Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please - OS2

This is a discussion on Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please - OS2 ; Earlier posted in OS/2 networking but no answer .. maybe here? For the first time I'm contemplating a workstation on a substantial size OS2 PEERLAN local network which I wish to connect to the Internet individually but not to introduce ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

  1. Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Earlier posted in OS/2 networking but no answer .. maybe here?

    For the first time I'm contemplating a workstation on a substantial size OS2
    PEERLAN local network which I wish to connect to the Internet individually but
    not to introduce IP interface to the whole LAN.

    This means, as best I see it, there need to be two NIC cards in this single
    box. The box I propose this on is an Intel 915GAVL motherboard with the Intel
    10/100 NIC chipset MCP2 latest everything. It works beautifully now by
    swapping the TCP/IP LOCAL setup between LAN0 as either a DHCP connection when
    connected physically to the supplied ADSL modem, or .. when reset to a fixed
    address setup and plugged into the local LAN. Of course a reboot is required
    for that methodology to work.

    Now I want to use LAN interfaces, one on DCHP for the Internet. The other one
    for only the PEERLAN connection. Or at least that is what I think should be done.

    Per what I understand about OS/2 LAN work, only one NIC can have DHCP
    addressing. And obviously the 'standard' 127.0.0.1 private address will
    remain. I contemplate using the current Intel on motherboard chip for that
    DHCP connection as LAN0. As far as I know, I should maintain both IBM's OS/2
    NETBIOS and IBM TCP/IP protocols as normal for this chip operation.

    Next to maintain a common interface hardware scenario, I choose to use a
    Kingston KTC-120 PCI slot second NIC card. I already have one installed on the
    to be tested box. The normal OS/2 driver for it works fine. But, as I think I
    should do, in this case I only ought to use the IBMOS/2 NETBIOS on this NIC
    interface, since it's only purpose is to connect to the local PEERLAN operation.

    My question next is what should the settings in the TCP/IP configuration be
    here for the ROUTE setup?

    Also I know from what I have seen so far, that a discrete ROUTE setup ought to
    go in the SETUP.CFG operation for MPTN which ties this to the expected LAN1
    interface enable work for the KTC120 card.

    Also, from memory long ago at this, for just fixed addressing, how goes this?
    Can there be two different routers here, one for the ADSL operation; the other
    for the local LAN? Even if only the interface to the IP side handles DHCP and
    so on? How do we get around the conflict that if there are two routers, both
    may be focused on 192.168.1.1 setup addresses? Or is this some kind of a maybe
    more than dumbo switch game and not just a router? On which side of the fence?

    Can someone coach me through this new learning curve?

    Thanks!

    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  2. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:28:01 UTC, Mike Luther
    wrote:

    > Earlier posted in OS/2 networking but no answer .. maybe here?
    >
    > For the first time I'm contemplating a workstation on a substantial size OS2
    > PEERLAN local network which I wish to connect to the Internet individually but
    > not to introduce IP interface to the whole LAN.
    >
    > This means, as best I see it, there need to be two NIC cards in this single
    > box. The box I propose this on is an Intel 915GAVL motherboard with the Intel
    > 10/100 NIC chipset MCP2 latest everything. It works beautifully now by
    > swapping the TCP/IP LOCAL setup between LAN0 as either a DHCP connection when
    > connected physically to the supplied ADSL modem, or .. when reset to a fixed
    > address setup and plugged into the local LAN. Of course a reboot is required
    > for that methodology to work.
    >
    > Now I want to use LAN interfaces, one on DCHP for the Internet. The other one
    > for only the PEERLAN connection. Or at least that is what I think should be done.
    >
    > Per what I understand about OS/2 LAN work, only one NIC can have DHCP
    > addressing. And obviously the 'standard' 127.0.0.1 private address will
    > remain. I contemplate using the current Intel on motherboard chip for that
    > DHCP connection as LAN0. As far as I know, I should maintain both IBM's OS/2
    > NETBIOS and IBM TCP/IP protocols as normal for this chip operation.
    >
    > Next to maintain a common interface hardware scenario, I choose to use a
    > Kingston KTC-120 PCI slot second NIC card. I already have one installed on the
    > to be tested box. The normal OS/2 driver for it works fine. But, as I think I
    > should do, in this case I only ought to use the IBMOS/2 NETBIOS on this NIC
    > interface, since it's only purpose is to connect to the local PEERLAN operation.
    >
    > My question next is what should the settings in the TCP/IP configuration be
    > here for the ROUTE setup?
    >
    > Also I know from what I have seen so far, that a discrete ROUTE setup ought to
    > go in the SETUP.CFG operation for MPTN which ties this to the expected LAN1
    > interface enable work for the KTC120 card.
    >
    > Also, from memory long ago at this, for just fixed addressing, how goes this?
    > Can there be two different routers here, one for the ADSL operation; the other
    > for the local LAN? Even if only the interface to the IP side handles DHCP and
    > so on? How do we get around the conflict that if there are two routers, both
    > may be focused on 192.168.1.1 setup addresses? Or is this some kind of a maybe
    > more than dumbo switch game and not just a router? On which side of the fence?
    >
    > Can someone coach me through this new learning curve?


