| Home | Register | Members | Search | Links |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
| |
|
jack
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Klaus Rosanowski wrote:
> ps: hopefully there are no typing errors. Unfortunally, Your examples are full of them, and especially wher it comes to addresses: > LAP -----------| > 192.168.2.3/24 |--- > gw 192.168.2.2| | > ---------------| | > | |-----WLAN-RT-----| > ------|LAN-p | > | | 192.168.2.1/24 | > | | | > | | WAN-p | > SRV -----------| | |-----------------| > (eth0) | | | > 192.168.2.2/24 |--- not used > | > gw 192.168.1.1 | > | I wonder how, below, SRV:eth1 and INET-RT:LAN-p both have the same address... - Plus, You needn't have a gw with on of Your own IPs - the kernel already knows that route from the NIC config. So eth1 should read 192.168.1._2_, which would correspond to the routes on both SRV and INET-RT. > (eth1) | > 192.168.1.1/24 |--- > ---------------| | > | > | |------INET-RT-----------------------------------| > ------|LAN-p | > | | 192.168.1.1/24 | > | | >192.168.2.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | > | | | > | | WAN-p | > CLI -----------| | |------------------------------------------------| > 192.168.1.3/24 |---- | > gw 192.168.1.1 | ---- to ISP > ---------------| > > > Comments: > ok = ping from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.2.x > ok = ping from 192.168.2.x to 192.168.1.x > fault = ping from 192.168.2.x to Internet (e.g. 217.5.99.9) And how about pinging outside from the ..1. net...? > > > > ################################################## ################### > --- Scenario 2 ----- (NOT working) ---------------------------------- > > LAP -----------| > 192.168.3.2/24 |--- > gw 192.168.3.1| | > ---------------| | Is this thing to the right "INET-RT" or "WLAN-RT"...? > | |------INET-RT-----------------------------------| > ------|LAN-p | > | 192.168.3.1/24 | > | | > | WAN-p | > | 192.168.2.1/24 | > | gw 192.168.2.2 | > |------------------------------------------------| > | > SRV -----------| | > (eth0) | | > 192.168.2.2/24 |------------------- > |-------------------------------| > gw 192.168.1.1 | > >>192.168.2.3, 192.168.2.1, 255.255.255.0, eth0 | Above, You sure mean 192.168._3.2_ as target, don't You... - And then, the netmask is 32 (host), or the destination is a net. But this is only for good style, it doesn't affect the functionality of such entry. > > | > (eth1) |-------------------------------| > 192.168.1.2/24 |--- > ---------------| | > | > | |------INET-RT-----------------------------------| > ------|LAN-p | > | | 192.168.1.1/24 | > | | >192.168.2.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | > | | >192.168.3.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | > | | | > | | WAN-p | > CLI -----------| | |------------------------------------------------| > 192.168.1.3/24 |---- | > gw 192.168.1.1 | ---- to ISP > ---------------| > > > Comments: > ok = ping from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.2.x > ok = ping from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.3.x > fault = ping from 192.168.3.x to Internet (e.g. 217.5.99.9) > fault = ping from 192.168.2.x to 192.168.1.x Now how exactly did You test this last thing? - Did You ping from WLAN-RT? How? > > > > ################################################## ############### > --- Scenario 3 ----- (WORKING) ---------------------------------- > > LAP -----------| > 192.168.3.2/24 |--- > gw 192.168.3.1| | > ---------------| | How can LAP find anything outside ..3.? > | |------INET-RT-----------------| > ------|LAN-p | > | 192.168.2.1/24 | > | | > | WAN-p | > | 192.168.1.3/24 | > | gw 192.168.1.1 | > |------------------------------| > | > SRV -----------| | > | | > (eth0) not used| |----------------| > | | > gw 192.168.1.1 | | > | | > (eth1) | | > 192.168.1.2/24 |---| > ---------------| | > | > | |------INET-RT-----------------------------------| > ------|LAN-p | > | | 192.168.1.1/24 | > | | >192.168.2.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | > | | >192.168.3.