gmane.user-groups.linux.london.gllug

Re: Fedora 16 Startup

Stuart Sears — 2012-05-07T13:43:28

I don't need your summary to help.
I need specific information.
For example (but not necessarily limited to)
* the output of the commands you say you have run,
* the precise howto instructions you've followed etc etc.
* what happened afterwards.

If you're not going to provide that information, I can't be of any
assistance at all. I'd be surprised if anyone can be, unless they can
read your mind or get lucky by guesswork.
I'm sorry if that sounds rude or dismissive, but it is true.

If you don't know how to provide that information, then ask. We can help
with that.


Are you sure it is eth0 that you need to be configuring?
if so, what *exactly* is in that file?

Newer versions of Fedora have changed the way network devices are named,
to match PCI ordering and to distinguish between onboard and offboard
devices.
Here my primary interface is actually called 'em1' because it is the
first 'embedded' device on my motherboard.

I stand by my earlier statements - we need more *specific* information.


So, please p

Re: Fedora 16 Startup

Robert — 2012-05-06T22:26:16

Who is Stuart just out of interest?

You can maybe delete wired-connection-1 from the list or stop network
manager from being the controller of your network connections, or even
just setup wired-connection-1 to have a static IP.

Do you have the following line in your ifcfg-eth0 file:
/ONBOOT=yes/


I believe the network service will look at all the ifcfg-* files found
in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts and read them to see what action needs
to be taken.
you can try the follow command to see which have been brought up and
listed as active
/service network status

/Hopefully this should be correct and helpful.
--
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug< at >gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

Re: Fedora 16 Startup

DL Neil — 2012-05-06T22:42:41

Hi Chris,


On 07/05/12 09:53, Chris Bell wrote:

Sadly network interfacing (and script directory layout, even GUI 
tool-sets) is one of those areas of Linux non-standard-ility (see also 
Apt cf RPM) - so this doesn't apply to Mick's Fedora installation.

Grump, grump!

Re: Fedora 16 Startup

DL Neil — 2012-05-06T22:38:57

Dear Mick,

On 07/05/12 08:51, Mick Farmer wrote:

Perhaps Stuart's point was that you didn't tell us this/which sites, 
what you had tried before writing here, etc?

So, amongst the 'hot dinners' did you find the likes of:

"Fedora 16 configure network interface using NetworkManager"
http://www.labtestproject.com/linux_network/fedora_16_configure_network_interface_using_networkmanager.html

- at which step did things come unstuck for you? ("more information")

Did you go to the horse's mouth? Fedora's docs site is useful and 
in-particular the System Administrator's Guide:

"Chapter 6. Network Interfaces"
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/16/html/System_Administrators_Guide/ch-Network_Interfaces.html#s1-networkscripts-files

Interestingly, this makes no mention (to my quick re-read) of the 
ifconfig command. "Wiser heads" may be able to say if it is being 
deprecated/point us at 'the word'? Certainly the docs underline the use 
of ifup and ifdown!

(personally I find these names a bit annoying in

Re: Fedora 16 Startup

Chris Bell — 2012-05-06T21:53:56


   There is a file in Debian called /etc/network/interfaces in which the
first line relating to interface eth0 defines it as static or dhcp

   iface eth0 inet static

Re: Fedora 16 Startup

Mick Farmer — 2012-05-06T20:51:02

Dear Stuart,

I've looked at more "advice" sights than I've had hot dinners.  My
current summary of the situation is as follows.

File /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 is set up for static IP,
but is never activated.

However, Fedora always starts Wired-connection-1 which, I assume, uses
DHCP by default.  There is no Wired-connection-1 in the scripts
directory, but the interface is still named eth0 by ifconfig.

nm-connection-editor shows Wired-connection-1 and eth0 as available
interfaces, but eth0 is shown as not activated while Wired-connection-1
shows activation which agrees with my login time, etc.

So, put simply, my OS is not using the appropriate script, but takes its
own course of action.  I can't find where this is defined.

Regards,

Mick 

--
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug< at >gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

Re: IPv6

John Edwards — 2012-05-06T12:24:36

If they wanted to delay IPv6 then it would seem very strange that they
pushing for it's adoption.



Facebook/Amazon/Google/Twitter/Youtube are not the ones with the huge
blocks of IPv4 addresses. They didn't even exist when the large IPv4
blocks were allocated.

The organisations sitting on the large blocks of IPv4 are the old
"pre-dotcom" Internet companies, universities and gov/military:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks

Getting those people to give up IPv4 addresses is almost impossible.


The Google+others companies have a rapidly increasing need for IP
addresses and IPv4 addresses are a finite resource. Basic economics
will show you that is going to be a rising cost. To reduce it requires
moving the rest of Internet to IPv6. It's not enough to have IPv6
yourself, you have to get other people to use it.

The interests of "not-yet-even-a-sparkle-in-the-eye future major
Internet companies" are pretty much irrelevant. Bigger companies have
much more effective ways to d

Re: IPv6

Keith Edmunds — 2012-05-06T12:04:43

That's my point.


It never will be either/or. It will be both available until the IPv4
address space is depleted, then it will be IPv6 only.

Re: IPv6

Chris Bell — 2012-05-06T11:26:36

   That just puts current IPv4 sites at an advantage because they can have
both, it is not yet either/or.

