> From: hrkesh sahu
> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 19:09:02 +0530
> To: "Julian H. Stacey"
> Cc: Polytropon ,
> FreeBSD questions
Hi, No idea why it was To: me.
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I dislike MS & windows & quoted-prin
Hi All,
I am facing a routing issue for the Interoperability 1.5 topology.
Please find the attachment of the exact topology map.
As per test setup –
Ø Configured REF-Router2 NOT to transmit Router Advertisement on
Network1. But REF-Router2 is able to transmit Router Advertisement on
Networ
Hello Nikos,
thank you very much Nikos
"You've repaired my internet" ,)
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 06:56:49PM +0300, Nikos Vassiliadis wrote:
> Fabian Holler wrote:
> > I have an strange routing problem. I can't connect to some hosts in the
> > internet till I a
Fabian Holler wrote:
Hello,
I have an strange routing problem. I can't connect to some hosts in the
internet till I add an explicit route for this hosts with my default gw
as gateway.
There aren't any other routes that could match the destination IP for
"non-working hosts"
Hello,
I have an strange routing problem. I can't connect to some hosts in the
internet till I add an explicit route for this hosts with my default gw
as gateway.
There aren't any other routes that could match the destination IP for
"non-working hosts". So the connection sh
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 4:50 AM, Yuri Pankov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The MadDaemon wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Yuri Pankov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The MadDaemon wrote:
List,
I'm having a problem with a dual-homed host running 7.0-RELEASE with
(Sorry, I replied to Yuri only by mistake)
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:49 AM, The MadDaemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Yuri Pankov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The MadDaemon wrote:
>>>
>>> List,
>>>
>>> I'm having a problem with a dual-homed host running 7.0-RELE
The MadDaemon wrote:
List,
I'm having a problem with a dual-homed host running 7.0-RELEASE with
regards to traffic on one of the interfaces that I'm hoping someone
knows something about.
The goal of this box is to run Nessus on bge0 only (which is plugged
into a trunk port on a switch), keeping
List,
I'm having a problem with a dual-homed host running 7.0-RELEASE with
regards to traffic on one of the interfaces that I'm hoping someone
knows something about.
The goal of this box is to run Nessus on bge0 only (which is plugged
into a trunk port on a switch), keeping fxp0 free as the admin
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> 2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > No I didn't mean that; use your own favourite packet filter, any of them
> > can handle what you've described. Bill suggested pf - lots of people
> > seem to like it a lot - and I u
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:41:51 -0200
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > No I didn't mean that; use your own favourite packet filter, any of
> > them can handle what you've described. Bill suggested pf - lots of
> > people
2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> No I didn't mean that; use your own favourite packet filter, any of them
> can handle what you've described. Bill suggested pf - lots of people
> seem to like it a lot - and I use ipfw because I (mostly) know how to.
I always had linux servers, so I
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007, Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> 2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > ipfw works fine too for these sorts of network policy separation :)
>
>
> So ipfilter is not recommended by you guyz?
No I didn't mean that; use your own favourite packet filter,
2007/11/24, Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> ipfw works fine too for these sorts of network policy separation :)
So ipfilter is not recommended by you guyz?
If that wasn't a typo, this is a non-contiguous netmask. I suspect you
> want 255.255.255.224, assuming the default router is in the sam
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:33:26 -0200
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
> > > > > em0 external world XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
> > > > > rl0 adm 192.168.1.80
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I'm going to the server room to test the command. And yes, the DNS is
> > working properly. I just came from the room and I did the command dig @
> > 192.168.1.1 google.ca and it said no server reached, then I did dig @
> > 127.0.0.1 google.ca and i
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > First off, what's the output of "sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding"? If
> > it is 0, then reboot and see if it starts working.
>
> The return was: net.inet.ip.forwarding 1
OK. That's not the problem then ... did you disable ipfil
>
> First off, what's the output of "sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding"? If
> it is 0, then reboot and see if it starts working.
The return was: net.inet.ip.forwarding 1
Routed is running, named is running, the server itself can ping to any
network, I don't know what else to test.
__
>
> By ping, mean ping. I don't know what "have access" means, but I know
> what
> "ping" means.
