On 13/03/2013 14:59, Paul Macdonald wrote:
Hi,
I have added an IP of the 2nd group of 254 addresses in a /23.
let's call them100.100.98.0 and 100.100.99.0
what's the correct way to set up the routing table for this and how my
rc.conf should look
Currently netstat show
Hi,
I have added an IP of the 2nd group of 254 addresses in a /23.
let's call them100.100.98.0 and 100.100.99.0
what's the correct way to set up the routing table for this and how my
rc.conf should look
Currently netstat shows something like the below
Destination
On 01/14/12 16:28, Waitman Gobble wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Waitman Gobble wrote:
On Jan 13, 2012 7:19 AM, "Matthias Apitz" wrote:
El día Friday, January 13, 2012 a las 07:03:11AM -0800, Waitman Gobble
escribió:
Hi,
Thanks. I've always heard countless rumors about WPA being
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Waitman Gobble wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2012 7:19 AM, "Matthias Apitz" wrote:
> >
> > El día Friday, January 13, 2012 a las 07:03:11AM -0800, Waitman Gobble
> escribió:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks. I've always heard countless rumors about WPA being wise :) I'll
On 01/14/12 01:38, Warren Block wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Hello,
I am running 9.0-RC3 i386 on an Acer Aspire One D150. i am having
trouble
with the wireless setup.
I have two wireless cards, the BCM94312MCG that came with it, and an
Atheros 5424/2424 that i swapped o
On Jan 13, 2012 7:38 AM, "Warren Block" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Waitman Gobble wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am running 9.0-RC3 i386 on an Acer Aspire One D150. i am having trouble
>> with the wireless setup.
>>
>> I have two wireless cards, the BCM94312MCG that came with it, and an
>> Athero
On Jan 13, 2012 7:19 AM, "Matthias Apitz" wrote:
>
> El día Friday, January 13, 2012 a las 07:03:11AM -0800, Waitman Gobble
escribió:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks. I've always heard countless rumors about WPA being wise :) I'll
> > take your advice and take a step up in technology. My "stubborn
> > co
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Hello,
I am running 9.0-RC3 i386 on an Acer Aspire One D150. i am having trouble
with the wireless setup.
I have two wireless cards, the BCM94312MCG that came with it, and an
Atheros 5424/2424 that i swapped out. I can run the BCM with ndis and the
wi
El día Friday, January 13, 2012 a las 07:03:11AM -0800, Waitman Gobble escribió:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks. I've always heard countless rumors about WPA being wise :) I'll
> take your advice and take a step up in technology. My "stubborn
> conservatism" probably roots back to the time when not all devices
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Da Rock <
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
> On 01/13/12 17:11, Waitman Gobble wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Da Rock<
>> freebsd-questions@**herveybayaustralia.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/13/12 15:29, Waitman Gobble wrote:
>>
On 01/13/12 17:11, Waitman Gobble wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Da Rock<
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
On 01/13/12 15:29, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Hello,
I am running 9.0-RC3 i386 on an Acer Aspire One D150. i am having trouble
with the wireless setup.
I have
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Da Rock <
freebsd-questi...@herveybayaustralia.com.au> wrote:
> On 01/13/12 15:29, Waitman Gobble wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am running 9.0-RC3 i386 on an Acer Aspire One D150. i am having trouble
>> with the wireless setup.
>>
>> I have two wireless cards, the BC
On 01/13/12 15:29, Waitman Gobble wrote:
Hello,
I am running 9.0-RC3 i386 on an Acer Aspire One D150. i am having trouble
with the wireless setup.
I have two wireless cards, the BCM94312MCG that came with it, and an
Atheros 5424/2424 that i swapped out. I can run the BCM with ndis and the
windo
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am running 9.0-RC3 i386 on an Acer Aspire One D150. i am having trouble
> with the wireless setup.