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | > | | | > | | WAN-p | > CLI -----------| | |------------------------------------------------| > 192.168.1.3/24 |---- | > 192.168.1.1 | ---- to ISP > ---------------| How can CLI and INET-RT have the same IP? > > > Comments: > The INET-RT works here as a DHCP-Server. > The WLAN-Rt is configured to receive a Dynamic IP on its WAN-interface > > > ################################################## ############### > --- Scenario 4 ----- (WORKING) ---------------------------------- > > LAP -------------| > 192.168.1.131/26 |--- > gw 192.168.1.130| | > -----------------| | > | WLAN-RT > ------ LAN-p > | 192.168.2.1/26 So WLAN-RT is isolated here. You could simply remove it. > | > | > SRV -------------| | > (eth0) | | > 192.168.1.130/26 |--- > | > gw 192.168.1.1 | > | > (eth1) | > 192.168.1.2/26 |-- > -----------------| | > | > | |------INET-RT---| > |-----|LAN-p | > | | 192.168.1.1/24 | > | | | > | | WAN-p | > CLI -----------| | |----------------| > 192.168.1.3/26 |---- | > gw 192.168.1.1 | ---- to ISP > ---------------| You should add a route to 192.168.1.128/26 through SRV on CLI... INET-RT does that for You, but eventually doubling the load. Does, in this setup, SRV really forward traffic for LAP? And how does INET-RT know to use SRV as gw? > If you've read so far, thank you at least for this. > Have you any idea? > > My suggestion is that the Router's hardware "masks" the IP- > addresses and therefor does not react to internal IP-Addresses. Well, the router must masq internal addresses. That's the basic idea of this thing to work. And of course, it does "react". The only thing that may be the case (and that, by coincident, Your last example shows to be set correctly) is that the router may not allow IPs from the inside that are not in the address range of its internal interface. So try setting this internal interface of INET-RT to 192.168.1.1/16(!), set SRV:eth0 to 192.168.2.1/24 (or even 30) and LAP to 192.168.2.2. Then, tell INET-RT to reach 192.168.2/24 through SRV and, accordingly, tell LAP to access 192.168.1/24 through SRV as well. If this works, You can integrate You WLAN router, either into the ..2. subnet or, as a router between ..2. and ..3. as You initially wanted to have it. > Looking forward to your suggestions and what you would do. I would try to reduce all that to the simplest solution possible. Why do You want SRV to have two NICs? Why not connect LAP directly to INET-RT (or WLAN-RT, at least)...? > BTW, has anyone ever tried to use a broadband router inside > a network? My guess is this should also work with a static > IP address assigned to the WAN port. Now _everybody_ wants to use a router inside a network... - What's Your question? (Sorry, just kidding) And of course, nothing changes with a static IP at the WLAN port. If You look at the situation when a connection to Your ISP is established, for the time that this connection persists the IP is eventually "static". That after re-connecting there is a different IP does not really affect this current one. > Hopefully somebody reads this far and answers me. :-) Klaus, regards to Your wife. Tell her not to disturb You when posting, because that causes You to mess up Your shiny diagrams. And thank her for being so patient with You. Cheers, Jack. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My personal reading of the string "MicroSoft" expands to "NanoWeak"... |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Klaus Rosanowski
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hello NG,
Jack has found a lot of typing errors therefor here comes an update of the diagrams: abbr.: LAP = Laptop (1x Network Card) WLAN-RT = WLAN-Router DLink 614+ Firmware 2.20 INET-RT = Digitus Router D11011 SRV = Server, (2x Network Cards) CLI = Client (1x Network Card) xxx-wp = WAN-Port of the Router xxx-p = LAN-Port of the Router (they are switched) x.x.x.x/xx = IP-Address/Netmask (masked bits,eg 24 = 255.255.255.0) gw x.x.x.x = default Gateway > x.x.x.x/xx,gw,nm,dev = Routing entry (target,gateway,netmask,device) ok lets start: Now comes my scenarios and whether they work or not. ################################################## ################### --- Scenario 1 ----- (NOT working) ---------------------------------- LAP -----------| 192.168.2.3/24 |--- gw 192.168.2.2| | ---------------| | | |-----WLAN-RT-----| ------|LAN-p | | | 192.168.2.1/24 | | | | | | WAN-p | SRV -----------| | |-----------------| (eth0) | | | 192.168.2.2/24 |--- not used | gw 192.168.1.1 | | (eth1) | 192.168.1.1/24 |--- ---------------| | | | |------INET-RT-----------------------------------| ------|LAN-p | | | 192.168.1.1/24 | | | >192.168.2.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | | | | | | WAN-p | CLI -----------| | |------------------------------------------------| 192.168.1.3/24 |---- | gw 192.168.1.1 | ---- to ISP ---------------| Comments: ok = ping from 192.168.1.x to Internet (e.g. 217.5.99.9) ok = ping from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.2.x ok = ping from 192.168.2.x to 192.168.1.x fault = ping from 192.168.2.x to Internet (e.g. 217.5.99.9) ################################################## ################### --- Scenario 2 ----- (NOT working) ---------------------------------- LAP -----------| 192.168.3.2/24 |--- gw 192.168.3.1| | ---------------| | | |------WLAN-RT-----------------------------------| ------|LAN-p | | 192.168.3.1/24 | | | | WAN-p | | 192.168.2.1/24 | | gw 192.168.2.2 | |------------------------------------------------| | SRV -----------| | (eth0) | | 192.168.2.2/24 |------------------- |-------------------------------| gw 192.168.1.1 | >192.168.3.0, 192.168.2.1, 255.255.255.0, eth0 | | (eth1) |-------------------------------| 192.168.1.2/24 |--- ---------------| | | | |------INET-RT-----------------------------------| ------|LAN-p | | | 192.168.1.1/24 | | | >192.168.2.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | | | >192.168.3.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | | | | | | WAN-p | CLI -----------| | |------------------------------------------------| 192.168.1.3/24 |---- | gw 192.168.1.1 | ---- to ISP ---------------| Comments: ok = ping from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.2.x ok = ping from 192.168.1.x to 192.168.3.x fault = ping from 192.168.3.x to Internet (e.g. 217.5.99.9) fault = ping from 192.168.2.x to 192.168.1.x ################################################## ############### --- Scenario 3 ----- (WORKING) ---------------------------------- LAP -----------| 192.168.3.2/24 |--- gw 192.168.2.1| | ---------------| | | |------WLAN-RT-----------------| ------|LAN-p | | 192.168.2.1/24 | | | | WAN-p | | 192.168.1.3/24 | | gw 192.168.1.1 | |------------------------------| | SRV -----------| | | | (eth0) not used| |----------------| | | gw 192.168.1.1 | | | | (eth1) | | 192.168.1.2/24 |---| ---------------| | | | |------INET-RT-----------------------------------| ------|LAN-p | | | 192.168.1.1/24 | | | >192.168.2.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | | | >192.168.3.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | | | | | | WAN-p | CLI -----------| | |------------------------------------------------| 192.168.1.3/24 |---- | gw 192.168.1.2 | ---- to ISP ---------------| Comments: The INET-RT works here as a DHCP-Server. The WLAN-Rt is configured to receive a Dynamic IP on its WAN-interface ################################################## ############### --- Scenario 4 ----- (WORKING) ---------------------------------- LAP -------------| 192.168.1.131/26 |--- gw 192.168.1.130| | -----------------| | | WLAN-RT ------ LAN-p | 192.168.2.1/26 | | SRV -------------| | (eth0) | | 192.168.1.130/26 |--- | gw 192.168.1.1 | | (eth1) | 192.168.1.2/26 |-- -----------------| | | | |------INET-RT---| |-----|LAN-p | | | 192.168.1.1/24 | | | | | | WAN-p | CLI -----------| | |----------------| 192.168.1.3/26 |---- | gw 192.168.1.1 | ---- to ISP ---------------| ##################### END OF EXAMPLES ############################## |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Klaus Rosanowski
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hello Jack,
thanks for your reply and correction ;-) I have posted an update of the diagrams, so for others to comment, they can have a look there. Here I will only answer your questions and keep some excerpts from the diagrams: > > ################################################## ################### > > --- Scenario 1 ----- (NOT working) ---------------------------------- > And how about pinging outside from the ..1. net...? This ping works fine, I thought this would be obvious, as the ..1. net works, because it is directly connected to the INET-RT > > ################################################## ################### > > --- Scenario 2 ----- (NOT working) ---------------------------------- > Is this thing to the right "INET-RT" or "WLAN-RT"...? WLAN-RT, you're right. Copy paste saves time, but not thinking :-( > > | |------WLAN-RT-----------------------------------| > > ------|LAN-p | > > | 192.168.3.1/24 | > > | | > > | WAN-p | > > | 192.168.2.1/24 | > > | gw 192.168.2.2 | > > |------------------------------------------------| > > | > > SRV -----------| | > > (eth0) | | > > 192.168.2.2/24 |------------------- > > |-------------------------------| > > gw 