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 pro
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 doe
> 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
> 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
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 suppo
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 supp
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
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
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
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
* 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
* 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
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:47:34 +0300, Hasso Tepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes, it supports 802.1q. No ISL AFAIK.
>
>http://www.candelatech.com/~greear/vlan.html
No need for the patch. It's in the mainstream kernel since 2.4.16.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No
I put both the router config file and catalyst config
file here. I did not create either of them.
The only Cisco devices I have setup where Cisco Local
Directors.
http://albert.washcoll.edu/~tknab2/debian_isp/
If you want to look at it.
user: debian
pass: debian
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:47:34 +0300, Hasso Tepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes, it supports 802.1q. No ISL AFAIK.
>
>http://www.candelatech.com/~greear/vlan.html
No need for the patch. It's in the mainstream kernel since 2.4.16.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No
I put both the router config file and catalyst config
file here. I did not create either of them.
The only Cisco devices I have setup where Cisco Local
Directors.
http://albert.washcoll.edu/~tknab2/debian_isp/
If you want to look at it.
user: debian
pass: debian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Forwarded email.
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Thedore
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:08:26AM -0400, Thedore Knab wrote:
> I am trying to reduce latency, reduce peer to peer bandwidth
> hogs, and do some stateful firewalling while I am at it.
> Here is the part I am need to worry about.
>
> ip classle
also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.26.1546 +0200]:
> at least his upstream seems to be doing the right thing
his "thing" ain't wrong, and with <20 routing entries, it really
doesn't matter. but this is what supernetting is for...
--
martin; (greetings from th
Hi Martin,
at least his upstream seems to be doing the right thing
Show Level 3 (San Jose, CA) BGP routes for 209.243.46.0
BGP routing table entry for 209.243.32.0/20
Paths: (9 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
209 1785 21767, (aggregated by 21767 209.243.32.1)
AS-path tra
also sprach Thedore Knab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.26.1508 +0200]:
> ip route 209.243.33.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> ip route 209.243.34.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> ip route 209.243.35.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> ip route 209.243.36.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> ip route 20
> what exactly is that you are trying to do...
I am trying to reduce latency, reduce peer to peer bandwidth
hogs, and do some stateful firewalling while I am at it.
I want to drop in one Debian Linux box running the 2.4.19 Kernel
between the router and the switch. The Linux box has 2 interfaces.
Forwarded email.
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Thedore
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:08:26AM -0400, Thedore Knab wrote:
> I am trying to reduce latency, reduce peer to peer bandwidth
> hogs, and do some stateful firewalling while I am at it.
> Here is the part I am need to worry about.
>
> ip clas
also sprach [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.26.1546 +0200]:
> at least his upstream seems to be doing the right thing
his "thing" ain't wrong, and with <20 routing entries, it really
doesn't matter. but this is what supernetting is for...
--
martin; (greetings from t
Hi Martin,
at least his upstream seems to be doing the right thing
Show Level 3 (San Jose, CA) BGP routes for 209.243.46.0
BGP routing table entry for 209.243.32.0/20
Paths: (9 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
209 1785 21767, (aggregated by 21767 209.243.32.1)
AS-path tr
also sprach Thedore Knab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.09.26.1508 +0200]:
> ip route 209.243.33.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> ip route 209.243.34.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> ip route 209.243.35.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> ip route 209.243.36.0 255.255.255.0 FastEthernet0/0
> ip route 2
> what exactly is that you are trying to do...
I am trying to reduce latency, reduce peer to peer bandwidth
hogs, and do some stateful firewalling while I am at it.
I want to drop in one Debian Linux box running the 2.4.19 Kernel
between the router and the switch. The Linux box has 2 interfaces
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Thedore!
>
> what exactly is that you are trying to do...
Same question :)
> Does linux support 802.1Q trunking yet? or ISL?
Yes, it supports 802.1q. No ISL AFAIK.
http://www.candelatech.com/~greear/vlan.html
--
Hasso Tepper
Hi Thedore!
what exactly is that you are trying to do...
Does linux support 802.1Q trunking yet? or ISL?
because, by the looks of it, this is what you REALLY want to
do... otherwise? why are you putting the linux box in there?
what benifit does it bring?
Andrew
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 06:16:58
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Thedore!
>
> what exactly is that you are trying to do...
Same question :)
> Does linux support 802.1Q trunking yet? or ISL?
Yes, it supports 802.1q. No ISL AFAIK.
http://www.candelatech.com/~greear/vlan.html
--
Hasso Tepper
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
Hi Thedore!
what exactly is that you are trying to do...
Does linux support 802.1Q trunking yet? or ISL?
because, by the looks of it, this is what you REALLY want to
do... otherwise? why are you putting the linux box in there?
what benifit does it bring?
Andrew
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 06:16:5
Currently, I am creating a simple Linux Router with CQB and Iptables.
The machine I have only has 2 interfaces.
We have the following devices on our network:
1 Cisco Catalyst connecting 16 Class C Networks
1 Cisco Router Routing packets to the inside
The Catalyst uses VLans for our entire net
Currently, I am creating a simple Linux Router with CQB and Iptables.
The machine I have only has 2 interfaces.
We have the following devices on our network:
1 Cisco Catalyst connecting 16 Class C Networks
1 Cisco Router Routing packets to the inside
The Catalyst uses VLans for our entire ne
32 matches
Mail list logo