>
>
Hi, update-
i noticed if i start routed it complains...
p00ntang# routed
p00ntang# routed: wlan0 (10.0.0.21/24) is duplicat
Hello,
I am running 9.0-RC3 i386 on an Acer Aspire One D150. i am having trouble
with the wireless setup.
I have two wireless cards, the BCM94312MCG that came with it, and an
Atheros 5424/2424 that i swapped out. I can run the BCM with ndis and the
windows xp driver, and the Atheros with the ath
On 8/27/2010 9:09 PM, Doug Hardie wrote:
On 27 August 2010, at 05:07, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
Le Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:17:19 -0700, Doug Hardie a
écrit :
PF's route_to will return the packets to the proper router, but I
have not been able to figure out which ones those would be. The
source
On 27 August 2010, at 05:07, Patrick Lamaiziere wrote:
> Le Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:17:19 -0700,
> Doug Hardie a écrit :
>
>> PF's route_to will return the packets to the proper router, but I have not
>> been able to figure out which ones those would be. The source IP
>> address can be any on eith
Le Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:17:19 -0700,
Doug Hardie a écrit :
> PF's route_to will return the packets to the proper router, but I have not
> been able to figure out which ones those would be. The source IP
> address can be any on either network and its highly likely that we
> will see packets from
I have several servers with one ethernet interface. Currently it is connected
via a WAN to the internet. We are in the midst of switching to a different
provider. I would like to be able to operate with both temporarily until all
the users/services get switched. The new circuit is in and wor
>I've a server box with four NICs addressing different subnets:
>
>NIC1: one class c subnet of same class b network
>NIC2: another class c subnet of same class b network
>NIC3: local unrouted network
>NIC4: local unrouted network
>
>In the current configuration I use a default gateway (and
At 06:26 AM 10/9/2008, Konrad Heuer wrote:
Hello,
I've a server box with four NICs addressing different subnets:
NIC1: one class c subnet of same class b network
NIC2: another class c subnet of same class b network
NIC3: local unrouted network
NIC4: local unrouted network
In the curre
Hello,
I've a server box with four NICs addressing different subnets:
NIC1: one class c subnet of same class b network
NIC2: another class c subnet of same class b network
NIC3: local unrouted network
NIC4: local unrouted network
In the current configuration I use a default gateway (an
David Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Matthew Seaman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pratt wrote:
Carefully not answering the 'why do these packets come from the
wrong address' question,
Deliberately addressing the question of 'why do these packets come
from the wrong addre
On Jul 25, 2008, at 4:05 PM, David Allen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Matthew Seaman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pratt wrote:
I'm now setting up a bind server in which the third alias
is the address for incoming DNS queries. It appears
it's responding but even though the que
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Matthew Seaman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Pratt wrote:
>
>> I'm now setting up a bind server in which the third alias
>> is the address for incoming DNS queries. It appears
>> it's responding but even though the queries come in
>> on the third alias, they "
On Jul 25, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
Chris Pratt wrote:
I'm now setting up a bind server in which the third alias
is the address for incoming DNS queries. It appears
it's responding but even though the queries come in
on the third alias, they "go out" through the "primary"
addr
Chris Pratt wrote:
I'm now setting up a bind server in which the third alias
is the address for incoming DNS queries. It appears
it's responding but even though the queries come in
on the third alias, they "go out" through the "primary"
address or more specifically, the packet count is
increment
This strikes me as a noob question but in 10 years of
freebsd, I've never wrapped my brain around it and
it seems to be causing me problems this time.
I have many aliases on many servers. Some services
listening on an alias address seem to return the packets
out the alias address as shown in nets
Laszlo Nagy írta:
- ping from pc on 0.0 network to 192.168.2.138
Well, I cannot do this from here. Those computers are X terminals,
they do not run inetd nor sshd. I cannot login from here and I cannot
leave now, but I can do it later if necessary.
- sysctl -a net.inet.ip.forwarding (on
- ping from pc on 0.0 network to 192.168.2.138
Well, I cannot do this from here. Those computers are X terminals,
they do not run inetd nor sshd. I cannot login from here and I cannot
leave now, but I can do it later if necessary.
