[techtalk] Linux and routers

[Kath]

I guess I stumped everyone :(


- Kath

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kath" <ranger at optonline.net>
To: "James A. Sutherland" <jas88 at cam.ac.uk>
Cc: <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [techtalk] Linux and routers


> > Hang on... if this person can't install a tarball, how on earth do you
> > expect him/her to configure routing properly?!?! Obviously individuals
> > differ, but I'd have thought routing was a great deal more complex
> > than installing a tarball...
>
> Here is the issue:
>
> We have a school web server with an external and internal network card.
For
> some reason, noone inside the district can access the web server when
using
> straight NAT, but can when using our aging proxy server.
>
> Now, if you set the default gateway on any machine in the high school to
> 10.75.1.4, which is the NAT machine, instead of what the DHCP tells you is
> 10.75.1.1 (10.75.1.1 is the router), everything works: internal and
> external.  However, the grumpy Systems Administrator for the district
> refuses to change any DHCP server.  He insists that there is no fault
there
> and that it is something with the web server.
>
> Now, to get to the middle school and elementaries, you have to go through
a
> router, because there is a T1 to each building from the main distribution
> point in the high school.  Now my question is, should the default gateway
at
> the elementary/middle schools be the Cisco router for that building (say
> 10.75.7.1) or should it be the master NAT machine?  Each building has its
> own DHCP server, btw, so it is no problem changing it at just one
building.
>
> Now the fellow student I am working with (the one who wouldn't know how to
> compile a program) keeps insisting that the problem is in the routes on
the
> Linux box and continues to fool around with them, occasionally breaking
them
> and then sometimes asking me to fix it, which rather annoys me on the
> principle of the thing.  Oi vey :|  I've just about given up.
>
> Anyway, any ideas on what could be causing this?  I could provide more
info
> if I had specific questions...
>
> More info:
>
> Everytime you plug in www.nbsd.org to a traceroute inside the district, it
> gives you the IP of the external card.  The traceroute reveals that it is
> dying at/after the 10.75.1.1 router.
>
> Now my one hope is that the former consultant to the district, Robert, can
> talk some sense into my sysadmin as he is the only one who Gabriel (my
> sysadmin) will listen to.
>
> - Kath the Exasperated
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James A. Sutherland" <jas88 at cam.ac.uk>
> To: "Kath" <ranger at optonline.net>
> Cc: <techtalk at linuxchix.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [techtalk] Linux and routers
>
>
> > On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:32:53 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > >To my knowledge, the machine does not have any routing protocols on it.
> >
> > It certainly shouldn't be running one at the moment - it's not a
> > router. Just install the appropriate daemon, and it will be...
> >
> > >Still would it share it? (It is Debian 2.2 btw, and if there is no .deb
> for
> > >it, this kid I'm working with would have no idea how to install it from
> > >tarball)
> >
> > Hang on... if this person can't install a tarball, how on earth do you
> > expect him/her to configure routing properly?!?! Obviously individuals
> > differ, but I'd have thought routing was a great deal more complex
> > than installing a tarball...
> >
> >
> > James.
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> techtalk mailing list
> techtalk at linuxchix.org
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
>