Well I say have access because the icpm would be blocked, but I would still
have communicationwith the network even if I didn't ping. But yeah, for
meright now ping and have access is the same once t
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, I have IPFIlTER installed, but if I would want t
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I have IPFIlTER installed, but if I would want to everybody ping to
> > > everybody and then block the thing
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, li
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, like you said, it's a
> > > config problem with the routes, I
"Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, like you said, it's a
> config problem with the routes, I thought the routed daemon would care of it
> for me but it seems like it don't. Please I ask you to forget the scenario I
> said
2007/11/23, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, like you said, it's a
> > config problem with the routes, I thought the routed daemon would care
> of it
> > for me but it seems like
OK guyz, I did some tests and I found the error, like you said, it's a
config problem with the routes, I thought the routed daemon would care of it
for me but it seems like it don't. Please I ask you to forget the scenario I
said before, now what i have is:
The dns server is now with the IP 192.16
Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> Sorry,
> searchdomain ...
> nameserver 192.168.1.2
>
> not 192.168.1.1 as I've said before.
What about:
# dig @192.168.1.2 google.ca
Also, I don't know if it has any impact, but my resolv.conf shows just
'search mydomain.com' as opposed t
The nameserver is the 192.168.1.2 in the resolv.conf, sorry my fault. I'm
gonna copy the rc.conf and paste here. But the routes are OK and still OK
for any time when the machine is not the main gateway and have some few
clients using it as gateway, if it was a config problem it wouldn't work
never,
In response to "Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry my english skills, I'm brazilian and I'm not very familiar with the
> language, but I'm gonna try to explain it clearly:
>
> LINUX SERVER
> private network 192.168.1.1
> external network x.x.x.x
>
> FREEBSD SERVER
> pri
Sorry,
searchdomain ...
nameserver 192.168.1.2
not 192.168.1.1 as I've said before.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTE
Sorry my english skills, I'm brazilian and I'm not very familiar with the
language, but I'm gonna try to explain it clearly:
LINUX SERVER
private network 192.168.1.1
external network x.x.x.x
FREEBSD SERVER
private network 192.168.1.240
external network x.x.x.x
DNS SERVER
private network 192.168.
Alaor Barroso de Carvalho Neto wrote:
> If I turn off linux and set the rl0 to 192.168.1.1 it
> stop resolving names but can ping to anywhere. Help!!!
> in the rc.conf
> gateway_enable="YES"
> defaultrouter="X.X.X.X"
I don't know if I quite understand on which machine things are breaking,
but if i
Hi, I have some troubles building my internet gateway to my network. I
already have a gateway machine running under linux, with two interfaces eth0
(192.168.1.1) and eth1 (external world), but I installed a new server
running FreeBSD6.2 with ipfilter and squid, in the test time with had the ip
192.
FTP. it doesn't do that.
Best regards,
Narek
-Original Message-
From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:02 AM
To: Narek Gharibyan
Subject: Re: Policy - based Routing problem Need help
Narek Gharibyan wrote:
Yes your written rules ar
ow it take place via 20
port or find the wrong line in ipfw fwd rules?
Best regards,
Narek
-Original Message-
From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:02 AM
To: Narek Gharibyan
Subject: Re: Policy - based Routing problem Need help
Narek Ghariby
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:26:17AM +0500, Narek Gharibyan wrote:
> I have a firewall/router with FreeBSD 6.2 installed on it. 2 ISP connection
> and 2 LAN connections. I need to do a policy-based routing. All I need that
> packets coming from one ISP interface return to that interface (incoming
> c
Hi all,
I have a firewall/router with FreeBSD 6.2 installed on it. 2 ISP connection
and 2 LAN connections. I need to do a policy-based routing. All I need that
packets coming from one ISP interface return to that interface (incoming
connections' source based routing) and the other hand do a IP
My network looks like this:
+--+ +--+ +-+ +--+
| Internet | <-> | Tiny | <-> | linksys | <-> | Behemoth |
+--+ +--+ +-+ +--+
\
(WiFi)
Hello list!
I've been playing around with IPSEC site-to-site VPN. The setup is as follows:
[Home cisco 871w, A] -> (internet) -> [FreeBSD IPsec VPN-server] -> (internet)
-> [Buddy's Home cisco 871w, B].
