From: Thomas P. <Pre...@in...> - 2002-11-25 11:21:50
|
Hello, I have a simple question: Configuring tap-devices on the host needs an IP. I made a mistake, I assigned one IP to two tap-devices. I thought, that the box, that was started first, is unreachable. No way, the box is online. So my question is, must be the tap-ip-address unique? It works properly with same IP's, so I can save IP-addresses, assigning always the same. Am I right or am I wrong? Greetz, Tom |
From: Fermin G. M. <ga...@di...> - 2002-11-25 15:26:21
|
Hello everyone. I'm running about twenty UMLs in the same physical box interconnected using uml_swicth. UMLs use IPv6 addresses. I execute commands in UMLs through remote console from the physical host enviroment.=20 I mean, something like this # ssh -1 -n <UML_IPv6_ADDRESS> <COMMAND> (For problems with RSA1 keys, I use version 1 of SSH protocol). The problem it's that I have a *great* delay (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I=20 get output of the execution of the command. Is it usual to get such latency? I wonder if the problem it's related with the performance of uml_switch (the daemon it wouldn't be capable of process packets quickly). Has anybody figures of filtering performance of this tool? Futhermore, I get the following message very often in the output of uml_switch: send_sock: Resource temporarily unavailable What's its exact meaning? Any help in order to improve this delay problem it's welcome. Thanks in advance! ------- Ferm=EDn DIT UPM |
From: Net L. <net...@li...> - 2002-11-25 15:36:17
|
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I > get output of the execution of the command. > > Is it usual to get such latency? I wonder if the > problem it's related with the performance of > uml_switch (the daemon it wouldn't be capable of > process packets quickly). Has anybody figures > of filtering performance of this tool? I'm not seeing this behavior. What kind of commands are you issuing? I'd imagine that anything that requires alot of disk IO could be slow. > > Futhermore, I get the following message very > often in the output of uml_switch: > > send_sock: Resource temporarily unavailable > > What's its exact meaning? I dunno, but i see this too, very often. Which UML kernel are you running? Mine is 2.4.18-36. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com |
From: Fermin G. M. <ga...@di...> - 2002-11-25 16:47:25
|
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Net Llama! wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > > > (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I > > get output of the execution of the command. > > > > Is it usual to get such latency? I wonder if the > > problem it's related with the performance of > > uml_switch (the daemon it wouldn't be capable of > > process packets quickly). Has anybody figures > > of filtering performance of this tool? >=20 > I'm not seeing this behavior. What kind of commands are you issuing? = I'd > imagine that anything that requires alot of disk IO could be slow. I use ssh to start bgpd, a BGP daemon process (a daemon=20 like sshd or http, if you don't know what bgpd is). So, there is no intensive IO operations (actually, I think that the sole system calls that the command invocation produces are related to the reading of the configuration file,=20 the spreading of a pair of threads in process space=20 and the opening of a pair of server socket in the virtual=20 network address). # ssh -1 -n <IPv6_UML_ADDRESS> bgpd -d Anyway, I get similar latency when I invoke very simple commands, like this: # ssh -1 -n <IPv6_UML_ADDRESS> echo Hello > > Futhermore, I get the following message very > > often in the output of uml_switch: > > > > send_sock: Resource temporarily unavailable > > > > What's its exact meaning? >=20 > I dunno, but i see this too, very often. >=20 > Which UML kernel are you running? Mine is 2.4.18-36. My UML kernel is: 2.4.19-13um ------- Ferm=EDn DIT UPM |
From: Ivan P. <iv...@si...> - 2002-11-25 15:46:28
|
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > I execute commands in UMLs through remote > console from the physical host enviroment. > I mean, something like this > > # ssh -1 -n <UML_IPv6_ADDRESS> <COMMAND> > > (For problems with RSA1 keys, I use version > 1 of SSH protocol). > > The problem it's that I have a *great* delay > (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I > get output of the execution of the command. You probably don't have a PTR record in DNS for the address of the node you are ssh'ing from. Something on the remote node is probably trying to look up the hostname. This is not UML related. Ivan... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Pulleyn Sixfold Technologies, LLC Chicago Technology Park 2201 West Campbell Drive Chicago, IL 60612 email: iv...@si... voice: (866) 324-5460 x601 fax: (312) 421-0388 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
From: Fermin G. M. <ga...@di...> - 2002-11-25 16:39:22
|
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Ivan Pulleyn wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: >=20 > > I execute commands in UMLs through remote > > console from the physical host enviroment.=20 > > I mean, something like this > >=20 > > # ssh -1 -n <UML_IPv6_ADDRESS> <COMMAND> > >=20 > > (For problems with RSA1 keys, I use version > > 1 of SSH protocol). > >=20 > > The problem it's that I have a *great* delay > > (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I=20 > > get output of the execution of the command. >=20 > You probably don't have a PTR record in DNS for the address of the > node you are ssh'ing from. Something on the remote node is probably > trying to look up the hostname. This is not UML related. No DNS names are used. I'm ssh'ing directly to the IPv6 address, I mean: # ssh -1 -n 3ffe:ffff:3::1 <COMMAND> It doesn't semm to be the cause :( ------- Ferm=EDn DIT-UPM |
From: Net L. <net...@li...> - 2002-11-25 16:47:08
|
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Ivan Pulleyn wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > > > > > I execute commands in UMLs through remote > > > console from the physical host enviroment. > > > I mean, something like this > > > > > > # ssh -1 -n <UML_IPv6_ADDRESS> <COMMAND> > > > > > > (For problems with RSA1 keys, I use version > > > 1 of SSH protocol). > > > > > > The problem it's that I have a *great* delay > > > (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I > > > get output of the execution of the command. > > > > You probably don't have a PTR record in DNS for the address of the > > node you are ssh'ing from. Something on the remote node is probably > > trying to look up the hostname. This is not UML related. > > No DNS names are used. I'm ssh'ing directly to the IPv6 address, I > mean: > > # ssh -1 -n 3ffe:ffff:3::1 <COMMAND> > > It doesn't semm to be the cause :( THat doesn't matter. It could be trying to do a reverse lookup on that address. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com |
From: Ivan P. <iv...@si...> - 2002-11-25 16:49:47
|
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > > > > You probably don't have a PTR record in DNS for the address of the > > node you are ssh'ing from. Something on the remote node is probably > > trying to look up the hostname. This is not UML related. > > No DNS names are used. I'm ssh'ing directly to the IPv6 address, I > mean: > > # ssh -1 -n 3ffe:ffff:3::1 <COMMAND> > > It doesn't semm to be the cause :( Read what I wote again. I'm talking about the REMOTE HOST looking up the PTR of the machine you are ssh'ing FROM. Experiment to find out if I'm right: Disable DNS on the REMOTE HOST (probably remove 'dns' from the hosts: line of /etc/nsswitch.conf will do this). The lag will go away. Ivan... PS - I'm having a strange sense of DejaVoooo :0 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Pulleyn Sixfold Technologies, LLC Chicago Technology Park 2201 West Campbell Drive Chicago, IL 60612 email: iv...@si... voice: (866) 324-5460 x601 fax: (312) 421-0388 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
From: Fermin G. M. <ga...@di...> - 2002-11-25 17:37:34
|
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Ivan Pulleyn wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > > >=20 > > > You probably don't have a PTR record in DNS for the address of the > > > node you are ssh'ing from. Something on the remote node is probably > > > trying to look up the hostname. This is not UML related. > >=20 > > No DNS names are used. I'm ssh'ing directly to the IPv6 address, I > > mean: > >=20 > > # ssh -1 -n 3ffe:ffff:3::1 <COMMAND> > >=20 > > It doesn't semm to be the cause :( >=20 >=20 > Read what I wote again. I'm talking about the REMOTE HOST looking up > the PTR of the machine you are ssh'ing FROM. >=20 > Experiment to find out if I'm right: Disable DNS on the REMOTE HOST > (probably remove 'dns' from the hosts: line of /etc/nsswitch.conf will > do this). The lag will go away. I have sniffed the traffic (with Ethereal) of the network and no DNS queries (neither PRT lookups from remote host nor any other query related with local or remote host) are done when I invoke ssh. So, I'm=20 still thinking that it is not the reason of the latency... Thanks, anyway! ------- Ferm=EDn DIT UPM |
From: Cameron K. <cam...@pa...> - 2002-11-25 18:32:28
|
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:18:10PM +0100, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > The problem it's that I have a *great* delay > (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I > get output of the execution of the command. This delay is probably related to ssh not being able to get enough random bits (with 20 UMLs I'm guessing it might get eaten fairly quickly). If your mobo has a random number generator (RNG) chip, such as an Intel 810, or an AMD 768, load the appropriate module (i810, or amd768_rng). Which should help to resolve this issue (I haven't had the chance to test this yet on my box). > send_sock: Resource temporarily unavailable I get this too sometimes. No idea what causes it, but its not heavy traffic. -- Cameron Kerr Email: cam...@pa... Website: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~cameronk/ |
From: Fermin G. M. <ga...@di...> - 2002-11-25 21:24:12
|
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Cameron Kerr wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:18:10PM +0100, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: >=20 > > The problem it's that I have a *great* delay > > (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I=20 > > get output of the execution of the command. >=20 > This delay is probably related to ssh not being able to get enough > random bits (with 20 UMLs I'm guessing it might get eaten fairly > quickly). >=20 > If your mobo has a random number generator (RNG) chip, such as an Intel > 810, or an AMD 768, load the appropriate module (i810, or amd768_rng). > Which should help to resolve this issue (I haven't had the chance to > test this yet on my box). I didn't supossed that use ssh could cause so strong latency due to lack of random bits (althought actually only one UML at once have a ssh connection, not the 20 at the same time, so I'm not sure the lacking of bit might the cause...). Anyway, security is not a requeriment in the communication between host enviroment and UMLs (it's a requeriment between host enviroment and Internet, but it is another history... :), so I will try rsh instead, a lighter remote shell invocation protocol, where the lackness of random bits won't be a problem. I report to the list the result of my investigations... ------- Ferm=EDn DIT UPM |
From: Net L. <net...@li...> - 2002-11-25 21:57:49
|
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > Anyway, security is not a requeriment in the communication > between host enviroment and UMLs (it's a requeriment > between host enviroment and Internet, but it is another > history... :), so I will try rsh instead, a lighter > remote shell invocation protocol, where the lackness of > random bits won't be a problem. I report to the list > the result of my investigations... rsh: when security doesn't matter. (tm) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com |
From: Fermin G. M. <ga...@di...> - 2002-12-02 16:55:57
|
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Cameron Kerr wrote: >=20 > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:18:10PM +0100, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > >=20 > > > The problem it's that I have a *great* delay > > > (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I=20 > > > get output of the execution of the command. > >=20 > > This delay is probably related to ssh not being able to get enough > > random bits (with 20 UMLs I'm guessing it might get eaten fairly > > quickly). > >=20 > > If your mobo has a random number generator (RNG) chip, such as an Int= el > > 810, or an AMD 768, load the appropriate module (i810, or amd768_rng). > > Which should help to resolve this issue (I haven't had the chance to > > test this yet on my box). >=20 > I didn't supossed that use ssh could cause so strong > latency due to lack of random bits (althought actually > only one UML at once have a ssh connection, not the > 20 at the same time, so I'm not sure the lacking of > bit might the cause...). >=20 > Anyway, security is not a requeriment in the communication > between host enviroment and UMLs (it's a requeriment > between host enviroment and Internet, but it is another > history... :), so I will try rsh instead, a lighter > remote shell invocation protocol, where the lackness of > random bits won't be a problem. I report to the list > the result of my investigations... Unfortunatelly, rsh doesn't improve latency problem of ssh (the latency is about the same with "ssh 3ffe:ffff:3::1 echo Hello!" than with "rsh 3ffe:ffff:3::1 echo Hello!"). In both cases, latency is high during connection (socket openning, etc) but, once established the connection, latency is low. Anyway, it seems to be a problem of these only two (and perhaps others that I haven't tested) remote shell protocols and no a limitation of the virtual networking itself. For example, opening a telnet session with bgpd (a daemon that runs on the UMLs) has no significative latency. I have run off ideas about improving this latency :( So, I'm *really* interested of hearing about other experiences and procedures to pass commands from host to UMLs. Thanks in advance! ------- Ferm=EDn DIT UPM |
Re: ssh and rsh latency (old Re: [uml-user] virtual network latency
and performance with uml_switch)
From: Net L. <net...@li...> - 2002-12-02 17:12:23
|