- sysctl -a net.inet.ip.forwarding (on the GatewayComp)
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Internet -> [Hw Router] (LAN1: 192.168.2.0/24) -> [
192.168.2.138 GatewayComp 192.168.0.1 ] -- (LAN2: 192.168.0.0/24)
I would like to access a computer from LAN1 to LAN2.
Perform the following and post the results of:
- ping from GatewayComp to
> Internet -> [Hw Router] (LAN1: 192.168.2.0/24) -> [
> 192.168.2.138 GatewayComp 192.168.0.1 ] -- (LAN2: 192.168.0.0/24)
>
> I would like to access a computer from LAN1 to LAN2.
Perform the following and post the results of:
- ping from GatewayComp to pc on 0.0 network and
Hi,
I have this configuration:
Internet -> [Hw Router] (LAN1: 192.168.2.0/24) -> [
192.168.2.138 GatewayComp 192.168.0.1 ] -- (LAN2: 192.168.0.0/24)
I would like to access a computer from LAN1 to LAN2.
LAN1 machine is:
FreeBSD office1adsl.dyndns.org 6.2-RELEASE Free
Eric Crist wrote:
> Hey,
>
> We have a problem here at the office that I'd like to solve with pf and
> source-based routing.
>
> How would I write a rule with pf to route any traffic from 10.1.1.1
> across a specific interface?
Perhaps some permutation of the following?
pass in on $int_if route
Hey,
We have a problem here at the office that I'd like to solve with pf
and source-based routing.
How would I write a rule with pf to route any traffic from 10.1.1.1
across a specific interface?
Thanks!
-
Eric F Crist
Secure Computing Networks
_
In response to "Bret J Esquivel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I have a cable modem at my office with a /28 allocated. I have a FreeBSD 6.1
> firewall/router in between the cable modem and the switch to other nodes. My
> question is how could I add static routes to say my web server having an
> externa
Bret J Esquivel wrote:
Hi,
I have a cable modem at my office with a /28 allocated. I have a FreeBSD 6.1
firewall/router in between the cable modem and the switch to other nodes. My
question is how could I add static routes to say my web server having an
external IP address but still going th
Hi,
I have a cable modem at my office with a /28 allocated. I have a FreeBSD 6.1
firewall/router in between the cable modem and the switch to other nodes. My
question is how could I add static routes to say my web server having an
external IP address but still going through the firewall box? NA
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 09:49, Bret J. Esquivel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have a cable modem at my office with a /28 allocated. I have a FreeBSD 6.1
> firewall/router in between the cable modem and the switch to other nodes. My
> question is how could I add static routes to say my web server h
Hi,
I have a cable modem at my office with a /28 allocated. I have a FreeBSD 6.1
firewall/router in between the cable modem and the switch to other nodes. My
question is how could I add static routes to say my web server having an
external IP address but still going through the firewall box? NA
-
From: "Drew Tomlinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Douville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "FreeBSD Questions"
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: IP Routing Question
On 2/14/2006 11:43 AM Steve Douville wrote:
> By default, it sets t
196 is the switch... 209 is a port on the switch
- Original Message -
From: "John Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Drew Tomlinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Steve Douville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "FreeBSD Questions"
Sent: Tuesday,
--On Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:40:45 -0800 Drew Tomlinson <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/14/2006 11:17 AM Steve Douville wrote:
>> Weird stuff...
>> route add -host aaa.bbb.ccc.209 aaa.bbb.ccc.196 -ifp em1
>>
Shouldn't this be:
route add -host aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd aaa.bbb.ccc.209
Whe
linson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Douville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "FreeBSD Questions"
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: IP Routing Question
On 2/14/2006 11:43 AM Steve Douville wrote:
> By default, it sets the netif to em0
>
rs,
Drew
- Original Message -
From: "Drew Tomlinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Douville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "FreeBSD Questions"
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: IP Routing Question
On 2/14/2006 11:17 AM Steve
By default, it sets the netif to em0
- Original Message -
From: "Drew Tomlinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Steve Douville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "FreeBSD Questions"
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: IP Routing Question
TECTED]>
To: "Steve Douville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: IP Routing Question
What happens with a simple 'route add
aaa.bbb.ccc.196? Or am I misinterpreting what you wish to achieve?
HTH,
Drew
__
On 2/14/2006 5:44 AM Steve Douville wrote:
I'm trying to set up the routing table to force requests to certain IP
addresses to use a particular ethernet card. I've used the route command in a
number of ways, but still can't come up with how to force to use em1 instead of
em0, with the right ga
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Goran Gajic
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 9:44 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: IP Routing Question
Hi,
You can try using ipf filter to impose source-policy routing:
cat > ipf.example
pass in quick on em1 to em1:192.168.1.2 f
Hi,
You can try using ipf filter to impose source-policy routing:
cat > ipf.example
pass in quick on em1 to em1:192.168.1.2 from 10.1.0.0/16 to a.b.c.d/32
^d
ipf -f ipf.example
This way you will re-route all packets coming from source 10.1/16 to
destination a.b.c.d to go to address 192.168
I'm trying to set up the routing table to force requests to certain IP
addresses to use a particular ethernet card. I've used the route command in a
number of ways, but still can't come up with how to force to use em1 instead of
em0, with the right gateway.
em0 is aaa.bbb.ccc.207
em1 is aaa.bbb
On 24 Oct 2005 09:22:34 -0400, Lowell Gilbert <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ahnjoan Amous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The short : I believe the problem I am having is due to routing. A DHCP
> > server sends me IP A.B.C.D with a default route of A.B.C.D. "dhclient"
> isn't
> > handling this
> Bingo, it was the static route. The wireless router didn't
> like getting connection attempts from 10.0.0.0 addresses.
> Turns out, the FreeBSD machine was operating as advertised.
> Now it's time to get IPSEC set up.
>
Awesome :)
You have any q's in your new venture that aren't related to
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 07:49:54PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Morgan
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 6:47 PM
> > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Morgan
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 6:47 PM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Quick Routing Question
>
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 03:10:44PM -
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 03:10:44PM -0600, Eric F Crist wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Jason Morgan wrote:
> >...
> >Ok, it looks like it was an issue with the default settings on the
> >Linksys (and is still somewhat of an issue). I can now connect to
> >systems in each of the two subnets
On Nov 1, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Jason Morgan wrote:
...
Ok, it looks like it was an issue with the default settings on the
Linksys (and is still somewhat of an issue). I can now connect to
systems in each of the two subnets and I also have routing to the
outside world from both subnets. My only rem
> I never explicity set the FreeBSD machine to enable NAT
> between these subnets. Should I do so? Do I just add another
> natd_interface to rc.conf?