Re: IPv6

Keith Edmunds — 2012-05-06T11:07:34

I didn't say that they weren't interested in IPv6 connectivity: I know
they are. What I said was that it was in their interests "to delay the
general rollout of IPv6 as long as possible". 

At the moment, the big Internet companies have good IPv4 connectivity and
improving (sometimes already good) IPv6 connectivity. The next
Facebook/Amazon/Google/Twitter/Youtube will also be able to get good IPv4
and IPv6 connectivity, but there will come a time (maybe some way off)
when the next YouTwitFace can't get sufficient IPv4 connectivity. How
popular will that site be if it's only accessible via IPv6? So it is in
the interests of the not-yet-even-a-sparkle-in-the-eye future major
Internet companies to have IPv6 roll out as soon as possible, but for
exactly the same reasons it is in the interests of the established
players to have the IPv6 rollout (particularly to the masses) take as long
as possible.

Re: IPv6

John Edwards — 2012-05-06T10:53:15

And small (growing) ISPs probably don't have a large lump of old Class
A or B subnets sitting around.



How did you work that one out?

Google and Facebook were part of the IPv6 test day last year:
http://www.worldipv6day.org/

And will be part of the permanent launch this year:
http://www.worldipv6launch.org/

I don't know if Amazon will be part of that launch, but IPv6 is very
much in their interest for their cloud computing platform. Having
multiple virtual machine instances greatly increases the demand for
IP addresses. On one network with virtual machines the IP usage has
gone up from 8 IPs to 35 in 4 years.

Re: IPv6

Chris Bell — 2012-05-06T10:39:52


   Perhaps because they have more changes to make? But they probably have
similar replacement cycles, unless they care less about on-line problems?

Re: IPv6

Alain Williams — 2012-05-06T09:57:12


Why ?

Re: IPv6

Keith Edmunds — 2012-05-06T09:41:29

I switched to goscomb.net as my ISP specifically because they support
IPv6. The fact that they are a smaller ISP and generally have a clue was
an added bonus.

I see little interest amongst our clients for IPv6 at the moment. It is,
of course, in the interests of big Internet companies (Amazon, Google,
Facebook, etc) to delay the general rollout of IPv6 as long as possible.

Re: IPv6

Bernard Peek — 2012-05-06T09:26:53

That's pretty much the answer I got from Zen. Of course there are a lot 
of people who want to try IPv6 on a home network first.

Re: IPv6

Jason Clifford — 2012-05-06T07:45:37

In fairness most of the population have never heard of IPv4 so that's
not really a big issue.

For IPv6 the big issue wont arise until internet sites start to become
available only via IPv6 and even then it wont matter to most people
until it affects a mass market website.


Most consumer hardware simply does not support IPv6. Even new hardware
generally does not support it. The extent to which this can be addressed
via firmware updates is unclear - it should be possible however the
willingness on the part of manufacturers is limited.

So far we're unable to offer IPv6 at all on the C&W LLU platform. We can
offer it everywhere else including the BE/O2 LLU platform via Enta.
Despite my requesting this from our supplier for C&W nothing appears to
be happening there yet.


--
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug< at >gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

IPv6

Chris Bell — 2012-05-06T07:21:58

Hello,
   BBC Technology has an article on the June "IPv6 day" saying that the UK
is not in the leading 20 countries. Most of the population have not even
heard about it, yet may need new or updated hardware. I understand that
recent BT hubs are IPv6 capable, but probably most hardware is unknown. Many
modems on sale do not even mention IPv6. I am connected by C&W LLU, and
there has been no mention of IPv6. Will the UK be just told one day to get
on with it?
   I could just transfer to FTTC and let someone else sort that part of the
hardware, although I do not need the extra speed.
   At least one of my computers, my old faithful Acorn RISC PC, is running
very old software, and would probably need to continue using IPv4, but at
least I have a choice of boxes. Most people will not have a clue.

Re: 'padding' a print-file with extra lines

t.clarke — 2012-05-05T07:31:29

Good spot  - thanks !
ps with the -t option works nicely, although the reports we produce contain
an initial form-feed character (historical) which results in an initial blank
'page' of 66 lines.  However, we already use a print-filter which removes the
initial form-feed on printing (called 'print' below), so that:
print report | pr -t - > output-file
appears to work very nicely

Tim
--
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug< at >gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

Re: Fwd: Information Request: Firewall Kit

Chanka Perera — 2012-05-05T05:53:28


+1 I think best bet to look at cisco, checkpoint & netscreen to get PCI
compliance.

Cheers!
Chanka
--
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug< at >gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

Re: O2 Joggler

Richard W.M. Jones — 2012-05-04T22:18:26

From Wikipedia, I get the impression that these are essentially cheap
hackable digital photo frames?

Rich.

Re: Fwd: Information Request: Firewall Kit

James Courtier-Dutton — 2012-05-04T21:27:31

"PCI Compliance" is actually quite difficult to get right.
I would be surprised if some open source firewall will be enough.
That is why I suggested EAL4+ firewalls.
For projects I have worked on, PCI Compliance adds millions to the
cost of the project.
For those the PCI Compliance was required due to the processing of
Visa Cards on a web site, and the associated personal data and the
required security assurance around it.
Do not under estimate the cost of PCI Compliance.
Most of the time, it is cheaper to use a PCI compliant 3rd party to
handle the Visa Card Payments.
--
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug< at >gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug