From: "Lewis G Rosenthal" Received: from [192.168.100.201] (account lgrosenthal HELO [192.168.100.22]) by 2rosenthals.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTPSA id 1871632 for ecs-t6x@2rosenthals.com; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:31:12 -0400 Message-ID: <480E8350.1010802@2rosenthals.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:31:12 -0400 Organization: Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (OS/2; U; Warp 4.5; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080326 SeaMonkey/1.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: eCS ThinkPad T60/61 Mailing List Subject: Re: [eCS T60/T61] Wireless vs. Cable settings References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/22/08 07:42 pm, Jon Harrison thus wrote : > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:22:09 -0400, Lewis G Rosenthal wrote: > > >> So the WRT54G is the only switch on your network, and you have an OS/2 >> box serving as a bastion server connected to the DSL. This is >> interesting, because with a WRT54G, I would normally put that on the >> outside, and use it as a NAT firewall/router instead of a real computer. >> > > I understand. However, I set up the firewall computer w/ IJFW > quite a few years prior to obtaining the linksys. I considered > that I could change it but why bother? I might get a better > troughput with the linksys than w/ the PIII Compaq (w/ 2 nic's) > that servers as my NAT firewall/router. > > The LinkSys units (later models, at least) have 166-200MHz CPUs in them. You'll surely get more performance out of a PIII machine. >> So, I assume that the OS/2 box on the outside has two NICs in it and is >> routing traffic to the net for you. Are you running DNS on this, or is >> the 1.1.1.1 address something else? >> > > No, I'm not running dns, ddns on the linksys. I vaguely recall > that perhaps 1.1.1.1 means to pass through the dns requests to the > next stop upstream. I'm not really sure of this, only that it > works. > > Ah, it may be an InJoy thing. I don;t use it, so I have no practical experience. I run DNS and DHCP on my NetWare boxes, so I point to one of my servers as my primary DNS. Considering the address (non-routable), I thought you were doing the same type of thing. >> Interesting. The next time you encounter the trouble, try pinging some >> IP addresses on the net. A good one to test is one of GTE's old DNS boxes: >> > > Been there, done that. Ping'd yahoo's IP and got no response. > Okay, then that would indicate that this isn't a DNS issue, but a routing problem. > Also tried nslookup on my isp, & google. That is when I decided I > had either a gateway or dns problem. And when the gateway was > correctly set I figured it was dns. What is really odd is that the > ping only works on the inside. And when I was (and still am) > unable to boot I moved over to xp and it works fine, proving that > there is not a hardware issue. > > Very interesting, indeed. Try a netstat -n and see what your routing table shows. I'm curious. >> I used to routinely keep four or five in my resolv2. excess entries are >> simply ignored. The important lines are the top two (domain and first DNS). >> > > That is what I figured, I just tossed it out for comment in case it > was a no-no. > > :-) > I just pulled down the v3.07 stuff. I don't know why I couldn't > see those files this morning. Also I was unaware that apm had to > be matched w/ acpi so I need to check and see what version I have > for apm. > > Yes, indeed. I think you might have an easier time with an older APM against a newer ACPI, but the reverse would probably not work. > Thanks, > Surely! -- Lewis ------------------------------------------------------------ Lewis G Rosenthal, CNA, CLP, CLE Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC Accountants / Network Consultants New York / Northern Virginia www.2rosenthals.com eComStation Consultants www.ecomstation.com Novell Users Int'l www.novell.com/openenterpriseserver Need a managed Wi-Fi hotspot? www.hautspot.com ------------------------------------------------------------