Subject: general-digest V2 #106
From: [email-masked] (general-digest)
To: [email-masked]

general-digest        Friday, December 24 1999        Volume 02 : Number 106

In this issue:

    Re: DM15 public 6
    Re: DM15 public 6
    Re: DM15 public 6
    Re: DM15 public 6
    RPM web index
    Re: DM15 public 6
    Re: RPM web index
    Re: RPM web index
    Re: DM15 public 6
    Unnecessary Packages?
    Re: RPM web index
    Re: Unnecessary Packages?
    Re: Unnecessary Packages?
    Re: Unnecessary Packages?
    Re: Unnecessary Packages?
    Networking question
    Re: Networking question
    Re: Networking question
    Re: Networking question
    Re: Networking question
    Re: Net question (100 Mbit between only two NICs)
    Re: Net question (100 Mbit between only two NICs)
    Re: Networking question
    100mbit over Crossover cable [was Networking question]
    Re: Networking question
    Re: 100mbit over Crossover cable [was Networking question]
    Re: Networking question
    Re: 100mbit over Crossover cable [was Networking question]
    Ok, ok.. To err is human and all that.
    Incremental download software

See the end of this digest for information about general-digest.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:13:25 +0100
From: "J.R.Peterzon" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: DM15 public 6

Kevin,

Is n't apache configured per default on DM15 pub 6 ?
I have 15 pub 2 but this has apache pre installed..
I might be missing the point here though..

Jan Rinze.

Kevin Driedger wrote:

> Last night, public 6 was installed on my netwinder in about the time it
> takes to gunzip it.  Kudos to Andrew for creating the 38MB base image.
>
> Gunzip'ed and untarred it in my ftp directory on /dev/hda3 then I booted
> /dev/hda1 then mv'ed the current /dev/hda3 root to a directory called
> oldroot and reboot'ed the machine with the new base installation image.
>
> Currently the machine is being used as my local proxy server with no
> problems with the ipchains (public 2 had some strange errors that have
> gone away... sorry I did not capture what they were).
>
> Next I would like to get apache working..
>
> Thanks again.
> ]{evin.

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:23:51 -0500
From: Ralph Siemsen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: DM15 public 6

"J.R.Peterzon" wrote:
 
> Isn't apache configured per default on DM15 pub 6 ?

On the full 380 MB image, yes... not on the "base" image though.  It
should just be a matter of grabbing the apache*.rpm from Andrew's home
dir and installing then, along with any dependancies it requests.  The
old "--nodeps" hack should not be required anymore, since the RPM
database is now complete.

- -- 
Ralph Siemsen -- [email-masked]

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:54:56 -0500
From: Kevin Driedger <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: DM15 public 6

> > Isn't apache configured per default on DM15 pub 6 ?
>
> On the full 380 MB image, yes... not on the "base" image though.  It
> should just be a matter of grabbing the apache*.rpm from Andrew's home
> dir and installing then, along with any dependancies it requests.  The
> old "--nodeps" hack should not be required anymore, since the RPM
> database is now complete.

One would think that it would be that easy.   Yesterday afternoon, I tried
to do an rpm ftp and then today I downloaded it directly and did the
following and got the same error both times (no surprise):
- ---------------------------cut here------------------->
[root@netwinder ftp]# rpm -i apache-1.3.9-4.armv4l.rpm
error: failed dependencies:
        /etc/mime.types is needed by apache-1.3.9-4
        mailcap   is needed by apache-1.3.9-4
[root@netwinder ftp]#
- ---------------------------cut here------------------->
I guess I need to find the packages that contain the mime.types and the
mailcap files. Hmm.  I suppose I could touch then or do a nodeps but I
figure the netwinder team has put some good stuff in there.  Alternatively
I could copy it from my public 2 image which just happens to be on my
harddrive but that would not really be the point of testing out the
image....

What is a good way to solve this?
1. If all these rpm's were on my harddrive I could query them for what
files they contain and install that one.
2. I could also guess which one it is and download it.
3. Perhaps I could figure out how to ssh to the netwinder.org machine and
do suggestion #1

TIA,

]{evin
ps. good to hear from others.

Ralph Siemsen wrote:

> "J.R.Peterzon" wrote:
>
> > Isn't apache configured per default on DM15 pub 6 ?
>
> On the full 380 MB image, yes... not on the "base" image though.  It
> should just be a matter of grabbing the apache*.rpm from Andrew's home
> dir and installing then, along with any dependancies it requests.  The
> old "--nodeps" hack should not be required anymore, since the RPM
> database is now complete.
>
> --
> Ralph Siemsen -- [email-masked]

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:59:25 -0500
From: Ralph Siemsen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: DM15 public 6

Kevin Driedger wrote:

> One would think that it would be that easy.   Yesterday afternoon, I tried
> to do an rpm ftp and then today I downloaded it directly and did the
> following and got the same error both times (no surprise):

> error: failed dependencies:
>         /etc/mime.types is needed by apache-1.3.9-4
>         mailcap   is needed by apache-1.3.9-4

The mailcap package provides both of these.  Although it doesn't have
listings for ARM/NetWinder, the http://rpmfind.net site is quite useful
for sorting this sort of thing out.  

- -- 
Ralph Siemsen -- [email-masked]

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:06:58 -0500
From: "Andrew E. Mileski" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RPM web index

I'm playing with adding rpm2html to update my web pages:
  http://netwinder.org/~andrewm/redhat/
If all goes well, it will be updated hourly.

- --
Andrew E. Mileski - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM  http://www.rebel.com/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:36:07 -0500
From: Kevin Driedger <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: DM15 public 6

Thanks Ralph.  The http://rpmfind.net web page does not seem to be straight
forward.  Apparently, one must recompile some utility called rpmfind.  I am
working on that right now...

]{evin.

Ralph Siemsen wrote:

> Kevin Driedger wrote:
>
> > One would think that it would be that easy.   Yesterday afternoon, I tried
> > to do an rpm ftp and then today I downloaded it directly and did the
> > following and got the same error both times (no surprise):
>
> > error: failed dependencies:
> >         /etc/mime.types is needed by apache-1.3.9-4
> >         mailcap   is needed by apache-1.3.9-4
>
> The mailcap package provides both of these.  Although it doesn't have
> listings for ARM/NetWinder, the http://rpmfind.net site is quite useful
> for sorting this sort of thing out.
>
> --
> Ralph Siemsen -- [email-masked]

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:03:53 -0500
From: Kevin Driedger <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RPM web index

rpm2html seems to work well.  Good stuff!

"Andrew E. Mileski" wrote:

> I'm playing with adding rpm2html to update my web pages:
>   http://netwinder.org/~andrewm/redhat/
> If all goes well, it will be updated hourly.
>
> --
> Andrew E. Mileski - Software Engineer
> REBEL.COM  http://www.rebel.com/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:06:59 -0500
From: Kevin Driedger <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RPM web index

I installed the rpm-3*.rpm and it installs the librpm.*.  When I am
trying to recompile the rpmfind tool it complains about not knowing
about librpm.  What I believe I need to do is refresh the ld.so.cache
but there is no:
/etc/ld.so.conf
file.  According to your rpm2html web page no package provides this
file..

I will be creating this file by hand (using the old distro as a model :)

]{evin.

"Andrew E. Mileski" wrote:

> I'm playing with adding rpm2html to update my web pages:
>   http://netwinder.org/~andrewm/redhat/
> If all goes well, it will be updated hourly.
>
> --
> Andrew E. Mileski - Software Engineer
> REBEL.COM  http://www.rebel.com/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:45:58 -0500
From: "Andrew E. Mileski" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: DM15 public 6

Ralph Siemsen wrote:
> The mailcap package provides both of these.  Although it doesn't have
> listings for ARM/NetWinder, the http://rpmfind.net site is quite useful
> for sorting this sort of thing out.

Take a look at http://netwinder.org/~andrewm/redhat/

Finding the package that owns a file is currently best done through
browsing the distribution tree, as browsing the requires list for a
package doesn't yet work for names that begin with /

  Example:
     From the Index select "NetWinder DM (Beta)"
     Select "Browse the distribution tree"
     Select "etc"
     Select "mime.types"
  This brings up the details of the owning package, "mailcap".

- --
Andrew E. Mileski - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM  http://www.rebel.com/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:56:43 -0500
From: Curtis Ireland <[email-masked]>
Subject: Unnecessary Packages?

After untarring the dm image, there are some packages I'm wondering why
bother install on a NetWinder. For instance, cdrecord?

That would be great if the NetWinder came with a burner. I suppose it is
possible for a SCSI version to come out soon and someone hooks up an
external, but right now, I think the odds are most 'Winders out there
don't have SCSI (yet).

That is just one example. There are lots of packages that are included
but the NetWinder has no use for.

My $0.03 (inflation)
    -C

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:58:55 -0500
From: "Andrew E. Mileski" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: RPM web index

Kevin Driedger wrote:
> I installed the rpm-3*.rpm and it installs the librpm.*.  When I am
> trying to recompile the rpmfind tool it complains about not knowing
> about librpm.  What I believe I need to do is refresh the ld.so.cache
> but there is no:
> /etc/ld.so.conf
> file.  According to your rpm2html web page no package provides this
> file..

I've fixed up both rpm2html and rpmfind for the NetWinder, though I
still want to fiddle with them more.

Take a look at http://netwinder.org/~andrewm/redhat/
     From the Index select "NetWinder (Untested)"
     Select "The list of RPM indexed by date of creation "
     Select the RPM you are interested in.
     Select the RPM (page title) or source RPM link to download.

Pretty darn handy [but not pretty looking enough for Ralph :)]

- --
Andrew E. Mileski - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM  http://www.rebel.com/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:22:34 -0500
From: "Andrew E. Mileski" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary Packages?

Curtis Ireland wrote:
> After untarring the dm image, there are some packages I'm wondering why
> bother install on a NetWinder. For instance, cdrecord?

The DM image is supposed to have all the bells and whistles.
cdrecord should work with the SCSI daughter card.

You might want to remove some/all of the foreign language HOWTOs though.

There are over 1000 packages on the DM, and I honestly haven't looked
at every single one.  If you find something that just won't work,
conflicts with something else, or is redundant, etc., please let me
know specifically what it is so I review it.

There probably are some trouble makers, so help me out.

Thanks!

- --
Andrew E. Mileski - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM  http://www.rebel.com/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:18:43 -0500
From: Mark Lord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary Packages?

"Andrew E. Mileski" wrote:
> 
> Curtis Ireland wrote:
> > After untarring the dm image, there are some packages I'm wondering why
> > bother install on a NetWinder. For instance, cdrecord?
> 
> The DM image is supposed to have all the bells and whistles.
> cdrecord should work with the SCSI daughter card.

Speaking of which:

$ rpm -e cdrecord cdrecord-devel
package README not listed in file index

I see that last message just about any time I remove a package
from the beta6 "release".  What's wrong?

- -- 
Mark Lord
Real-Time Remedies Inc.
[email-masked]

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 1999 14:22:29 GMT
From: Rod Stewart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary Packages?

Mark Lord <[email-masked]> wrote:

> $ rpm -e cdrecord cdrecord-devel
> package README not listed in file index

> I see that last message just about any time I remove a package
> from the beta6 "release".  What's wrong?

This is a problem with rpm itself.  It doesn't really hurt anything, and
can be ignored.

- -Rms

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:24:52 -0500
From: Ralph Siemsen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary Packages?

Curtis Ireland wrote:

> That would be great if the NetWinder came with a burner. I suppose it is
> possible for a SCSI version to come out soon and someone hooks up an
> external, but right now, I think the odds are most 'Winders out there
> don't have SCSI (yet).

cdrecord also works with parallel port cd-writers (tested even!) so it
isn't completely without its uses.  The real issue is deciding what to
put in and what to remove.  We have a minimal image and a complete
image; Andrew will surley go on strike if we ask him to make
intermediates as well.  At one time, we were hoping to port the RH
install program, so you could select packages to be installed, but I
seem to recall there being some reason why this was not feasible.

Anyways, we're open to suggestions..

- -- 
Ralph Siemsen -- [email-masked]

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:41:09 +0000
From: Gareth Boden <[email-masked]>
Subject: Networking question

This is not netwinder specific as far as I know, but this seemed as good
a place to ask as any. It seems like a simple (and commonly encountered)
question, but I don't seem to have a good answer.

I have two netwinders, on a 192.168.1.0/24 network. One is 192.168.1.242
and one is 192.168.1.243. Quite a lot of traffic goes just between these
hosts, so I want to take that traffic off the main network to avoid
clogging it up (it is only a 10B2 network with 10BT hubs hanging off
it). I had the bright idea of joining the 100MB ports on the netwinders
with a crossover UTP cable to do this, rather than buying an expensive
switch/bridge.

I don't want to use different IPs for eth1 than eth0 - the only thing I
am interested in doing is changing the routing and effectively giving
the machine an IP rather than the network card - various services on
other machines which return network addresses would have be customised
for different clients which I don't really want to do.

So, what's the solution. My idea was simply to ifconfig eth1 identically
to eth0 and add a route as follows
On 192.168.1.242:
	route add -host 192.168.1.243 dev eth1
and on 192.168.1.243:
	route add -host 192.168.1.242 dev eth1

I also had on each machine routes to the network on both interfaces
(192.168.1.0) and the default route on interface eth0 (gateway
king.human-it.co.uk). The machines also seemed to have predefined host
routes to themselves on eth0.

Originally this seemed to work but all traffic betwen the machines
seemed to be using BOTH interfaces and in fact unplugging either cable
disrupted the TCP connection. Removing the host routes to themselves (as
they seemed unnecessary) stopped it working altogether. Connections to
any host on the network other than the other netwinder was unaffected
(as it should be).

Below is the current ifconfig/route output for each machine.

Thanks in advance,
Gareth

On 192.168.1.242 (castle):
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:10:57:00:0C:57
          inet addr:192.168.1.242  Bcast:192.168.1.255 
Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:417273 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:1
          TX packets:459511 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:1
          collisions:115544 txqueuelen:100
          Interrupt:21 Base address:0x300

eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:10:57:C0:0C:57
          inet addr:192.168.1.242  Bcast:192.168.1.255 
Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:109 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:816 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
          Interrupt:22

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:3924  Metric:1
          RX packets:513 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:513 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
Kernel IP routing table
Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags   MSS Window  irtt
Iface
192.168.1.243   *               255.255.255.255 UH        0 0          0
eth1
192.168.1.0     *               255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0
eth0
192.168.1.0     *               255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0
eth1
127.0.0.0       *               255.0.0.0       U         0 0          0
lo
default         king.human-it.c 0.0.0.0         UG        0 0          0
eth0

On 192.168.1.243 (knight):
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:10:57:00:0B:F9
          inet addr:192.168.1.243  Bcast:192.168.1.255 
Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:116472 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:2
          TX packets:7441 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:92 txqueuelen:100
          Interrupt:21 Base address:0x300

eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:10:57:C0:0B:F9
          inet addr:192.168.1.243  Bcast:192.168.1.255 
Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:806 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:109 errors:9 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:9
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
          Interrupt:22

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:3924  Metric:1
          RX packets:143 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:143 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
Kernel IP routing table
Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags   MSS Window  irtt
Iface
192.168.1.242   *               255.255.255.255 UH        0 0          0
eth1
192.168.1.0     *               255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0
eth0
192.168.1.0     *               255.255.255.0   U         0 0          0
eth1
127.0.0.0       *               255.0.0.0       U         0 0          0
lo
default         king.human-it.c 0.0.0.0         UG        0 0          0
eth0

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:19:53 -0500
From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Networking question

Gareth Boden wrote:
> 
> This is not netwinder specific as far as I know, but this seemed as good
> a place to ask as any. It seems like a simple (and commonly encountered)
> question, but I don't seem to have a good answer.
> 
> I have two netwinders, on a 192.168.1.0/24 network. One is 192.168.1.242
> and one is 192.168.1.243. Quite a lot of traffic goes just between these
> hosts, so I want to take that traffic off the main network to avoid
> clogging it up (it is only a 10B2 network with 10BT hubs hanging off
> it). I had the bright idea of joining the 100MB ports on the netwinders
> with a crossover UTP cable to do this, rather than buying an expensive
> switch/bridge.

	You cannot acheive a 100mb connection over a crossover. There has to be
an intermediary device. It is part of the "Fast Ethernet" protocol
design (and is well documented). You can use the 100mb ports in 10mb
mode, over a crossover, however.

> I don't want to use different IPs for eth1 than eth0 - the only thing I
> am interested in doing is changing the routing and effectively giving
> the machine an IP rather than the network card - various services on
> other machines which return network addresses would have be customised
> for different clients which I don't really want to do.

	You have to use different addresses in this environment. You could use
private ip's 10.0.0.x for your two "adjoining" ports.

- -- 

          - Matthew Keller -
       Lead Programmer/Analyst
  Distributed Computing and Telemedia
State University of New York at Potsdam

Web: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/
PGP: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/crypto/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:40:27 -0500
From: "Andrew E. Mileski" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Networking question

Gareth Boden wrote:
> I don't want to use different IPs for eth1 than eth0 - the only thing I
> am interested in doing is changing the routing and effectively giving
> the machine an IP rather than the network card - various services on
> other machines which return network addresses would have be customised
> for different clients which I don't really want to do.

Each network interface must have UNIQUE address(es).

Imagine if two houses on two different streets had the exact same address.
You may not get any presents for Christmas, as Santa would deliver them all
to the first house with an address matching the one on his list.

- --
Andrew E. Mileski - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM  http://www.rebel.com/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 1999 20:12:14 GMT
From: Rod Stewart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Networking question

In article <[email-masked]> you wrote:

> Each network interface must have UNIQUE address(es).

Not exactly.  The Usefullness of the following may be debatable...

I have set up machines which act as routers (or close enough to the real 
thing) which have numerous NICs.  We have in the past set eth0, and eth1
having the same IP address.  Everything works fine provide:
	- the two NICs are not connected on the same network, or in a loop
	(this can cause confusion, similar to having two machines with the
	 same MAC address)
	- you set your routing tables correctly.

Generally we set the NICs with a netmask of 255.255.255.255.  This is
sometimes used when you want to split up larger network.  Here is a little
example:

		Router/gateway
	---------------------------------
Hostile	|				|inside
zone	|eth0		    eth1	|
- --<>----|10.0.1.1/32	    10.0.1.1/32	|---<>---
10.1.1.1|				|
	|		    eth2	|
	|		    10.0.1.1/32 |
	---------------------------------

10.1.1.1 is the router/gateway's default gateway and route to the rest
of the big bad world.

Your routing table on the gateway would look something similar to the
following:
[root@tp-gate ~]# route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
10.0.1.1        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 U     0      0        0 eth0
10.0.1.1        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 U     0      0        0 eth1
10.0.1.1        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 U     0      0        0 eth2

10.1.1.1        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 UH    0      0       86 eth0

10.0.1.0        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.128 U     0      0    11911 eth2
10.0.1.128      0.0.0.0         255.255.255.128 U     0      0    29640 eth1

127.0.0.0       0.0.0.0         255.0.0.0       U     0      0      243 lo
0.0.0.0         10.1.1.1        0.0.0.0         UG    0      0   891104 eth0

Something similar to the above should work.  On one of my firewalls I do
something similar, the only thing is I don't have the same IP address for
eth0 - eth3, they end in x.x.x.{3-6}.

You have to add a route to your default gateway before, on your other subnets
is all...

See you can do lots of weird/not usefull things :)

- -Rms
Rod m. Stewart <[email-masked]>
Rebel.com Software Developer

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:22:00 -0500
From: "Andrew E. Mileski" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Networking question

Rod Stewart wrote:
>Everything works fine provide:
>        - the two NICs are not connected on the same network, or in a loop
>        (this can cause confusion, similar to having two machines with the
>         same MAC address)
>        - you set your routing tables correctly.
>
> [root@tp-gate ~]# route -n
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
> 10.0.1.1        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 U     0      0        0 eth0
> 10.0.1.1        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 U     0      0        0 eth1
> 10.0.1.1        0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 U     0      0        0 eth2

*beats Rod about the head with a foam NetWinder*

Sorry Rod, no Christmas presents for you this year because Santa left
all your presents at another house.  No big loss, as you were getting
a chunk of coal anyways.

[Rod has just volunteered to personally go to each site to handle all
the support calls this may generate, and on his own time and at his
own expense.  Call him anytime (preferably 2-5am EST) to arrange.]

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

You cannot route between the networks.

  Example: machine X on eth0 has same address as machines Y and Z
  on eth1 and eth2.

  If I send a packet with IP X/Y/Z, which machine do I want to reach?

  The likely recipient is the first entry in the routing table, or
  worse the ARP table (which are ephemeral).

This only appears to work in your very special case because of ARP
broadcasts, and it is kernel specific (I doubt it will work with a
2.0 kernel, since those can't broadcast on multiple interfaces) so
this behavior may change in the future.

Evil!  Evil!  Evil!  Evil!

- --
Andrew E. Mileski - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM  http://www.rebel.com/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:48:55 -0500
From: Dominic Duval <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Net question (100 Mbit between only two NICs)

- --------------787F42BF4B62C57A7DD4DE30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Gareth Boden wrote:

>
> it). I had the bright idea of joining the 100MB ports on the netwinders
> with a crossover UTP cable to do this, rather than buying an expensive
> switch/bridge.

As it has been said earlier, you cannot join two 100 Mbit network cards.
AFAIK, the speed will drop to 10 Mbit if you try it.

However, a cheap solution would be to buy one of those 2-port 10/100BaseT
switch. I believe they cost about 50$ and would allow you to use two 100
Mbit NICs for a setup like the one you've got. I know there's a company
called Xsense that makes such hubs/switches.

Hope this helps

- --
Dominic Duval
[email-masked]
Étudiant, Génie Informatique, Université de Sherbrooke
V-P du Groupe d'Utilisateurs de Linux de l'Université de Sherbrooke (GULUS)
Page web personnelle: http://www.netrevolution.com/~dd/

Design a better idiot-proof piece of software, and the genetic pool will design a better idiot.
- -  John "Kate" Looney

- --------------787F42BF4B62C57A7DD4DE30
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Gareth Boden wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>it). I had the bright idea of joining the 100MB ports on the netwinders
<br>with a crossover UTP cable to do this, rather than buying an expensive
<br>switch/bridge.</blockquote>
As it has been said earlier, you cannot join two 100 Mbit network cards.
AFAIK, the speed will drop to 10 Mbit if you try it.
<p>However, a cheap solution would be to buy one of those 2-port 10/100BaseT
switch. I believe they cost about 50$ and would allow you to use two 100
Mbit NICs for a setup like the one you've got. I know there's a company
called Xsense that makes such hubs/switches.
<p>Hope this helps
<pre>--
Dominic Duval
[email-masked]
&Eacute;tudiant, G&eacute;nie Informatique, Universit&eacute; de Sherbrooke
V-P du Groupe d'Utilisateurs de Linux de l'Universit&eacute; de Sherbrooke (GULUS)
Page web personnelle: <A HREF="http://www.netrevolution.com/~dd/">http://www.netrevolution.com/~dd/</A>

Design a better idiot-proof piece of software, and the genetic pool will design a better idiot.&nbsp;
- -&nbsp; John "Kate" Looney</pre>
&nbsp;</html>

- --------------787F42BF4B62C57A7DD4DE30--

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 12:32:53 -0600
From: Douglas Paul <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Net question (100 Mbit between only two NICs)

Dominic Duval wrote:

> Gareth Boden wrote:
>
>>
>> it). I had the bright idea of joining the 100MB ports on the
>> netwinders
>> with a crossover UTP cable to do this, rather than buying an
>> expensive
>> switch/bridge.
>
> As it has been said earlier, you cannot join two 100 Mbit network
> cards. AFAIK, the speed will drop to 10 Mbit if you try it.

For the past four months I've had my NetWinder connected to a PC with a
100Base/TX NIC over a standard crossover cable. I've been getting a
100 megabit, full-duplex link.

- --
Douglas Paul

[email-masked]
[email-masked]

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 13:36:26 -0500
From: Mark Lord <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Networking question

Matthew Keller wrote:
..
>         You cannot acheive a 100mb connection over a crossover. There has to be
> an intermediary device. It is part of the "Fast Ethernet" protocol
> design (and is well documented). You can use the 100mb ports in 10mb
> mode, over a crossover, however.

That may or may not be true for the Netwinder,
but I have successfully used 100baseTX ports
at 100mbs full-duplex with cross-over cables.

Works very well.. incredibly high bandwidth.
- -- 
Mark Lord
Real-Time Remedies Inc.
[email-masked]

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 09:54:11 -0500
From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Subject: 100mbit over Crossover cable [was Networking question]

	You cannot GET 100mbps over a crossover cable. Period. Your software
can say you have a 100mb connection, the link light on the card can say
you're in 100mbps mode, even ifconfig can say your tx queue is 100, but
you cannot use Fast Ethernet without a 100mbps capable intermediary
device (switch,hub,bridge,etc). It is the way Fast Ethernet works.

	If you claim that you can clock information "at 100mbps" you are sadly
mistaken. Even if you have minimal cable, a high-speed hub or switch,
and only two 100mb machines, you still cannot get a true 100mbps speed.
It's like CDROM drives-- Your drive might say 100x, but that is a
burst/peak speed. Same thing with network cards. You might be able to
make 2-4second bursts at 100mbps every couple minutes or so, but you
cannot clock or sustain that even under optimal/lab conditions.
	
	NOTE: The above '100mbps' assumes you are clocking traffic ONE-WAY. Of
course, you can clock packets both ways and say "Look you idiot, I get
125mbps!" -- In reality some of that is coming, some of it is going, and
you're not getting 100mbps per channel.

- -- 

          - Matthew Keller -
       Lead Programmer/Analyst
  Distributed Computing and Telemedia
State University of New York at Potsdam

Web: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/
PGP: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/crypto/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:39:59 -0500
From: Curtis Ireland <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Networking question

Matthew Keller wrote:

> > I have two netwinders, on a 192.168.1.0/24 network. One is 192.168.1.242
> > and one is 192.168.1.243. Quite a lot of traffic goes just between these
> > hosts, so I want to take that traffic off the main network to avoid
> > clogging it up (it is only a 10B2 network with 10BT hubs hanging off
> > it). I had the bright idea of joining the 100MB ports on the netwinders
> > with a crossover UTP cable to do this, rather than buying an expensive
> > switch/bridge.
>
>         You cannot acheive a 100mb connection over a crossover. There has to be
> an intermediary device. It is part of the "Fast Ethernet" protocol
> design (and is well documented). You can use the 100mb ports in 10mb
> mode, over a crossover, however.
>

Is this Netwinder specific? Right now, in my home, I'm running two computers on a
crossover at 100Mb/s. I havn't had a problem yet.
    -C

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 13:29:15 -0500
From: "Andrew E. Mileski" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 100mbit over Crossover cable [was Networking question]

Matthew Keller wrote:
>         You cannot GET 100mbps over a crossover cable. Period.

I've had 2 NetWinders on a crosover doing about 5 MByte/sec.
The hard drive is one of the bottlenecks.

- --
Andrew E. Mileski - Software Engineer
REBEL.COM  http://www.rebel.com/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 12:40:37 +0000
From: Gareth Boden <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Networking question

Matthew Keller wrote:
> 
> > it). I had the bright idea of joining the 100MB ports on the netwinders
> > with a crossover UTP cable to do this, rather than buying an expensive
> > switch/bridge.
> 
>         You cannot acheive a 100mb connection over a crossover. There has to be
> an intermediary device. It is part of the "Fast Ethernet" protocol
> design (and is well documented). You can use the 100mb ports in 10mb
> mode, over a crossover, however.

Well, that's fine, too.

> > I don't want to use different IPs for eth1 than eth0 - the only thing I
> > am interested in doing is changing the routing and effectively giving
> > the machine an IP rather than the network card - various services on
> > other machines which return network addresses would have be customised
> > for different clients which I don't really want to do.
> 
>         You have to use different addresses in this environment. You could use
> private ip's 10.0.0.x for your two "adjoining" ports.

OK.. so how can I make this as transparent as possible? Using the
bridging stuff? 

If I assign IP addresses to eth0 only on both machines and run eth1
without an IP address, can I use the bridging in the kernel to get
traffic between those two machines to use eth1 rather than eth0?

Gareth

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:51:59 -0600
From: Douglas Paul <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 100mbit over Crossover cable [was Networking question]

Matthew Keller wrote:

>         You cannot GET 100mbps over a crossover cable. Period. Your software
> can say you have a 100mb connection, the link light on the card can say
> you're in 100mbps mode, even ifconfig can say your tx queue is 100, but
> you cannot use Fast Ethernet without a 100mbps capable intermediary
> device (switch,hub,bridge,etc). It is the way Fast Ethernet works.

It doesn't really make sense why this would have to be. If a 100mbps card can
talk to a hub at 100mbps and
vice versa, why shouldn't it be able to talk to another card at that speed?

Do you have a source of information that says this? I'm no expert in this area,
but I've had sustained transfers over this link in the 7-8 MB/s range, for
periods of several minutes.

>         NOTE: The above '100mbps' assumes you are clocking traffic ONE-WAY. Of
> course, you can clock packets both ways and say "Look you idiot, I get
> 125mbps!" -- In reality some of that is coming, some of it is going, and you're
> not getting 100mbps per channel.

My experience is with one-way traffic. I'd assume that at half-duplex that you'd
still max out at 100mbps with both directions summed. At full-duplex, I'd expect
you'd get 100mbps each way.

Also, I've never seen a network card have a 'peak' speed or show any indication
of 'bursts,' much in the same way I wouldn't expect a bus to slow down, assuming
there are no faults or retransmissions.

- --
Douglas Paul

[email-masked]
[email-masked]

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 20:17:18 -0500
From: Matthew Keller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Ok, ok.. To err is human and all that.

	My bad, 100BaseTX *IS* possible over a crossover... The arguement I had
been making was valid- But only for autonegotiated systems (IOW: Two
100base cards will not autonegotiate with each other over a crossover
properly).

- -- 

          - Matthew Keller -
       Lead Programmer/Analyst
  Distributed Computing and Telemedia
State University of New York at Potsdam

Web: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/
PGP: http://mattwork.potsdam.edu/crypto/

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 1999 15:23:20 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Incremental download software

Hi!

I wonder if there is any Linux software for incremental download of 
large files, such as the PC GetRight? This program downloads a file
while the connection is idle (while reading a document etc) and if
interrupted it resumes downloading form where it stopped, when
connected to the Internet again. This allows a much more economical 
download of large files, like Netwinder disk images.

Thanks in advance!

Regards

Neoklis 

- ---
This message processed by the Netwinder.Org news2mail gateway.

- --
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general" as the body of your message.

------------------------------

End of general-digest V2 #106
*****************************

--
This list is run automagically by Majordomo 1.94.4
Please send email questions to [email-masked]
To UNSUBSCRIBE: email [email-masked] with
"unsubscribe general-digest" as the body of your message.