    I would put the WAN side NIC on TCP only and the LAN side on TCP and
    Netbios. You never know when a quick FTP or Telnet will get you out of
    a spot of bother. :-)

    The two NICs will be on different networks so routing *ought* to sort
    itself out. The default route will be from the WAN side. If there are
    two routers, one WAN and one LAN, then you need them on different
    subnets. 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.1.1 for example. If you need the LAN
    side machines to see the 'net then you need "ipgate on" in setup.cmd.

    HTH



    --
    Regards
    Dave Saville

    NB Remove nospam. for good email address

  3. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Mike Luther wrote:
    > Earlier posted in OS/2 networking but no answer .. maybe here?
    >
    > For the first time I'm contemplating a workstation on a substantial size
    > OS2 PEERLAN local network which I wish to connect to the Internet
    > individually but not to introduce IP interface to the whole LAN.

    _____
    Mike,

    I don't quite understand your needs as you expressed them above.
    Perhaps what i describe below is what you need?

    I use a simple 10 Mbit LAN with CAT5E cabling that looks as follows:

    <-->|CABLE_MODEM|<->|FIRE_WALL|<->|----HUB(S)-------------------|
    |<-|WS10, i586, OpenBSD 4.1|
    |<-|WS9, i586, OpenBSD 3.6|

    |<-|WS8, iMac OS 9.22|
    |<-|WS7, i586, W2K laptop|
    |<-|WS6, i586, OS/2 Warp 4.52|
    |<-|WS5, i586, NT4|
    |<-|WS4, i586, OpenBSD 3.9|
    |<-|WS3, i486, NT4 laptop|
    |<-|WS2, i586, OS/2 Warp 4.52|
    |<-|WS1, Mac-Mini, OSX 10.4|
    |<-|Access Point, wireless|

    The fire wall is a low end OpenBSD 3.9 i586 machine. It provides the PF
    based fire wall/NAT functions, and looks after obtaining an IP address
    and lease from my iNet service provider. This release of OpenBSD
    handles a dynamic IP elegantly.

    I played around with a DHCP server many years ago, and found that it was
    simpler to use fixed IP addresses on the LAN side. Why? Because i
    could associate machine names and IP addresses in a HOSTS file on all
    machines. The DNS server IP addresses are also stored on each machine.
    These addresses are very static. If the number of machines on the LAN
    is less than, say, 20, the maintenance task is minimal.

    All machines can access the iNet, while both OS/2 machines use the PEER
    network so that they can see each other. WS9 is a file server, and it
    has a version of SAMBA installed. Via the OS/2 PEER service i can
    access my data files.