A and B can both reach the FreeBSD IPSec server, on their VPN IPs:
A(10.10.10.1) to IPsec
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:10:07PM +0200, George Vanev wrote:
> I have FreeBSD 6.2 box with 1 NIC and 2 IPs.
> The first IP is to access internet, the second
> is for the ISP's LAN.
> Unfortunately I have internet, but no access to
> the other network.
We need network IP configuration details; ie
Nothing? You're able to arp 192.168.64.1 and 192.168.64.3, can you ping
them?
Since you have an RFC-1918 address on both the inside and the outside, I
assume you're running nat on this machine to translate internal machine
traffic. It looks like you have all the routes you need, so my _guess_
In response to "George Vanev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 2/8/07, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In response to "George Vanev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > I have FreeBSD 6.2 box with 1 NIC and 2 IPs.
> > > The first IP is to access internet, the second
> > > is for the ISP's LAN.
>
On 2/8/07, Bill Moran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In response to "George Vanev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have FreeBSD 6.2 box with 1 NIC and 2 IPs.
> The first IP is to access internet, the second
> is for the ISP's LAN.
> Unfortunately I have internet, but no access to
> the other network.
>
>
In response to "George Vanev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have FreeBSD 6.2 box with 1 NIC and 2 IPs.
> The first IP is to access internet, the second
> is for the ISP's LAN.
> Unfortunately I have internet, but no access to
> the other network.
>
> I made a test. I assigned to the NIC only the local
I have FreeBSD 6.2 box with 1 NIC and 2 IPs.
The first IP is to access internet, the second
is for the ISP's LAN.
Unfortunately I have internet, but no access to
the other network.
I made a test. I assigned to the NIC only the local
IP and removed the defaultrouter. Then, of course,
I have no int
In answer to my own question. When I disable the firewall on the server
the routing issue is instantly resolved. However for 90% of the time
the firewall runs without any apparent problems... I will start a new
thread of conversation and ask my now firewall related problem. Sorry
for my apparent
Hi,
I am running a 5.4 box as a gateway server / firewall / mail relay at
our company. Previously we had a 4.3-beta server which although
horribly outdated hardly ever gave us any problems. Since replacing it
with a Dell 850 and installing 5.4 I have experienced intermittent
routing issues. The
Ok, here´s the deal
I have my Freebsd 4.10 gateway/nat/firewall on my network.
On my LAN i have couple WIN machines and a Linux Redhat machine working ok
to outside and other machine´s with IP 192.168.255.252 eth0
I have one software running on Redhat Machine that uses SLIP and i have
con
Gustafson, Tim wrote:
I know it "can" be done. I have a feeling that the FreeBSD TCP
stack lacks the capability.
If you are looking for multiple routes to the same destination, you are
correct. I believe that if you see the thread on net@ from 03/01/04
with the subject "My planned work on net
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 5:02 AM
Subject: RE: Routing Problem
Thomas (and John too),
Let me clarify a little bit.
What I have is this:
A single FreeBSD web server with a single NIC in it
Two T1 routers, each with a different subnet.
My FreeBSD box has two IP addresses assigned to it,
Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(516) 379-0001 Office
(516) 480-1870 Mobile/Emergencies
(516) 908-4185 Fax
http://www.meitech.com/
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 7:57 AM
To: Gustafson, Tim
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Routing Pr
case? I guess I am not fully understanding your
configuration ...
T.
- Original Message -
From: "Gustafson, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Thomas Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 4:06 AM
Subject
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Routing Problem
Im confused.. if you have two T1s, then are using /30s dor the ranges?
If
so.. what about not giving a default gateway for either one and just add
routes...
Are you attempting utilize this as just a router.?
Theres a section that covers setting
://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-routing.html
Hope this helps
T
- Original Message -
From: "Gustafson, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: Routing Problem
I am having a problem setting up a multi-hom
I am having a problem setting up a multi-homed host. I have two
separate T1 internet connections, and one physical NIC in my FreeBSD
box. The two networks are as follows:
Connection 1:
LAN Address: 1.2.3.24/25
Router Address: 1.2.3.1
Connection 2:
LAN Address: 4.5.6.106/29
Router Address: 4.5.6
You should add on your router the following routes
192.168.1.0/24
192.168.2.0/24
with gateway 192.168.0.2 (interface firewall)
Your router doesn't know where to return the packets to.