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Cameron Kerr wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:18:10PM +0100, Fermin Galan Marquez wrote: > > > > > > > The problem it's that I have a *great* delay > > > > (tens of seconds) since I invoke ssh until I > > > > get output of the execution of the command. > > > > > > This delay is probably related to ssh not being able to get enough > > > random bits (with 20 UMLs I'm guessing it might get eaten fairly > > > quickly). > > > > > > If your mobo has a random number generator (RNG) chip, such as an Intel > > > 810, or an AMD 768, load the appropriate module (i810, or amd768_rng). > > > Which should help to resolve this issue (I haven't had the chance to > > > test this yet on my box). > > > > I didn't supossed that use ssh could cause so strong > > latency due to lack of random bits (althought actually > > only one UML at once have a ssh connection, not the > > 20 at the same time, so I'm not sure the lacking of > > bit might the cause...). > > > > Anyway, security is not a requeriment in the communication > > between host enviroment and UMLs (it's a requeriment > > between host enviroment and Internet, but it is another > > history... :), so I will try rsh instead, a lighter > > remote shell invocation protocol, where the lackness of > > random bits won't be a problem. I report to the list > > the result of my investigations... > > Unfortunatelly, rsh doesn't improve latency problem > of ssh (the latency is about the same with > "ssh 3ffe:ffff:3::1 echo Hello!" than with > "rsh 3ffe:ffff:3::1 echo Hello!"). In both cases, > latency is high during connection (socket openning, etc) > but, once established the connection, latency is low. > > Anyway, it seems to be a problem of these only two > (and perhaps others that I haven't tested) remote > shell protocols and no a limitation of the virtual > networking itself. For example, opening a telnet > session with bgpd (a daemon that runs on the UMLs) > has no significative latency. > > I have run off ideas about improving this > latency :( So, I'm *really* interested of hearing > about other experiences and procedures to > pass commands from host to UMLs. People already provided you with 'ideas', namely, your reverse lookups are timing out. But you decided to ignore that suggestion. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman net...@li... Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com |
Re: ssh and rsh latency (old Re: [uml-user] virtual network latency
and performance with uml_switch)
From: Fermin G. M. <ga...@di...> - 2002-12-03 16:26:10
|
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Net Llama! wrote: > People already provided you with 'ideas', namely, your reverse lookups = are > timing out. But you decided to ignore that suggestion. Due the absence of DNS traffic in the network (and loopback interfaces too) I supossed that DNS wasn't the right way=20 to solve the problem, but, revisiting the behaviour of=20 sshd, it seems that by default it tries to reverse lookup=20 DNS, althought actually no query packets are send. So,=20 I was wrong and you were right :). To solve the problem, sshd must be invoked with options to prevent DNS lookups. That its, invoke it with -u0 option sshd -u0 This fix the problem. Latency goes from about twenty second (=BFdefault DNS lookup timeout?) to less of a second. I like to know any opinion an idea and I don't intentionally ignore any suggestion... but I'm too "thick" sometimes :) Anyway, I would like to apologize for any inconvenience due to my questions and thanks again for your help and time. Grettings, ------- Ferm=EDn DIT UPM |
From: James N. <jn...@nk...> - 2002-11-25 16:18:02
|
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 06:21, Thomas Preissler wrote: > So my question is, must be the tap-ip-address unique? It works > properly with same IP's, so I can save IP-addresses, assigning > always the same. Correct. The TUN ip addresses don't have to be unique. You could always treat those TUN interfaces as Point-to-point interfaces by giving them 32 bit netmasks and appropriate routing-table entries. UML Host: tun0 inet addr:192.168.12.254 Mask:255.255.255.255 tun1 inet addr:192.168.12.254 Mask:255.255.255.255 tun2 inet addr:192.168.12.254 Mask:255.255.255.255 Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 192.168.12.1 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 40 0 0 tun0 192.168.12.2 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 40 0 0 tun1 192.168.12.3 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 40 0 0 tun2 ..And conversely, in each UML Node: eth0 inet addr: 192.168.12.1 Mask:255.255.255.255 Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Iface 192.168.12.254 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.12.254 255.255.255.255 eth0 -James |
From: James N. <jn...@nk...> - 2002-11-25 17:03:59
|
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 11:17, James Neal wrote: > You could always treat those TUN interfaces as Point-to-point interfaces > by giving them 32 bit netmasks and appropriate routing-table entries. Oh, it should be noted that although this 32bit netmask thing works, a more popular-- and much easier-- way to do it is to bind all the interfaces together into a bridge using the kernel Ethernet Bridging module and bridge-utils. (http://bridge.sourceforge.net/) -James |
From: Matthew B. <ma...@by...> - 2002-11-25 17:24:36
|
