Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread Jamie Walker
"Jenn V." wrote: > And being able to do basic diagnostics makes them feel much > more in control - they don't panic when they know they can > /do/ something. And they get so enthusiastic when they know > they've been helpful. :) Heh. It's *great* supporting (Linux using) PhD. students. As often

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread Jamie Walker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hey All, > I do not all ping responses in my network, as a matter of security. I > have futher disabled users from doing things like traceroute, host, etc. > The point to this is that there should be no need to do this in a work > environment unless you're on a networ

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread Jenn V.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hey All, > And > how many office people do you know that need to ping a host? I find that it saves immense amount of engineer time if the even remotely clued can do pings and traceroutes and know what they mean. It saves on the 'the internet is down' messages. I fa

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread moebius
Hey All, I do not all ping responses in my network, as a matter of security. I have futher disabled users from doing things like traceroute, host, etc. The point to this is that there should be no need to do this in a work environment unless you're on a network engineer side. If you're responsib

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread gandalf
I may be wrong on this, I haven't really been following the thread all that intently. if the admin setup the security to reject ICMP, then ping wouldn't work, and neither would traceroute. While ICMP seems like a pointless thing to block, other things use ICMP such as snmp, I believe, in which c

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread Jeff Dike
> But Jeff, I've seen situations where ping has been turned off for > security reasons. What security reasons were those? ping is a really basic tool without too many security implications (besides DOS, which can be done with any protocol). If ping has been disabled, then I'd start looking

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread Tamara Thompson
But Jeff, I've seen situations where ping has been turned off for security reasons. Haven't followed this thread closely, has traceroute been tried? Is telnet turned on on the machine you can't telnet to? >>> Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 02/18 1:03 PM >>> > I can ssh to any server (there

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread Jeff Dike
> I can ssh to any server (there are dozens) from my puter but I can't > telnet to my puter from the servers.. I'm thinking it has something > to do with how security is set up but I don't know. I think your site has network connectivity problems. Regardless of security policy, all machines

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread Tania M. Morell
Good news!, I can get to my work computer from home! Here's the wierd thing. After dialing in to work, I can telnet into it from any telnet client using the ip but if I ssh into one of the servers first and THEN try to telnet or ssh into it, it won't go. Maybe my puter won't trust the servers?

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread Jeff Dike
> I'm not at that computer now and can't run ifconfig until tomorrow but > I've tried pinging from one of our server and this is what I get: > chipshot # ping 10.254.254.245 PING 10.254.254.245 (10.254.254.245): > 56 data bytes Your box is off the net somehow. Make sure the wires are hooked up

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-18 Thread Dakota Surmonde
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Tania M. Morell wrote: > I don't know... what would be the same segment? The easiest way to check would be to ping it from something on the same physical hub..technically you just want to find out if computers that don't have to go through a router to talk to it can talk to

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-17 Thread Tania M. Morell
Dakota Surmonde wrote: > > hmm..first, can you talk from it to your other servers? > Yes. > second if you can, then can you talk to it from machines on the same > segment? I don't know... what would be the same segment? > > Vinnie > Jeff Dike wrote: > > Run ifconfig and make sure that

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-17 Thread moebius
Hey Tania, > I'm trying to get my desktop computer at work (which > is connected with an ethernet card and has a static > ip) 'visible' from the outside (but not necessarily > outside our firewall. > > I can't connect to it from other servers here, it's > natted, or whatever you call it. Can you

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-17 Thread Jeff Dike
> I'm trying to get my desktop computer at work (which is connected with > an ethernet card Run ifconfig and make sure that it has the right ip addr: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:B0:D0:20:06:FC inet addr:198.99.130.20 Bcast:198.99.130.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 which

Re: [techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-17 Thread Dakota Surmonde
On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Tania M. Morell wrote: > I'm trying to get my desktop computer at work (which > is connected with an ethernet card and has a static > ip) 'visible' from the outside (but not necessarily > outside our firewall. hmm..first, can you talk from it to your other servers? second i

[techtalk] Getting a computer on a network.

2000-02-17 Thread Tania M. Morell
Guys, I'm trying to get my desktop computer at work (which is connected with an ethernet card and has a static ip) 'visible' from the outside (but not necessarily outside our firewall. I can't connect to it from other servers here, it's natted, or whatever you call it. I've been playing with i