On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 12:54:55PM +0100, Conor Daly wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 08:41:00PM +1000 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
> Malcolm Tredinnick thought...
> >
> > On other distributions, there may be a similar method, but the general
> > solution is just to do:
> >
> > echo 1 >
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 08:41:00PM +1000 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
Malcolm Tredinnick thought...
>
> On other distributions, there may be a similar method, but the general
> solution is just to do:
>
> echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
>
> This simply tells the kernel that it
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 08:49:57AM +0100, Conor Daly wrote:
> Question for you...
>
> I'm using an old 486 as internet gateway / router / firewall. I'm
> using a P200 as server / DNS / squid proxy (Well, I will be once I get
> around to configuring squid). I want to set things up so that client
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 04:19:33PM -0500 or so it is rumoured hereabouts,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] thought...
>
> Here's the route list you gave earlier:
> |Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
> |63.251.67.560.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:24:15 -0400, "C. M. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Oh, absolutely. Specific host routes shouldn't be necessary, though
>I've tried them just in case. The .56 is not a valid address on our
>network, though, which is what raised the red flag.
No, it's not a valid addre
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:14:21 -0400, "C. M. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The IP address assigned to eth0 is correct in ifconfig, but
>wrong/different in netstat. Ditto eth1.
No, they appear to be correct to me. Keep in mind that those are
network routes, not host routes.
Kelly
___
Hi, Malcolm,
>
> Notice the field labelled "Mask:" in the second row? This means that you
> have been assigned a group of eight IP addresses where the top 29 bits
> of the address are set (248 is 1000 in binary). So, in other words,
> you are on a subnet and the individual IPs of the machines
OK, I'm responding to this particular message in the thread because it's
got all the information I need to refer to. I've read the later messages
and think I understand some of where Caity's confusion is coming from...
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:20:31PM -0400, C. M. Martin wrote:
> eth0 Link
I might be talking under your level, but yeah, you can do something like
route add default gw xxx.xx.xxx.xxx
or
route add ()
or
route delete
as i said, i'm not real swift at this stuff but it's a big rush when it actually
works. hope this helps...
"C. M. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Hi, Stephanie, and everyone else,
> But can't the routing table hold not necessarily the machine itself, but a router
>the machine knows about?
Oh, absolutely. Specific host routes shouldn't be necessary, though I've tried
them just in case. The .56 is not a valid address on our network, thou
But can't the routing table hold not necessarily the machine itself, but a router the
machine knows about? you can have a gateway that matches your ip, but the destination
doesn't have to. I think a crash course in routing is in order...I can usually hack
this stuff together, but never quite
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, you wrote:
> C. M. Martin, [EMAIL PROTECTED], said:
> > Those first two destination addresses are *wrong*. How can netstat,
> > which I believe reads directly from the kernel routing tables, get
> > out of sync with ifconfig? More importantly, how on earth do I fix
> > this?
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, C. M. Martin wrote:
> Here is the output from ifconfig, which is exactly what I'd expect:
>
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:06:29:F5:3F:AD
> inet addr:63.251.67.58 Bcast:63.251.67.63 Mask:255.255.255.248
>
> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:06
C. M. Martin, [EMAIL PROTECTED], said:
> Those first two destination addresses are *wrong*. How can netstat,
> which I believe reads directly from the kernel routing tables, get
> out of sync with ifconfig? More importantly, how on earth do I fix
> this?
Hm, the ifconfig and netstat outputs loo
Hi, everyone,
OK, I'm working on my third firewall in two weeks. (Why does everyone want to
hire me for security work? Are they that desperate?) Anyway...
The box in question is running Caldera 2.4, with the patched version of the
2.2.14 kernel. I'm having some port forwarding funkiness on t
15 matches
Mail list logo