    The fire wall machine has a fast parallel port laser printer attached.
    All machines on the network (with exception of the iMac) can transmit
    jobs to this printer. Since i run SAMBA on the fire wall machine, OS/2
    can also transmit print jobs (uses LPRMON to intercept print jobs and
    spool them to the LAN). The fire wall is set up to inhibit transmission
    of Windows specific packets on ports 137 to 139. Only the LAN sees
    these packets.

    In a nutshell, all machines (except the fire wall) have just a single
    NIC, a fixed IP (the OS/2 TCP/IP setup GUI lets you do this easily), a
    HOSTS table and fixed DNS addresses. This configuration allows all
    machines to talk to each other and reach the iNet. My setup has been
    working fine for about ten years. The only thing i changed was the
    cabling when i removed the Thin Wire Ethernet coax, put in some hubs,
    new NICs and new CAT5E cables.

    Hope this helps.

    / John

    --
    Regards / JCH

  4. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Thanks, however ...

    jch wrote:

    > All machines can access the iNet, while both OS/2 machines use the PEER
    > network so that they can see each other. WS9 is a file server, and it
    > has a version of SAMBA installed. Via the OS/2 PEER service i can
    > access my data files.


    The entire collection of machines are solid OS/2 only. All but one machine are
    absoluteloy forbidden to have any contact with the Internet at all for any
    reason. One machine, which has to see the local LAN, is allowed to see the
    Internet. But under no conditions can the Internet be allowed, in any fashion,
    to see the LAN operations, as this is conceived.

    > Hope this helps.
    >
    > / John


    The single machine with the two NIC interfaces in it is the only machine to be
    able to see the Internet. Thus the thought was to use the Lan0 interface on
    DHCP to allow that looking at the NAT interface, in this case from a fixed IP
    address ADSL connection, but it could also be a cable connection.

    The Lan1 interface, on a fixed IP address, as are all the other machines on the
    LAN, are only expected to be able to look at the PEERLAN 'server' for discrete
    file sharing in fully working network files on that 'server', as well as handle
    file traffic to and from it for simple file transfer with it as needed.

    There is no expected network printing expected here at all.

    That a better description here?

    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  5. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Thanks Dave ,,

    Dave Saville wrote:

    > I would put the WAN side NIC on TCP only and the LAN side on TCP and
    > Netbios. You never know when a quick FTP or Telnet will get you out of
    > a spot of bother. :-)


    Interesting. However, there is absolutely no intent to allow any machine on
    the LAN side of all the other machines to see FTP or TelNet or at all to the
    outside world. Nor to let, in any way, the outside world to directly see
    anything on the LAN side directly as such,

    > The two NICs will be on different networks so routing *ought* to sort
    > itself out. The default route will be from the WAN side. If there are
    > two routers, one WAN and one LAN, then you need them on different
    > subnets. 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.1.1 for example. If you need the LAN
    > side machines to see the 'net then you need "ipgate on" in setup.cmd.


    That's what I thought as to the default route .. through LAN0 to the outside
    world from ONLY this one machine with the two NIC interfaces. It is supposed
    to then be able to work with any drive or partition directly on files there,
    for any application that might also be involved with it via TCP/IP and the
    outside world.

    As well, because it is on a fixed IP address on the LAN1 NIC interface, it has
    rights via the LAN connections and sharing to ONLY the PEERLAN server. No
    other of the OS/2 machines of the many on the LAN. Nor do these other machines
    have any sharing rights to the machine with the two NIC cards.

    There is no router anticpated on the LAN side of things at all. The only
    connection mode between any of the LAN side machines is to the PEERLAN 'server'
    the sole intended function of which is for shared file access and pure OS/2
    file transfer between the LAN side systems.

    The intended trick is to get the dual NIC operation to be able to use IP
    connectivity as needed, particularly for primarily VPN OS/2 specific encrypted
    connections to the outside world, where the only 'into the site' way would be
    through a discrete OS/2 application host on the dual NIC machine, connected to
    a discrete OS/2 application matching probe tool when needed.

    Thus do I need only one subnet here? The default one to the WAN side?

    Thanks!



    >
    > HTH
    >
    >
    >


    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  6. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    > Thanks, however ...
    >
    > jch wrote:
    >
    >> All machines can access the iNet, while both OS/2 machines use the
    >> PEER network so that they can see each other. WS9 is a file server,
    >> and it has a version of SAMBA installed. Via the OS/2 PEER service i
    >> can access my data files.

    >
    > The entire collection of machines are solid OS/2 only. All but one
    > machine are absoluteloy forbidden to have any contact with the Internet
    > at all for any reason. One machine, which has to see the local LAN, is
    > allowed to see the Internet. But under no conditions can the Internet
    > be allowed, in any fashion, to see the LAN operations, as this is
    > conceived.
    >
    >> Hope this helps.
    >>
    >> / John

    >
    > The single machine with the two NIC interfaces in it is the only machine
    > to be able to see the Internet. Thus the thought was to use the Lan0
    > interface on DHCP to allow that looking at the NAT interface, in this
    > case from a fixed IP address ADSL connection, but it could also be a
    > cable connection.
    >
    > The Lan1 interface, on a fixed IP address, as are all the other machines
    > on the LAN, are only expected to be able to look at the PEERLAN 'server'
    > for discrete file sharing in fully working network files on that
    > 'server', as well as handle file traffic to and from it for simple file
    > transfer with it as needed.
    >
    > There is no expected network printing expected here at all.
    >
    > That a better description here?

    _____
    Mike,

    Yes, now i have a much better understanding of your requirements. There
    is a simple way to do this. However, it requires a "proper" fire wall.
    By that i mean something like an OpenBSD or FreeBSD computer running
    the PF package. I will try to explain how that might work for you.
    Again, in a nutshell, a single NIC on the OS/2 machine would suffice.
    You would set up PF rules to block all machines on the LAN from
    accessing the iNet, while permitting access from only a single OS/2
    system. A "proper" fire wall will not expose your LAN to the iNet in
    any way.

    What version(s) of OS/2 do you plan to run? I am not familiar with
    OS/2's fire wall package. In my opinion, it is best to use a dedicated
    hardware fire wall, or a BSD like version. The key functionality you
    need is the ability to construct your own rules.

    / John

    --
    Regards / JCH



    --
    Regards / JCH

  7. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:46:16 UTC, Mike Luther
    wrote:

    > Thanks Dave ,,
    >
    > Dave Saville wrote:
    >
    > > I would put the WAN side NIC on TCP only and the LAN side on TCP and
    > > Netbios. You never know when a quick FTP or Telnet will get you out of
    > > a spot of bother. :-)

    >
    > Interesting. However, there is absolutely no intent to allow any machine on
    > the LAN side of all the other machines to see FTP or TelNet or at all to the
    > outside world. Nor to let, in any way, the outside world to directly see
    > anything on the LAN side directly as such,
    >
    > > The two NICs will be on different networks so routing *ought* to sort
    > > itself out. The default route will be from the WAN side. If there are
    > > two routers, one WAN and one LAN, then you need them on different
    > > subnets. 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.1.1 for example. If you need the LAN
    > > side machines to see the 'net then you need "ipgate on" in setup.cmd.

    >
    > That's what I thought as to the default route .. through LAN0 to the outside
    > world from ONLY this one machine with the two NIC interfaces. It is supposed
    > to then be able to work with any drive or partition directly on files there,
    > for any application that might also be involved with it via TCP/IP and the
    > outside world.
    >
    > As well, because it is on a fixed IP address on the LAN1 NIC interface, it has
    > rights via the LAN connections and sharing to ONLY the PEERLAN server. No
    > other of the OS/2 machines of the many on the LAN. Nor do these other machines
    > have any sharing rights to the machine with the two NIC cards.
    >
    > There is no router anticpated on the LAN side of things at all. The only
    > connection mode between any of the LAN side machines is to the PEERLAN 'server'
    > the sole intended function of which is for shared file access and pure OS/2
    > file transfer between the LAN side systems.
    >
    > The intended trick is to get the dual NIC operation to be able to use IP
    > connectivity as needed, particularly for primarily VPN OS/2 specific encrypted
    > connections to the outside world, where the only 'into the site' way would be
    > through a discrete OS/2 application host on the dual NIC machine, connected to
    > a discrete OS/2 application matching probe tool when needed.
    >
    > Thus do I need only one subnet here? The default one to the WAN side?


    Hi Mike.

    If you don't have "ipgate on" on the dual NIC box then anything coming
    in from the WAN stops there and anything coming in on the LAN stops
    there. The TCP/IP stack will not know what to do with the packets.
    Which is *exactly* what you want. But the IP addresses of both NICs
    need to be different subnets as you cannot have two NICs on the same
    box on the same subnet.

    You would still be able to have an application on the dual box that
    talked "across" the gap as it were and still keep the LAN isolated.

    --
    Regards
    Dave Saville

    NB Remove nospam. for good email address

  8. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:30:46 UTC, Mike Luther wrote:

    > The single machine with the two NIC interfaces in it is the only machine
    > to be able to see the Internet. Thus the thought was to use the Lan0
    > interface on DHCP to allow that looking at the NAT interface, in this case
    > from a fixed IP address ADSL connection, but it could also be a cable
    > connection.
    >
    > The Lan1 interface, on a fixed IP address, as are all the other machines
    > on the LAN, are only expected to be able to look at the PEERLAN 'server'
    > for discrete file sharing in fully working network files on that 'server',
    > as well as handle file traffic to and from it for simple file transfer
    > with it as needed.
    >
    > There is no expected network printing expected here at all.


    Why not simply remove the TCP/IP protocol from all other systems? You
    should be able to use NETBEUI for peer networking.

    --
    Alex Taylor
    Fukushima, Japan
    http://www.socis.ca/~ataylo00

    Please take off hat when replying.

  9. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Alex Taylor wrote:
    > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:30:46 UTC, Mike Luther wrote:
    >
    >> The single machine with the two NIC interfaces in it is the only machine
    >> to be able to see the Internet. Thus the thought was to use the Lan0
    >> interface on DHCP to allow that looking at the NAT interface, in this case
    >> from a fixed IP address ADSL connection, but it could also be a cable
    >> connection.
    >>
    >> The Lan1 interface, on a fixed IP address, as are all the other machines
    >> on the LAN, are only expected to be able to look at the PEERLAN 'server'
    >> for discrete file sharing in fully working network files on that 'server',
    >> as well as handle file traffic to and from it for simple file transfer
    >> with it as needed.
    >>
    >> There is no expected network printing expected here at all.

    >
    > Why not simply remove the TCP/IP protocol from all other systems? You
    > should be able to use NETBEUI for peer networking.

    _____
    That is even simpler! Only need simple fire wall rules to protect the
    OS/2 machine that has 2 NICs and connects to the iNet. No need for fire
    wall rules for the PEER LAN.

    / John

    --
    Regards / JCH

  10. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    On 08/30/08 04:28 am Mike Luther wrote:

    > Earlier posted in OS/2 networking but no answer .. maybe here?
    >
    > For the first time I'm contemplating a workstation on a substantial size
    > OS2 PEERLAN local network which I wish to connect to the Internet
    > individually but not to introduce IP interface to the whole LAN.
    >
    > This means, as best I see it, there need to be two NIC cards in this
    > single box. The box I propose this on is an Intel 915GAVL motherboard
    > with the Intel 10/100 NIC chipset MCP2 latest everything. It works
    > beautifully now by swapping the TCP/IP LOCAL setup between LAN0 as
    > either a DHCP connection when connected physically to the supplied ADSL
    > modem, or .. when reset to a fixed address setup and plugged into the
    > local LAN. Of course a reboot is required for that methodology to work.
    >
    > Now I want to use LAN interfaces, one on DCHP for the Internet. The
    > other one for only the PEERLAN connection. Or at least that is what I
    > think should be done.
    >
    > Per what I understand about OS/2 LAN work, only one NIC can have DHCP
    > addressing. And obviously the 'standard' 127.0.0.1 private address will
    > remain. I contemplate using the current Intel on motherboard chip for
    > that DHCP connection as LAN0. As far as I know, I should maintain both
    > IBM's OS/2 NETBIOS and IBM TCP/IP protocols as normal for this chip
    > operation.
    >
    > Next to maintain a common interface hardware scenario, I choose to use a
    > Kingston KTC-120 PCI slot second NIC card. I already have one installed
    > on the to be tested box. The normal OS/2 driver for it works fine. But,
    > as I think I should do, in this case I only ought to use the IBMOS/2
    > NETBIOS on this NIC interface, since it's only purpose is to connect to
    > the local PEERLAN operation.
    >
    > My question next is what should the settings in the TCP/IP configuration
    > be here for the ROUTE setup?
    >
    > Also I know from what I have seen so far, that a discrete ROUTE setup
    > ought to go in the SETUP.CFG operation for MPTN which ties this to the
    > expected LAN1 interface enable work for the KTC120 card.
    >
    > Also, from memory long ago at this, for just fixed addressing, how goes
    > this? Can there be two different routers here, one for the ADSL
    > operation; the other for the local LAN? Even if only the interface to
    > the IP side handles DHCP and so on? How do we get around the conflict
    > that if there are two routers, both may be focused on 192.168.1.1 setup
    > addresses? Or is this some kind of a maybe more than dumbo switch game
    > and not just a router? On which side of the fence?


    Many years back, when I first got an always-on high-speed Internet
    connection, I used an old 486 machine running InJoy as a firewall. Then
    I realized that my connections speeds were far, far slower than other
    customers of the same ISP were reporting.

    I bought a LinkSys router/switch, connection speeds went way up, and the
    LinkSys took up far less space and used far less power.

    Perce


  11. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Thanks VERY much for your time Dave.

    Dave Saville wrote:

    > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:46:16 UTC, Mike Luther
    > wrote:
    >> Thus do I need only one subnet here? The default one to the WAN side?

    >
    > If you don't have "ipgate on" on the dual NIC box then anything coming
    > in from the WAN stops there and anything coming in on the LAN stops
    > there. The TCP/IP stack will not know what to do with the packets.


    OK, I understand this.

    > Which is *exactly* what you want. But the IP addresses of both NICs
    > need to be different subnets as you cannot have two NICs on the same
    > box on the same subnet.


    But I'm curious. Looking at the TCP/IP configuration object, if DHCP is in use
    for the Lan0, which is to go to the WAN, it looks to me like there is no way to
    tell the TCP/IP configuration tool what subnet to use.

    In this case, as the crew miles away from here who are not at all technically
    oriented toward OS/2 have faced, the initial research operation is to a fixed
    address furnished by the IP provider on an ADSL line. Told them, there is no
    router at all, because the 'modem' acts as a router on its own with DCHP
    ability, NAT translation. I don't know, but would almost bet that the IP
    'address' for it is going to be 192.168.1.1 and the subnet for it on the LAN
    side is going to be 255.255.255.0 for it. I think I understand that on the WAN
    side, the fixed IP address is going to be what I know as ##.##.##.## and if I
    had to guess, that subnet address for their 'modem' will be something like I
    see in cable modem use here; 255.255.255.19 or whatever. For my fixed IP
    address use, the vendor gives me a subnet address. I set the ZyXel Router as
    instructed to the given address. But not for any DHCP connection to the IP
    side of things.

    Note that at this point, the site has no hardware external router there for the
    ADSL WAN connection. It could have. The technical people there don't even
    have any experience in the ADSL link setup. That was done by the IP provider
    with whatever password and interface tools they used they brought to the site
    for such service, which I am told did have basic firewall protection.

