Home | Gallery | Forum | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
OS2 World.Com Forum
OS2 World.Com Online Discussion Forum.
Index / OS/2 - General / Networking
author message
Still down... :(
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
WhiteShepherd
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.furtopia.org
posts: 5
since: 04 Feb, 2004
1. Still down... :(
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Well out of pure desperation I set my dlink router to 66.93.20.117 and my OS/2 lan1 to 192.168.2.117 Then all route commands for 192 automaticly bound to lan1! I then set the dlink to port forward all port 80 traffix to 192.168.2.117

Well it worked... sorta... With proper routing both network cards worked like a champ. I could pass network traffic through the dlink router and rich the outside world just fine via lan1. ..... Problem is my Dlink router would absolutly not port forward ANY. NAT was working fine just port forwarding failed. However as test I put Xitami on a win95 machine and the router portforwards to it. What the heck?

I went over to my friends and borrowed his Microsoft (yuck) hardware router and set it up to port forward port 80. Exact same thing. NAT through lan1 worked fine but port forwarding did not work at all.

Next I tried to get my 66.93.20.117 seperated by a subnet. However I really don't understand subnets. I ran a

ifconfig lan0 66.93.20.60 netmask 255.255.255.30 metric 1 mtu 1500 and
ifconfig lan0 66.93.20.117 netmask 255.255.255.31 metric 1 mtu 1500

With this netmask the route add statements for example:

route add 192.168.2.0 66.93.20.1 -netmask 255.255.255.31 bonded right away to lan1! Hey i felt a little excited even though it may not mean anything! But no traffic would pass along ANY IPs. This is most likely becouse I am clueless of subnet masks.

So yet again it looks like I am no closer to getting two modems going on my OS/2 machine. I really need the bandwidth badly! Help!

Date: 07 Feb, 2004 on 22:09
WhiteShepherd
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.furtopia.org
posts: 5
since: 04 Feb, 2004
2. Re:Still down... :(
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Sorry I didn't mean to post this as a new topic. Some of you may still remember my old post?
Date: 07 Feb, 2004 on 22:10
Kim
Team member
in staff

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.haverblad.se
posts: 2128
since: 10 Dec, 2000
3. Re:Still down... :(
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 07 Feb, 2004 22:25 (1 times)
Well, let's just put a ref. to the original thread if someone need to refresh the memory and stick with this thread.
Date: 07 Feb, 2004 on 22:24
warpcafe
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 350
since: 26 Nov, 2002
4. Re:Still down... :(
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

WhiteShepherd (07 Feb, 2004 23:09):
I then set the dlink to port forward all port 80 traffix to 192.168.2.117
Problem is my Dlink router would absolutly not port forward ANY.

Hi,
what do you mean by "Port forwarding"?
I only know "IP forwarding" which is enabled/disabled with IPGATE [on|off]... ehh... btw: What "ipgate" are you using in your setup.cmd for tcp/ip? on? off?

Cheers
Thomas

Date: 09 Feb, 2004 on 11:18
Dalf
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 2
since: 15 Jul, 2003
5. Re:Still down... :(
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Please provide a little more info,such as the contents of your c:\mtpn\bin\setup.cmd file, and you may leave out all lines beginning with 'REM'.

Are you in the need for a quick fix, or are you an experienced guy on TCP/IP network-configurations ? Because the examples you gave aren't really clear to me.
Are you trying to achieve two (sub)nets onto the same network-adapter, and if so, why don't you try setting an alias. Secondly, although allowed, the subnetmask is configured sligthly 'odd'. How many machines are or will be attached to each subnet ?

If you'ld describe your list of systems and their preferred IP addresses, i'ld be happy to do the math of proper netmask and routing statements.

Hi, Bart

Date: 15 Feb, 2004 on 23:42
warpcafe
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 350
since: 26 Nov, 2002
6. Re:Still down... :(
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

Dalf (16 Feb, 2004 00:42):
Please provide a little more info,such as the contents of your c:\mtpn\bin\setup.cmd file, and you may leave out all lines beginning with 'REM'.

Bart,
I don't know if you already went through the initial thread. (?) If not, it's here (see Kims announcement above).
http://www.os2world.com/cgi-bin/ultraboard/UltraBoard.cgi?action=Read&BID=59&TID=231&SID=48529

As far as I understand, the problem is network performance and traffic load balancing with 2 NICs / 2 DSL modems. First, he had two DSL lines coming into one modem which did the balancing, then he had to change to 2 sepate modems. He searches a way of make OS/2 use two NICs with 1 DSL modem each simultaneously. But all internet traffic goes either one or the other NIC/modem, not both NICs/modems at the same time.

Greetings
Thomas

Date: 17 Feb, 2004 on 11:18
Dalf
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 2
since: 15 Jul, 2003
7. Re:Still down... :(
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 17 Feb, 2004 12:01 (1 times)
Sorry, you're right ! I overlooked the history issue over the problem...

BTW: 'port forwarding' is often used in 'NAT' environments.
You can have incoming traffic on your DSL IP address f.i. to be forwarded to a server with a NAT address in your own LAN.
Many people also refer to this as 'PAT', although that can be used for a portnumber change too.
For instance: incoming http-traffic (port 80) can be forwarded to a system with a httpserver listening on port 8080. With Linux/Unix systems this is very practical as when the owner of the httpserver is not root, it cannot restart it, as only 'root' can open ports below port 1000.

Anyway, back to the original issue: beyond the LoadBalancing matter, i can imagine an fault tolerant configuration with 2 nic's, but without a 'etherchannel' option, it would not benefit the load on the LAN anyway, nor would it increase performance or reduce load on the server itself, from my point of view.
The suggested box 'inbetween' would be the best thing to do, especially if he were to use a 'reversed proxy' solution too, and could also aid in dealing with 'DoS attacks'.
But thats another story, and maybe not the correct answer to the question, but i.m.h.o. the better solution for the problem.

I'll shut up for now, before i(t) will get embarrissing

Hi, Bart

Date: 17 Feb, 2004 on 11:57
Still down... :(
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
All times are CET+1. < Prev. | P. 1 | Next >
Go to:
 

Powered by UltraBoard 2000 Standard Edition,
Copyright © UltraScripts.com, Inc. 1999-2000.
Home | Gallery | Forums | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
OS2 World.Com 2000-2004