Maybe announing them as /24 makes sense if he is doing some "balancing" through different connections... -- Saludos, Germán O. Gutiérrez Departamento Operaciones Desarroll

Re: understanding Routing Cisco vs. Linux

* Cuenta la leyenda que Thedore Knab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) escribió: > (I hope he ISNT annoucing them as /24s! into the BGP). Maybe announing them as /24 makes sense if he is doing some "balancing" through different connections... -- Saludos, Germán O. Gutiérrez Departamento Operaciones Desarrol

  1   2   3   >