And your firewall needs to route 0.0.0.0 to 192.168.0.1 (router interface)
Your CIDR is good.
These changes sh
Hi,
I am really having problems with this, any help appreciated.
Amended repost of "ipnat port forwarding froblem"
The configuration:
Router:
This is a dedicated ADSL router with integrated firewall and nat
The firewall cannot be configured other than turning ports
on and off for t
Hi all
I have a fbsd 4.7 box that has 2 nics rl0 & rl1. On rl0 i have a public
ip address and on rl1 I have a private 10.20.30.0/24, and I'm running
squid proxy for my private ip's.
Now i've added a 3rd nic rl2 which has an ADSL router connected to it
(another internet source).
What I wanted to
004 12:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Routing problem in IPv4/IPSec VPN environment
As a personal favor, I am building a VPN for a small business. I
have chosen FreeBSD for this due to my greater familiarity. The
project will consist of linking four sites, each with a FreeBSD
system providing
- Original Message -
From: "James P. Howard, II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:57 PM
Subject: Routing problem in IPv4/IPSec VPN environment
> As a personal favor, I am building a VPN for a small business. I
>
As a personal favor, I am building a VPN for a small business. I
have chosen FreeBSD for this due to my greater familiarity. The
project will consist of linking four sites, each with a FreeBSD
system providing DHCP, NAT, and VPN services. I have built DHCP and
NAT servers before, but the IPSec a
(This message may reappear in the future, it was rejected by the
lists from my webhost.)
As a personal favor, I am building a VPN for a small business. I
have chosen FreeBSD for this due to my greater familiarity. The
project will consist of linking four sites, each with a FreeBSD
system providi
Dear all
I have a cable modem hooked up as my default gateway and running natd for
my clients on XL0
I have another modem is I want to put on the same box on a different nic sis0
Problem is the remote gateway is the same for both IP's address due to the
fact its the same ISP
I get messages sa
Dear all
I have a cable modem hooked up as my default gateway and runing natd for my
clients on XL0
I have another modem is I want to put on the same box on a diffrent nic sis0
the problem is the remote gateway is the same for both IP's address
and we get msgs saying that xxx is on sis0 but got
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>
> Good luck. I have tried to get this working, but have never been able
> to get mpd encryption to work with the Concentrator's encryption
> (neither has anyone else to my knowledge). If you disable encryption on
> the concentrator, the tunnel will
Original message from Joe Marcus Clarke:
> I was able to get past the routing loop by readdressing the interface as
> soon as it came up. This is a good starter howto on that procedure:
>
> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~flemej/fbsd-cisco-vpn/fbsd-cisco-vpn.pdf
Yeah I went through this, but my iface up
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 03:34, Chris Jones wrote:
> Oh. :( I thought it negotiated the encryption ok because I see this:
>
> [ciscovpn] CCP: LayerUp
> Compress using: MPPE, 128 bit, stateless
> Decompress using: MPPE, 128 bit, stateless
This is fine. I get this, too. However, when trying to
Oh. :( I thought it negotiated the encryption ok because I see this:
[ciscovpn] CCP: LayerUp
Compress using: MPPE, 128 bit, stateless
Decompress using: MPPE, 128 bit, stateless
And capturing on the interface, I see echo req's coming in from the
concentrator, but I encounter a routing loop wh
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 02:49, Chris Jones wrote:
> Hi. I've gone over list archives and seen this issue discussed before,
> but the sugggested solutions aren't working for me. I am using
> mpd-3.15_1 on FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE to connect to a Cisco 3000 Series VPN
> Concentrator. I have negotiated CHA
Hi. I've gone over list archives and seen this issue discussed before,
but the sugggested solutions aren't working for me. I am using
mpd-3.15_1 on FreeBSD 4.9-STABLE to connect to a Cisco 3000 Series VPN
Concentrator. I have negotiated CHAP and MPPE and the ng0 interface
comes up, but when I tr
Well, I got this fun routing problem again; so here it goes.