    At present the site crew takes out the LAN cable from the local OS/2 LAN. They
    go into TCP/IP setup. They switch the intended box to DCHP, plug in the CAT5
    cable to the ADSL LAN side jack and reboot. To go back to the many box LAN
    operation, they reset to the fixed IP address for LAN0, plug in there and
    reboot. All works.

    But note. There is no ROUTER on the OS/2 PEERLAN operation at all for the ozen
    plus boxes there. Which do and must not connect to IP operations. The LAN
    connectivity is provided with a Linksys SR216 16-port 'dumb' SWITCH. Sure
    there is a 'local' route configuration on any of the fixed address OS/2 LAN
    boxes there. The route definition operation goes like:

    Type Destination Router Hop Subnet Mask
    Net 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1 1 255.255.255.0
    Net 192.168.1.2 192.168.1.1 1 255.255.255.0

    Which I gather from what little I know about this, means that the Linksys
    'dumb' switch is using that 192.168.1.1 subnet we are talking about here? And
    unless I can go in and somehow mash that Linksys into other than 192.168.1.1
    and reconfigure all those LAN side boxes, the only other way to set up another
    way to use other than 192.168.1.1 for a subnet, would be to go in and somehow
    do all this with the IP company's ADSL modem?

    I'd have to either get them to do this, or myself be able to perhaps do this
    with the appropriate password and perhaps a browser (Internet Exploder ..uggg?)
    that would initially hit it on 192.168.1.1 to do this? Yes, Seamonkey does
    work fine with both the ZyXel unit I have here for my fixed IP address as well
    as the Linksys WRT54GL I use here for secured encrypted Wireless network
    generation on a DHCP address I get from my IP. And they are both fed through a
    SAS 'dumb' switch to my IP's Cable modem. And yes, the fixed address on the
    cable modem has a contact router upstream assigned plus 255.255.255.19 for a
    subnet mask. But as far as I understand, the DCHP addressing side of this
    doesn't have any provision for subnet number assignment. It gets what it gets.
    And I have no guarantee that OS/2 and Seamonkey will for sure work with
    whatever they are using for an ADSL modem.

    Which will be 192.168.1.1 most likely at this other site. In likely direct
    conflict with the 192.168.1.1 presently in use on a dozen other boxes?

    Thus what is the simplest solution here? Do I get another WRT54GL Linksys
    router and jam it into the ADSL modem game? Which would work, probably just
    fine on their fixed IP address ADSL modem whatever? Re-assigned. if possible,
    to 192.168.1.2 for its master address? And thus create the different subnet
    number assigned off it on the LAN side to make this one dual modem box work
    LAN0 on it, with LAN1 and the existing PEERLAN service left on 192.168.1.1 as
    is? And it would work this way because their ADSL modem would automatically
    see and accept a connection from 192.168.1.2 for service on it?

    I don't pretend to know all this. I'm deeply appreciate the learning
    opportunities and the beautiful help I've gotten from you folks for years here.
    And most easily on a couple hundred mile trip away from here enable with no
    hangups, exactly the below you posted.

    > You would still be able to have an application on the dual box that
    > talked "across" the gap as it were and still keep the LAN isolated.


    Thanks!

    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  12. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Thanks both of you!

    jch wrote:
    > Alex Taylor wrote:
    >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:30:46 UTC, Mike Luther
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> The single machine with the two NIC interfaces in it is the only
    >>> machine to be able to see the Internet. Thus the thought was to use
    >>> the Lan0 interface on DHCP to allow that looking at the NAT
    >>> interface, in this case from a fixed IP address ADSL connection, but
    >>> it could also be a cable connection.
    >>>
    >>> The Lan1 interface, on a fixed IP address, as are all the other
    >>> machines on the LAN, are only expected to be able to look at the
    >>> PEERLAN 'server' for discrete file sharing in fully working network
    >>> files on that 'server', as well as handle file traffic to and from it
    >>> for simple file transfer with it as needed.
    >>>
    >>> There is no expected network printing expected here at all.