You do not want to do this. The below config in rc.conf is correct. It
states that nat will only be enabled for the external interface, for
both s
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:42:27PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
> > Ok, it looks like it was an issue with the default settings
> > on the Linksys (and is still somewhat of an issue). I can now
> > connect to systems in each of the two subnets and I also have
> > routing to the outside world
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 06:37:16PM +0100, Fabian Keil wrote:
> Jason Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:24:59AM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
> > > And again, tcpdump is a very good tool. The -i switch tells it what
> > > interface to listen on, so if the wireles
> Ok, it looks like it was an issue with the default settings
> on the Linksys (and is still somewhat of an issue). I can now
> connect to systems in each of the two subnets and I also have
> routing to the outside world from both subnets. My only
> remaining issue is getting to the web app se
Jason Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:24:59AM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> > And again, tcpdump is a very good tool. The -i switch tells it what
> > interface to listen on, so if the wireless side of the router works
> > but you can't ping across to the cabled si
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:24:59AM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Morgan
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:03 AM
> > To: FreeBSD Questions
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Morgan
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:03 AM
> To: FreeBSD Questions
> Subject: Re: Quick Routing Question
>
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:25:25AM -05
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:25:25AM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
> > DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif
> > Expire
> > default70.183.13.193 UGS 024701xl0
> > 10/24 link#3 UC 00 fxp0
> >
gt; Director of Information Services
> Mason General Hospital
> http://www.masongeneral.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Morgan
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:42 PM
> To: FreeBSD Questions
>
> DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif
> Expire
> default70.183.13.193 UGS 024701xl0
> 10/24 link#3 UC 00 fxp0
> 10.0.0.1 00:d0:b7:44:f9:c6 UHLW0 903lo0
> 10.0.0
October 31, 2005 9:42 PM
To: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Quick Routing Question
I am setting up a wireless subnet and, while the gateway (FreeBSD
system) is communicating fine with the wireless router, my other subnet
is not able to connect to the wireless router. Here is a diagram of my
network, I
5 5:58 AM
> > To: Jason Morgan
> > Cc: FreeBSD Questions
> > Subject: Re: Quick Routing Question
> >
> > Jason Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I am setting up a wireless subnet and, while the gateway (FreeBSD
> > > system) is commun
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions
> > Subject: Re: Quick Routing Question
> >
> > Jason Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I am setting up a wireless subnet and, while the gateway (FreeBSD
> > > system) is communicating fine with the wirele
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fabian Keil
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:58 AM
> To: Jason Morgan
> Cc: FreeBSD Questions
> Subject: Re: Quick Routing Question
>
> Jason Morgan <[EMAIL
Jason Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am setting up a wireless subnet and, while the gateway (FreeBSD
> system) is communicating fine with the wireless router, my other
> subnet is not able to connect to the wireless router. Here is a
> diagram of my network, I think it's fairly typical.
>
I am setting up a wireless subnet and, while the gateway (FreeBSD
system) is communicating fine with the wireless router, my other subnet
is not able to connect to the wireless router. Here is a diagram of my
network, I think it's fairly typical.
Wired Subnet (10.0.0.x)
El Dom 23 Oct 2005 20:22, Ahnjoan Amous escribió:
> The long : I have a CellPipe ADSL router/bridge from Lucent. This device is
> provided by our ISP. I am exploring the ZIPB functionality of the device to
> allow my FreeBSD host to own the public IP. The basics of the configuration
> for those unf
Ahnjoan Amous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The short : I believe the problem I am having is due to routing. A DHCP
> server sends me IP A.B.C.D with a default route of A.B.C.D. "dhclient" isn't
> handling this well and I don't know how to fix it. Windows as well as Linux
> DHCP clients do not hav
The short : I believe the problem I am having is due to routing. A DHCP
server sends me IP A.B.C.D with a default route of A.B.C.D. "dhclient" isn't
handling this well and I don't know how to fix it. Windows as well as Linux
DHCP clients do not have a problem with this and I am at my wits end tryin
The short : I believe the problem I am having is due to routing. A DHCP
server sends me IP A.B.C.D with a default route of A.B.C.D. "dhclient" isn't
handling this well and I don't know how to fix it. Windows as well as Linux
DHCP clients do not have a problem with this and I am at my wits end tryi
In the last episode (Apr 14), Kurt Buff said:
> Dan Nelson wrote:
> >In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
> >>I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
> >>postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
> >>entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1,
> >>the o
In the last episode (Apr 14), Kurt Buff said:
> Dan Nelson wrote:
> >In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
> >>I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
> >>postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
> >>entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1,
> >>the o
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1, the
other is a PC running Win2k and Winproxy, serving our DSL line. The
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1, the
other is a PC running Win2k and Winproxy, serving our DSL line. The
In the last episode (Apr 13), Kurt Buff said:
> I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
> postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
> entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1, the
> other is a PC running Win2k and Winproxy, serving our DSL line. The
> PC is st
Looks like I sent the first copy from an old address. Sorry if this dupes...