I have a router, which gets native ipv6 on xl0 with block 2001:a6x:2:1x::/64
and she has also lan-interface.
My idea was to route 2001:a6x:2:1x:dead::/96 to lan interface so i thought
doing as follows; added 2001:a6x:2:1x::3/64 to lan
From which interface? Try these:
ping google.com
(that will ping using the external interface)
ping -S 10.0.0.1 google.com
(that will ping using the internal interface)
If one works, but not the other, post your firewall
rules and natd command line.
Hello,
The FreeBSD machine is simply passing
you.
--
Best Regards,
Joshua Lokken
From: Clayton F <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "joshua lokken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Routing problem
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:52:47 -0800
This setup appears a little confusing. Does your ISP give you a sta
This setup appears a little confusing. Does your ISP give you a static
or dynamic IP address to the internet? It would also help to see the
interface configuration info in your rc.conf file.
generally speaking, your external interface should have the ip address
assigned by your isp, not a priv
> LAN clients can access boh gateway interfaces by hostname and IP. Clients
> are
> setup to use 192.168.1.2 for DNS, and 192.168.1.2 uses 192.168.1.1 for DNS.
> I cannot get any traffic to reach (let alone pass) the DSL modem from the
> clients.
>
> I have tried this with the FreeBSD gateway,
Hello,
Running 4.9-stable. Here is a brief overview of the network I'm setting up.
***Internet***
|
DSL modem (192.168.1.1, netmask 255.255.255.252, assigned by ISP)
|
FreeBSD gateway external (192.168.1.2, netmask 255.255.255.252, assigned by
ISP)
|
FreeBSD ga
Hello
My goals are:
- to use an Win2k server (terminal server) in a lan over the internet (FreeBSD
box with pptpd)
My equipment:
- Win2k server, SP4 (test machine)
- file server
- telnet server
IP: 192.168.1.50
- FreeBSD 4.8
- firewall (all rules works very well, also ftp etc.)
- VP
HI and thanks,
Cool! I am OK with the fbsd stuff ipfilter ipnat etc. I garee it is nice.
The small matter of the cisco thing...hmmm!
OK...so would it be ok to ask another question or 2 later if today is bad?
I need to know how to "bridge" the /29 on the cisco.
does it mean I simply install static r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a friend with a cisco 827 adsl router. It has config hassles but
when that is sorted, we need to setup a freebsd box inside the cisco
router to handle a /29 block of ips. 3 questions...
I'm running an identical setup here - a Cisco 827, a /29, and a FreeBSD
machine
Hi all,
I have a friend with a cisco 827 adsl router. It has config hassles but
when that is sorted, we need to setup a freebsd box inside the cisco
router to handle a /29 block of ips. 3 questions...
a) Should I assume the cisco is not the worlds greatest firewall and setup
the freebsd machine as
Hi all,
I have a friend with a cisco 827 adsl router. It has config hassles but
when that is sorted, we need to setup a freebsd box inside the cisco
router to handle a /29 block of ips. 3 questions...
a) Should I assume the cisco is not the worlds greatest firewall and setup
the freebsd machine as
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Philip Payne wrote:
> > I'm running FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE and I have trouble routing between two
> > NIC's. On one side I have a 192.168.1.0/24 network and on the
> > other a 212.110.94.64/27
> > network on which I have mail and web servers, which the 192.168.1.0/24
> > hosts
> I'm running FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE and I have trouble routing between two
> NIC's. On one side I have a 192.168.1.0/24 network and on the
> other a 212.110.94.64/27
> network on which I have mail and web servers, which the 192.168.1.0/24
> hosts should be able to reach.
>
> Here are the ifconfig a
> I'm running FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE and I have trouble routing
> between two NIC's. On one side I have a 192.168.1.0/24
> network and on the other a 212.110.94.64/27 network on which
> I have mail and web servers, which the 192.168.1.0/24 hosts
> should be able to reach.
>
> Here are the ifconfi
Hi,
I'm running FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE and I have trouble routing between two
NIC's. On one side I have a 192.168.1.0/24 network and on the other a 212.110.94.64/27
network on which I have mail and web servers, which the 192.168.1.0/24
hosts should be able to reach.