192.168.1.1 | > > >192.168.3.0, 192.168.2.1, 255.255.255.0, eth0 | > > Above, You sure mean 192.168._3.2_ as target, don't You... - And then, > the netmask is 32 (host), or the destination is a net. But this is only > for good style, it doesn't affect the functionality of such entry. ok, ..3.2 would also be possible, but to keep it scaleable I mean ...3. > > Comments: > > fault = ping from 192.168.2.x to 192.168.1.x > > Now how exactly did You test this last thing? - Did You ping from > WLAN-RT? How? with the ping command you can specify a source ip, at least I thought so? Must look up manpage again. > > ################################################## ############### > > --- Scenario 3 ----- (WORKING) ---------------------------------- > > > > LAP -----------| > > 192.168.3.2/24 |--- gw 192.168.2.1| | > > ---------------| | > > How can LAP find anything outside ..3.? Better take ..2.1 as gw. [...] > > | > > | |------INET-RT-----------------------------------| > > ------|LAN-p | > > | | 192.168.1.1/24 | > > | | >192.168.2.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | > > | | >192.168.3.0, 192.168.1.2, 255.255.255.0 | > > | | | > > | | WAN-p | > > CLI -----------| | |------------------------------------------------| > > 192.168.1.3/24 |---- | gw 192.168.1.1 | ---- to ISP > > ---------------| > > How can CLI and INET-RT have the same IP? they don't have, ..1.1 is the gw. > > ################################################## ############### > > --- Scenario 4 ----- (WORKING) ---------------------------------- > > > > LAP -------------| > > 192.168.1.131/26 |--- > > gw 192.168.1.130| | > > -----------------| | > > | WLAN-RT > > ------ LAN-p > > | 192.168.2.1/26 > > So WLAN-RT is isolated here. You could simply remove it. No I can't, as the LAP works with a WLAN Card and I need the AccessPoint feature of the router. > > > | > > | > > SRV -------------| | > > (eth0) | | > > 192.168.1.130/26 |--- > > | > > gw 192.168.1.1 | > > | > > (eth1) | > > 192.168.1.2/26 |-- > > -----------------| | > > | > > | |------INET-RT---| > > |-----|LAN-p | > > | | 192.168.1.1/24 | > > | | | > > | | WAN-p | > > CLI -----------| | |----------------| > > 192.168.1.3/26 |---- | gw 192.168.1.2 | ---- to ISP > > ---------------| > > You should add a route to 192.168.1.128/26 through SRV on CLI... > INET-RT does that for You, but eventually doubling the load. To be correct the gw on CLI is 192.168.1.2, so every traffic first goes to the SRV. > Does, in this setup, SRV really forward traffic for LAP? And > how does INET-RT know to use SRV as gw? I don't know, but echo request are answered and HTTP works also fine. I think he broadcast everything into the ..1. net and the SRV fetches the packages to ..2. and routes them. > The only thing that may be the case (and that, by coincident, > Your last example shows to be set correctly) is that the router > may not allow IPs from the inside that are not in the address > range of its internal interface. > > So try setting this internal interface of INET-RT to > 192.168.1.1/16(!), I'd like to, but you can only change the IP of this Digitus thing, Netmask will be always /24. This is the reason I started subnetting and this scenario works as scen 4) indicates > set SRV:eth0 to 192.168.2.1/24 (or even 30) > and LAP to 192.168.2.2. Then, tell INET-RT to reach > 192.168.2/24 through SRV and, accordingly, tell LAP to access > 192.168.1/24 through SRV as well. > > If this works, You can integrate You WLAN router, either into > the ..2. subnet or, as a router between ..2. and ..3. as You > initially wanted to have it. > > Looking forward to your suggestions and what you would do. > > I would try to reduce all that to the simplest solution possible. > Why do You want SRV to have two NICs? Why not connect LAP directly > to INET-RT (or WLAN-RT, at least)...? The reason for this: I'd like to use the built-in firewall from the WLAN-RT to block all traffic, except VPN connections. So all traffic coming from the WLAN (!) has only access to the internal net if he can set up a VPN connection. In addition this avoids that somebody hacks the WLAN-RT and has access to the Internet over my Internet-Router (INET-RT) Additionally I have found out this strange behavior on my DLink WLAN Router: If you disable the DHCP feature, all LAN-p of this router are deactivated. You can neither ping the Router nor can you reach another Compi inside this segment (although it should work as a switch, at least I thought so). What do you think, is this normal? with best regards, Klaus |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
/dev/rob0
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In article <bj6s52$g24ae$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Klaus Rosanowski wrote: > my DLink WLAN Router: If you disable the DHCP feature, > all LAN-p of this router are deactivated. You can neither > ping the Router nor can you reach another Compi inside Mine (same model, firmware 2.18) acts as a switch and as a bridge between wired and wireless segments. My wireless NIC gets its IP from the dhcpd on Linux (connected indirectly through a LAN port on the router.) So no, it's either not normal or you did something wrong. I've posted about this router in this newsgroup. Did you try Google? It might not be easy to reconstruct the thread because the Subject kept changing, but it should all be there, and it might be useful. -- /dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
jack
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
/dev/rob0 wrote:
> So no, it's either not normal or you did something wrong. Having contributed to this, I may sure ask Klaus to conduct experiments just to clarify the situation. - If I get it correctly, though, it seems that the DLink WLAN thingy was going all right, and that the trouble in fact came from the messy context that Klaus wanted to integate it into. Am I mistaken? Cheers, Jack. PS to /dev/rob0: Thanks for being 'round. - Where's Kasper Dupont? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- My personal reading of the string "MicroSoft" expands to "NanoWeak"... |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
/dev/rob0
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In article <bj8c9t$ilt$01$(E-Mail Removed)>, jack wrote:
> just to clarify the situation. - If I get it correctly, though, it seems > that the DLink WLAN thingy was going all right, and that the trouble in > fact came from the messy context that Klaus wanted to integate it into. Unfortunately I cannot say for sure, because I didn't quite get the whole picture in my mind. On my DLink I simply do not use the WAN port. It's a switch and a bridge, and works quite well with the limited set of functions I ask of it. > PS to /dev/rob0: Thanks for being 'round. - Where's Kasper Dupont? Thanks for noticing, and likewise, thank You; I always make a point to read what You have to say. ![]() I took a hiatus from about Feb.-to-July. I haven't seen Kasper since I got back. You prompted me to Google. I see he's still posting inc.o.l.development.system. Another one I miss, who actually went on hiatus before I did, is the inimitable, ever surly but always accurate, Paul Lutus. Google reports that said Arachnoid just returned from a four-month tour of Alaska!! I am seriously jealous. I wish I had the time and money to do that! ![]() -- /dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Floyd Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
/dev/rob0 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Another one I miss, who actually went on hiatus before I did, is the You also miss slamming a car door on your fingers??? >inimitable, ever surly but always accurate, Paul Lutus. Google reports >that said Arachnoid just returned from a four-month tour of Alaska!! I >am seriously jealous. I wish I had the time and money to do that! ![]() Lutus, bless his crust covered set of scales, is indeed back. He posted a pointer to his Alaska pictures on alt.culture.alaska, as if we'd be likely to fall all over ourselves to see "some pretty wild places in Alaska" where his "expedition" took him for adventure. Heh heh, I guess he doesn't realize we see Alaska every time we head out the door... Nobody responded, and I doubt that anyone bothered to look either. Now lets just hope he took up a BSD, or some other OS... ;-) -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed) |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Klaus Rosanowski
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hello Jack,