All,
I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1, the
other is a PC running Win2k and Winproxy, serving
All,
I have a FreeBSD 5.3 box running
postfix/amavisd-new/spamassassin/clamav. Currently, we have two
entrances to our network, one is the Watchguard FBIII for our T1, the
other is a PC running Win2k and Winproxy, serving our DSL line. The PC
is starting to flake out, and I'd like to replace it
Mark Jayson Alvarez wrote:
Good day!
Is it possible to tell cvsup to use another
machine's global access in fetching the freebsd source
updates??
Here's my office workstation setup:
(private ip) (pri/pub ip) (all public)
workstation > router >proxy server--->internet
Good day!
Is it possible to tell cvsup to use another
machine's global access in fetching the freebsd source
updates??
Here's my office workstation setup:
(private ip) (pri/pub ip) (all public)
workstation > router >proxy server--->internet
mail serve
Hello,
In using FreeBsd 5.2.1-Release I am running into some trouble. I have successfully
recompiled the kernel with support for atheros based wireless cards. I have also been
able to setup the card into access point "Hostap" mode correctly. I have tried the
bridging recommend in the FreeBSD wi
]
Sent: 11 June 2004 18:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Routing question
Leon,
This is possible, but will require you to run static routes so that you can
manually manage the connections. You should be able to set the routing
metrics so that all your traffic from client D goes to B and if they
]
Sent: 11 June 2004 18:16
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Routing question
Perhaps if you post more info, we can come up with creative solutions for
you. My big question is why?
AFAIK, you cannot have more than one default gateway, unless you are using
netgraph to balance
Perhaps if you post more info, we can come up with creative solutions
for you. My big question is why?
AFAIK, you cannot have more than one default gateway, unless you are
using netgraph to balance between network interfaces. However, you could
NAT C & D to their respective "public" interfaces.
I have a box with 5 nics.
Cal them A,B,C,D,E.
A & B are different internet connections.
E is a connection to a mail server on a public /29
C & D are connections for 2 differnet client networks.
Is it possible to have all traffic coming in via C sent to a default gateway
on A's network and
all traf
8
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 11:29 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: routing question
> >
> >
Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 11:29 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: routing question
>
>
> I am trying to configure a wireless router so I am redefining
> routes and IP address of my system. After booting dhclient
> ep0 works fine. Af
I am trying to configure a wireless router so I am redefining routes and IP
address of my system. After booting dhclient ep0 works fine. After messing
around with the wireless router I was just going back to my ethernet connection
so I did:
ifconfig ep0 192.168.0.3 remove
arp -da
route fl
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 03:40:04PM -0500, Marius Kirschner wrote:
> I have a 4.9 box that's on a public IP and I want to configure Samba so it
> only accepts connections from the private network (192.168.1). My question
> is, can I do that with only 1 NIC card or do I have to add a second NIC for
Behalf Of Marius
Kirschner
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Routing question -- Samba
I have a 4.9 box that's on a public IP and I want to configure Samba so
it
only accepts connections from the private network (192.168.1). My
question
is, can I do that
You can do that within the smb.conf
Use SWAT, advanced options, I think just for the share...
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Marius Kirschner
> Sent: Monday, 9 February 2004 12:40
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a 4.9 box that's on a public IP and I want to configure Samba so it
only accepts connections from the private network (192.168.1). My question
is, can I do that with only 1 NIC card or do I have to add a second NIC for
the private LAN?
---Marius
__
Hello everybody :)
I have a routing question and was wondering if FreeBSD was able to do this.
I have 2 ISPs (so 2 connections).
Can I use only one FreeBSD box as a gateway to:
- route LAN --> INTERNET (using connection 1)
- route DMZ --> INTERNET (using connection 2)
- route LAN --> DM
n wrote:
>Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:50:08 -0500
>From: "Tom Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Mailer:
>Subject: IPSEC Tunnel Routing question
>
>I would like to route all traffic over a gif/ipsec tunnel
>
>I have the following s
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
