On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:28:56 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
>
>> Now, I want to make the "NEW box" act like it's a server, in other words,
>> route 10.0.0.183 to 10.1.0.x;
>
> I don't understand the connection between "act like it's a server" and
> "route 10.0.0.183 to 10.1.0.x". Is this a server or a router?
>
>> But it seems there's a conflict in the NEW box between DHCP and IP
>> masqureading worked since Slack 10 to Slack 11; ...
>
> My guess is that you don't have ip-forwarding enabled in "NEW box", but
> I don't think I understand what you're trying to do. I'm kind of stuck
> on what you might mean by "act like it's a server" ... A "server of
> what, exactly?"

Well, I've always been a little hung up on terminology and topology and
stuff - I drew a little diagram in my reply to notbob - the "server" is
a box with ADSL at eth0, and a hub on eth1, so it can be the DHCP server
for the office boxes. It's using IP Masquerading, so each of the office
boxes can surf the web, and it "serves" files by Samba.

My task on "New box" was to duplicate the "Server" box, but, I've
installed 11 on the new box, the "Server" box has 10.0; I copied the
config files verbatim from the "Server" box, and the "New box" didn't
work the same, and now I'm trying to track down why.

I DID get an answer from notbob about BIND conflicting with dnsmasq, have
fixed that, and am now just proceeding to proceed ahead with this install. ;-)

I'm sure the installation would be much simpler if I didn't keep insisting
on being a geek about it. ;-)

(and, of course, bother to track down the RTFM. ;-) )

Thanks!
Rich

On 2006-11-02, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

> +--[office box 1]
> |
> +--[office box 2]
> --ADSL--["Server"]--+
> +--[office box 3]
> |
> +--["NEW" box]--eth1--+
> |
> +--["LAB" box"]
>
> And what I'm trying to accomplish is to make "NEW box" look just like
> "Server", from the POV of "LAB box", which I can just reach over and
> plug into "Server" if I want to, to kind of test it.

OK, I get it, although still not the way I'd do it. I'd set your "new"
box up like your "server" box and just switch 'em. It's that easy. But,
if you still want to play around on the second LAN, that's cool. It
would make a great learning tool.

Just a point to clear something up. I get the impression you have the
purpose/roll of server and router confused. The box you call "server"
is being used primarily as a gateway router between your LAN and the
ADSL WAN. It is, in fact, practical to run a dhcp and dns server on
the gateway router box (the one you call "server"). That's why
dnsmasq inludes both dhcp and dns server capabilities. Or, you can
forget dnsmasq and run dhcp and bind. I'm not sure if it's required
dhcp run from the gateway (anyone?), but I know it's not necessary for
a dns server. Dns, samba, print, or whatever other services can run
just fine on the "new" box or from any box with server software. The
other office boxes don't care a wit which box has the servers as long
as they can see and access it. If I'm mistaken about thinking you're
confused on this, just ignore this paragraph.

Take a peek at the package descriptions in /var/log/packages/ and then
read the details in /user/doc/.

nb

notbob wrote:

> I'm not sure if it's required dhcp run from the gateway (anyone?),

It isn't. DHCP requests are broadcast, so any system on the same
network segment could act as the DHCP server.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2006-11-03, Sylvain Robitaille <syl@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:

> It isn't. DHCP requests are broadcast, so any system on the same
> network segment could act as the DHCP server.

I suspected as much. Thnx, Syl.

nb

Rich Grise wrote:

> Well, I've always been a little hung up on terminology and topology and
> stuff - I drew a little diagram in my reply to notbob - the "server" is
> a box with ADSL at eth0, and a hub on eth1, so it can be the DHCP server
> for the office boxes. It's using IP Masquerading, so each of the office
> boxes can surf the web, and it "serves" files by Samba.

Ok, so it's both a server (DHCP, file-server) and a router (internet
gateway, IP masquerading), and presumably also performs (at least) some
degree of firewall function as well, then.

> My task on "New box" was to duplicate the "Server" box, but, I've
> installed 11 on the new box, the "Server" box has 10.0;

This is to _replace_ "server" with "new box", to provide redundancy, or
???

> I copied the config files verbatim from the "Server" box, and the "New
> box" didn't work the same, and now I'm trying to track down why.

If you were going to copy the config files verbatim, why wouldn't have
simply installed the same version of the OS? With most packages, old
config files are compatible with newer versions of the software, but you
can't always be sure of that (you need to at least read the relevant
documentation and/or compare included sample config files for
differences). However, with OS upgrades, often several software
packages have been upgraded sufficiently that they might not interact
the same as they once did, or the addition (or removal) of some other
package makes a difference that causes the system to behave differently,
and that might mean you need to make adjustments ...

> I'm sure the installation would be much simpler if I didn't keep
> insisting on being a geek about it. ;-)

Hrmmm ... I'm honestly not seeing which part of what you're doing is
"being a geek about it."

> (and, of course, bother to track down the RTFM. ;-) )

You *need* to do that. It's what separates a "professional geek" from a
perhaps eager apprentice-geek ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:33:53 -0600, notbob wrote:

> On 2006-11-01, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
>
>
>> OK, I've got 3 boxes in a row.
>
> Sounds like what you have is a LAN behind the "lan box" and another
> LAN behind the "new box". Why? What's the point?

When I get the "New box" to behave just like a well-behaved LAN server,
I'm going to replace the "lan box" with it, and want the transition to
be transparent to the Dozers on the LAN.

The PHB just wants to use the new box for the LAN, since it's newer
than the existing box.


> Here's what I'd
> do:
>
> Get a cheap hub or switch and put it into eth1 of the "lan box" and
> connect eth0 of the "new box" and eth0 of "the lab" box to the hub or
> switch. Run either dhcpd or dnsmasq (not both) from the "lan box" and
> let "new" and "lab" get their ip from "lan". Set up any server you
> want to run on "new".
>
> If you are purposely trying to run a LAN within a LAN, then go for it.
> Just do on LAN 2 what you did on LAN 1 (iptables, dhcpd, etc).
>

Yeah, that was the plan - I'm learning the differences between 10.0 and 11
while doing all of this. :-)

Thanks!
Rich

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:46:42 -0600, notbob wrote:

> On 2006-11-02, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
>
>> +--[office box 1]
>> |
>> +--[office box 2]
>> --ADSL--["Server"]--+
>> +--[office box 3]
>> |
>> +--["NEW" box]--eth1--+
>> |
>> +--["LAB" box"]
>>
>> And what I'm trying to accomplish is to make "NEW box" look just like
>> "Server", from the POV of "LAB box", which I can just reach over and
>> plug into "Server" if I want to, to kind of test it.
>
> OK, I get it, although still not the way I'd do it. I'd set your "new"
> box up like your "server" box and just switch 'em. It's that easy. But,
> if you still want to play around on the second LAN, that's cool. It
> would make a great learning tool.
>
> Just a point to clear something up. I get the impression you have the
> purpose/roll of server and router confused. The box you call "server"
> is being used primarily as a gateway router between your LAN and the
> ADSL WAN. It is, in fact, practical to run a dhcp and dns server on
> the gateway router box (the one you call "server"). That's why
> dnsmasq inludes both dhcp and dns server capabilities. Or, you can
> forget dnsmasq and run dhcp and bind. I'm not sure if it's required
> dhcp run from the gateway (anyone?), but I know it's not necessary for
> a dns server. Dns, samba, print, or whatever other services can run
> just fine on the "new" box or from any box with server software. The
> other office boxes don't care a wit which box has the servers as long
> as they can see and access it. If I'm mistaken about thinking you're
> confused on this, just ignore this paragraph.
>

Yes, you're exactly right, and this is what I want to do, but I want to
minimize the amount of diddling around with configurations when I actually
make the swap; this could take some planning, I fear.

Thanks again!
Rich

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:28:56 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

> Rich Grise wrote:
>
>> Now, I want to make the "NEW box" act like it's a server, in other words,
>> route 10.0.0.183 to 10.1.0.x;
>
> I don't understand the connection between "act like it's a server" and
> "route 10.0.0.183 to 10.1.0.x". Is this a server or a router?
>
>> But it seems there's a conflict in the NEW box between DHCP and IP
>> masqureading worked since Slack 10 to Slack 11; ...
>
> My guess is that you don't have ip-forwarding enabled in "NEW box", but
> I don't think I understand what you're trying to do. I'm kind of stuck
> on what you might mean by "act like it's a server" ... A "server of
> what, exactly?"

Samba.

But I _am_ making progress; I should stop bothering you guys until I hit
another snag - I think I'm doing OK now. :-)

Thanks!
Rich

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:43:26 +0000, Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
>
>> Well, I've always been a little hung up on terminology and topology and
>> stuff - I drew a little diagram in my reply to notbob - the "server" is
>> a box with ADSL at eth0, and a hub on eth1, so it can be the DHCP server
>> for the office boxes. It's using IP Masquerading, so each of the office
>> boxes can surf the web, and it "serves" files by Samba.
....
> and that might mean you need to make adjustments ...

Yup, that's what I'm engaged in right now.

Thanks for all the help!

I'll get out of you guys' hair for awhile now...

Thanks!
Rich

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:45:08 -0500, Old Man wrote:
> Rich Grise wrote:
>
>> But, I've never used dnsmasq before - I've always (9.0, 9.1, 10.0, 10.2)
>> copied the "IP Masquerading" script from the HOWTO, which invokes
>> iptables.
>
> Don't be confused by the "masq" in dnsmasq. It does not perform the
> same "ip masquerading" function that iptables performs. It does dns and,
> optionally, dhcp. I think it is called dnsmasq because it is well suited
> to small, private "ip masquerading" networks, providing dynamic addresses
> and names to machines on the private network.
>
> If, I'm being pedantic or telling you stuff you already get, I'll gladly
> apologize.

Please, no apologies necessary! I appreciate you taking the time to give
me a hand with this.

Thanks!
Rich