Just curious would it be better to add a rule to allowe 67 & 68 (tcp &
udp) in from the dhcp server instead of leaving the box all open?
Understand I've never attempted this booting a diskless, but it seems
like something worth trying
Atanu Ghosh wrote:
From my notes when trying to get dis
Not sure if you've found this already. One thing I used to do on an
older box was a simple cron job that ran a script which HUP'd the
dhclient every so often thus effectively renewing the lease...
If memory serves me it went something like
#!/bin/sh
kill -HUP `ps ax |awk '/dhclien
I believe there's a regedit that you need to perform to enable the
termserver to recognise itself behind the firewall. I can't for the life
of me remember exactly what, but I know it's in their knowledge base
somewhere...
cheers,
mikel
Tony Saign wrote:
> Anyone have any ideas on why this pro
Chrisy Luke wrote:
> Mikel King wrote (on Nov 16):
> > Just curious, but what's a doddle?
>
> It's like a doodle, but with less o's and more d's. :)
>
> It essentially means "this is easy to do".
>
> Chris.
> --
> == [EMAIL PR
Just curious, but what's a doddle?
Cheers,
mikel
Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Chrisy Luke wrote:
> > > > only packets already leaving the system can be hijacked and forwarded
> > > > to a 2nd machine. Incoming packets can only be forwarded to local
> > > > addresses/port combin
I would. In fact my company has plans to do that very same thing in the near
future...hopefully with BGP...
cheers,
mikel
John Telford wrote:
> Is there a way to do the opposite of Peter Brezny's question "Redundant
> connections from separate isp's possible?" He had muliple incoming
> conne