Here are the ifconfig and netstat
> SB > actually resolved the issue. If you could post your fix, it would be
==> SB > appreciated.
==> SB >
==> SB > Tks.
==> SB >
==> SB > Steve
==> SB >
==> Sorry, will offcourse do.
==> I just removed the line and the problem was gone.
==> -
gt; appreciated.
SB >
SB > Tks.
SB >
SB > Steve
SB >
Sorry, will offcourse do.
I just removed the line and the problem was gone.
Subject: Re: Re: Routing problem ?
Date: Thursday 20 March 2003 21.37
From: Joshua Lokken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Hasse <
> Thx everybody.
> Problem solved.
> /Hasse.
It would be nice for the people who followed your thread to know what
actually resolved the issue. If you could post your fix, it would be
appreciated.
Tks.
Steve
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questi
Thx everybody.
Problem solved.
/Hasse.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
On Thursday 20 March 2003 17.54, Steve Bertrand wrote:
SB > > Hi everybody.
SB > > I have small network at home with two machines connected to the net
SB > > via ADSL. That means Dynamic IP, though not changing very often.
SB > > -
SB > > "odin.swedehost.com" running FreeBSD 4.8-RC #0 S
> Hi everybody.
> I have small network at home with two machines connected to the net
> via ADSL. That means Dynamic IP, though not changing very often.
> -
> "odin.swedehost.com" running FreeBSD 4.8-RC #0 Sun Mar 16 2003
> Two NICs. xl0 " DHCP " and "NAT-interface", acting as a gateway
Hi everybody.
I have small network at home with two machines connected to the net
via ADSL. That means Dynamic IP, though not changing very often.
-
"odin.swedehost.com" running FreeBSD 4.8-RC #0 Sun Mar 16 2003
Two NICs. xl0 " DHCP " and "NAT-interface", acting as a gateway, doing NAT.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:24:44PM +0200, molotov wrote:
> I have a little problem with my home network. I had a Linux router
> before and now I have FreeBSD set up and running on the same box.
> The problem is, that I don't know what manual could speak about
> that kind of routing: there are thre
Hello everyone,
I have a little problem with my home network. I had a Linux router
before and now I have FreeBSD set up and running on the same box.
The problem is, that I don't know what manual could speak about
that kind of routing: there are three additional IP addresses
routed to my gateway.
twig les wrote:
Hey all, I have a 4.7 release box that needs to cvsup
its ports. The problem is that this box never sees
the outside world normally; it does IDS on an IP-less
interface and of course has a backnet interface. So
basically I added a temporary IP address to this box,
edited my /etc/
Hey all, I have a 4.7 release box that needs to cvsup
its ports. The problem is that this box never sees
the outside world normally; it does IDS on an IP-less
interface and of course has a backnet interface. So
basically I added a temporary IP address to this box,
edited my /etc/cvsupfile to use
> today i tried to setup 4.7 gateway. It hastwo NICs (rl0 and rl1) on
> different subnets (rl0 = 192.168.0.66, rl1 = 192.168.1.2). The rl0 is
> connected to a cable-modem and gets an other IP (213.209.66.214) after
> booting.
>
> After playing with routes, i can ping outside, can ping rl0 and rl1 a
Hi,
today i tried to setup 4.7 gateway. It hastwo NICs (rl0 and rl1) on
different subnets (rl0 = 192.168.0.66, rl1 = 192.168.1.2). The rl0 is
connected to a cable-modem and gets an other IP (213.209.66.214) after
booting.
The problem ist, that boxes in 192.168.1.* cannot connect to the outside
wo
Hi,
With the following setup I don't understand why ip from the jail
192.168.1.2 cannot reach hosts in 192.168.2.0/24. Can I use a fancy
ipfw fwd rule to make it work? Anything routes that use the default
gateway is fine.
Here is the setup:
= Host system =
default gateway 192.168.1.254
fxp0:
I'm trying to something a little bizarre with routing, so I suppose it
bears some explanation. I recently purchased one of those all-in-one
firewall/NAT/ethernet switch/801.11b access point boxes for my home use.
802.11b security being what it is (useless), I'm planning on setting up
IPSec for my
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