> just to clarify the situation. - If I get it correctly, though, it seems > that the DLink WLAN thingy was going all right, and that the trouble in > fact came from the messy context that Klaus wanted to integate it into. My DLink WLAN Router does NOT work as a Switch and a bridge when you de-activate the DHCP Server. Every WLAN-Client can see the other WLAN Clients (so far this segment does work), but you cannot ping to one connected PC on the LAN-ports (so brigding does not work). Also when you deactivat the DHCP server on the DLink, you can plug two computers in the the LAN-ports and then these two cannot "ping" eachother although properly configured (IP, netmask). If you activate the DHCP-Server then everythings fine. It is even enough if the DHCP-Server does not really assign IPs (because all are static) and only works as dummy. Currently I think I will return the DLink thing and get a replacement for it. regards Klaus ps: to Jack, what do think about the scenario where WLAN-Client do only have access to the internal net by use of a VPN-connection? Maybe I'm a little too overcautious, but I'd like to seperate the Wireless network segment from the cable network and the broadband modem. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul Lutus
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Floyd Davidson wrote:
> /dev/rob0 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: >> >>Another one I miss, who actually went on hiatus before I did, is the > > You also miss slamming a car door on your fingers??? Charming as always, if conspicuously lacking in originality. >>inimitable, ever surly but always accurate, Paul Lutus. Google reports >>that said Arachnoid just returned from a four-month tour of Alaska!! I >>am seriously jealous. I wish I had the time and money to do that! ![]() > > Lutus, bless his crust covered set of scales, is indeed back. > > He posted a pointer to his Alaska pictures on > alt.culture.alaska, as if we ... Which "we" is that? alt.culture.alaska is not an exclusive Alaska resident forum. Look at the posts. In the past few days, someone from the lower 48 wants to know how to find student housing in Fairbanks. In another post, a prospective tourist wants to know what fun things there are to do in Anchorage. Clearly I chose a perfect newsgroup for my post -- one read by people interested in (not necessarily steeped in) Alaska culture. The response to my post has confirmed my assumption. This apart from the interest expressed by those Alaskans who want to see their state portrayed in a more traditional way (before 1/2 the population moved to Anchorage), something I fully expected from my firsthand experience among Alaskans in the small towns bordering the Gulf. > ... 'd be likely to fall all over > ourselves to see "some pretty wild places in Alaska" where his > "expedition" took him for adventure. Try giving it a different, equally accurate name. You clearly know zip about boating on the Gulf, or photographing wildlife that, were it not for a bumper crop of salmon this year, might prefer to eat you than pose for your camera (http://www.arachnoid.com/alaska2003/posing_bear.jpg). > Heh heh, I guess he > doesn't realize we see Alaska every time we head out the door... More references to an imaginary "we", which means you are even more mental than one gathers from your posts. Living in Ukpeagvik can do that to one, but it is not an inevitable outcome. > Nobody responded, No, instead they visited my site and replied there. > and I doubt that anyone bothered to look > either. Your scientific instincts are fully displayed here, along with your jealousy. > Now lets just hope he took up a BSD, or some other OS... ;-) Too bad for you, I find the current flavor of RH perfectly satisfactory. Not that I plan to post here regularly any more. This post is simply a reply to an especially egregious canard. What is wrong with you, Floyd? Don't you know newsgroups are public forums? Are you really accustomed to having your subjective, transparent rants go unchallenged? And thank you for posting in so typical a way -- it reminds me why I don't post here as a regular any more. -- Paul Lutus http://www.arachnoid.com |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
| |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Complex Intra/Extra network question? | Bob Mariotti | Linux Networking | 1 | 05-02-2005 09:16 PM |
| Complex Win 98 MSDOS Net Use Question | =?Utf-8?B?ZGVnZ2Vy?= | Windows Networking | 0 | 12-10-2004 08:45 PM |
| routing - newbie-question | Wolf Grossi | Linux Networking | 4 | 04-16-2004 07:27 AM |
| Newbie Request - What kit for Blueyonder? | Jim Roberts | Broadband | 3 | 02-22-2004 04:07 PM |
| Newbie Help Request | Cortland | Linux Networking | 1 | 01-28-2004 10:47 PM |
Forum Software Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc. |



Linear Mode