On Monday 25 November 2002 17:03, James Neal wrote: > On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 11:17, James Neal wrote: > > You could always treat those TUN interfaces as Point-to-point interfaces > > by giving them 32 bit netmasks and appropriate routing-table entries. > > Oh, it should be noted that although this 32bit netmask thing works, a > more popular-- and much easier-- way to do it is to bind all the > interfaces together into a bridge using the kernel Ethernet Bridging > module and bridge-utils. (http://bridge.sourceforge.net/) ...providing you don't have any concerns about one UML being able to sniff others' traffic on the same bridge. -- Matthew Bloch Bytemark Computer Consulting Limited http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 (0) 8707 455026 |
From: Jan H. <bu...@uc...> - 2002-11-25 20:29:20
|
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:29:11PM +0000, Matthew Bloch wrote: > On Monday 25 November 2002 17:03, James Neal wrote: > > On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 11:17, James Neal wrote: > > > You could always treat those TUN interfaces as Point-to-point interfaces > > > by giving them 32 bit netmasks and appropriate routing-table entries. > > > > Oh, it should be noted that although this 32bit netmask thing works, a > > more popular-- and much easier-- way to do it is to bind all the > > interfaces together into a bridge using the kernel Ethernet Bridging > > module and bridge-utils. (http://bridge.sourceforge.net/) > > ...providing you don't have any concerns about one UML being able to sniff > others' traffic on the same bridge. Note 1: All interfaces on one host, tap or real, can share the same IP address! The routing table includes interface name, so it does not use the local IP and remote hosts always see only one interface, so no problem there either. Been there, done that. Note 2: Bridge is quite a cpu hog. i486/66 we used as router had hard times bridging four 10Mbit interfaces. I did not try that with with taps, but I would expect that to eat some CPU too. So for many umls it's really better to set each connection as peer-to-peer (IIRC the uml_net does that automatiaclly anyway (for host, you must do it right inside uml). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bu...@uc...> |
From: James N. <jn...@nk...> - 2002-11-25 21:36:48
|
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 15:28, Jan Hudec wrote: > Note 2: Bridge is quite a cpu hog. i486/66 we used as router had hard > times bridging four 10Mbit interfaces. I did not try that with with > taps, but I would expect that to eat some CPU too. So for many umls it's > really better to set each connection as peer-to-peer (IIRC the uml_net > does that automatiaclly anyway (for host, you must do it right inside > uml). Hmm.. Is that because of the number of interfaces, or the amount of traffic? -James |
From: Jan H. <bu...@uc...> - 2002-11-26 09:49:30
|
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:36:36PM -0500, James Neal wrote: > On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 15:28, Jan Hudec wrote: > > Note 2: Bridge is quite a cpu hog. i486/66 we used as router had hard > > times bridging four 10Mbit interfaces. I did not try that with with > > taps, but I would expect that to eat some CPU too. So for many umls it's > > really better to set each connection as peer-to-peer (IIRC the uml_net > > does that automatiaclly anyway (for host, you must do it right inside > > uml). > > Hmm.. Is that because of the number of interfaces, or the amount of > traffic? Well, the segments were often quite busy. They were 3 quite busy coax segments and one point-to-point (which was not in the bridge anyway). It worked with no problems wthout bridge and CPU was mostly idle. But with bridge, the CPU was pretty busy. IIRC it used to be 30-40% all the time. Thus, I am not claiming it's horrible, but I do claim it is much more CPU intensive that normal gatewaying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bu...@uc...> |
From: Ian C. <mai...@ic...> - 2002-12-05 18:49:59
|
Hello, Thanks for this, i've found it useful! Just 1 thing though: > ..And conversely, in each UML Node: > eth0 inet addr: 192.168.12.1 Mask:255.255.255.255 > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Iface > 192.168.12.254 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 eth0 > 0.0.0.0 192.168.12.254 255.255.255.255 eth0 Should this not be: 0.0.0.0 192.168.12.254 0.0.0.0 eth0 I can't get it working with the default route's netmask being 255.255.255.255, I get: sendto: Network is unreachable ping: sent 64 octets to 10.10.1.1, ret=-1 If i do: route add default gw 10.20.1.1 dev eth0 .. it seems to work fine! Thanks! Ian |
From: James N. <jn...@nk...> - 2002-12-06 19:12:40
|
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:49, Ian Chilton wrote: > Thanks for this, i've found it useful! > > Just 1 thing though: > > 0.0.0.0 192.168.12.254 255.255.255.255 eth0 > > Should this not be: > 0.0.0.0 192.168.12.254 0.0.0.0 eth0 Ahh, indeed. My mistake. -James |