    >>
    >> Why not simply remove the TCP/IP protocol from all other systems? You
    >> should be able to use NETBEUI for peer networking.

    > _____
    > That is even simpler! Only need simple fire wall rules to protect the
    > OS/2 machine that has 2 NICs and connects to the iNet. No need for fire
    > wall rules for the PEER LAN.
    >
    > / John
    >


    Precisely what I was driving towards with the original post thread line! And
    I've noted very much what Dave is training me towards on how to do the setup.
    I didn't know at all that two different subnet addresses had to be used on the
    two discrete NIC lan addresses! How to do this the simplest way between the
    dozen PEERLAN OS/2 boxes and the one box that is to be allowed to connect to
    the Internet is what I'm hopefully learning before a hundred mile trip that I
    don't want ending in disaster!

    Thanks!


    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  13. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Yes Percival!

    Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

    >
    > I bought a LinkSys router/switch, connection speeds went way up, and the
    > LinkSys took up far less space and used far less power.
    >
    > Perce
    >


    I'm currently using a LinkSys WRT54GL unit with encrypted wi-fi operations as
    well as DCHP service on the same cable modem channel for OS/2 research
    operations. It goes through an SAS 'dunb' little four channel switch to the
    cable modem which also services my fixed IP address via a ZyXel cable modem
    router. I thought about the dedicated box method too, but at about $60 USD for
    the little commercial boxes, no way to even try that here.

    I've had no trouble with that LinkSys model and OS/2 work so far.

    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  14. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:22:32 UTC, Mike Luther
    wrote:

    > Thanks VERY much for your time Dave.
    >
    > Dave Saville wrote:
    >
    > > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:46:16 UTC, Mike Luther
    > > wrote:
    > >> Thus do I need only one subnet here? The default one to the WAN side?

    > >
    > > If you don't have "ipgate on" on the dual NIC box then anything coming
    > > in from the WAN stops there and anything coming in on the LAN stops
    > > there. The TCP/IP stack will not know what to do with the packets.

    >
    > OK, I understand this.
    >
    > > Which is *exactly* what you want. But the IP addresses of both NICs
    > > need to be different subnets as you cannot have two NICs on the same
    > > box on the same subnet.

    >
    > But I'm curious. Looking at the TCP/IP configuration object, if DHCP is in use
    > for the Lan0, which is to go to the WAN, it looks to me like there is no way to
    > tell the TCP/IP configuration tool what subnet to use.
    >




    Mike. You seem to be a little confused as to subnet and subnet *mask*.
    I see lower down you say you have a Zyxel - If you look in the docs
    for that on the CD you will find a very good explanation of this
    stuff.

    In this case DHCP hands out all the required information on the WAN
    side. Now as I understand your setup we have one OS/2 box that at the
    moment is connected to *either* a router to the 'net, *or* a local
    network that is connected together via a switch. Switches do not have
    an address of their own, but it does look as though that LAN is using
    192.168.1.* as it's subnet. As you say there is no router involved on
    the LAN then they must all be using fixed addresses. We want to leave
    that well alone :-)

    Now *if*, fairly big if, there are *no* other connections to the
    "modem" (Which BTW is actually a router.) then the first thing to
    check is that this is indeed the case. Then you need to check what
    address the modem/router hands out when they connect using DHCP. If it
    is *not* a 192.168.1.* address then all that needs to happen is that
    LAN0 needs to be set up for DHCP and LAN1 to fixed - Of course they
    need to make sure to connect the ethernet cables to the correct NICs
    :-)

    If, as is entirely possible, it *does* hand out a 192.168.1.* address
    then you need to get into the modem/router and change a couple of
    things. Now you may be able to talk them through it or if the
    modem/router is set up for WAN support then you could point your
    browser to its *external* address and re configure it. The two thing
    to be changed are:

    1) The address of the modem itself - ie from 192.168.1.1 to, say,
    192.168.0.1.
    2) The DHCP range of addresses it hands out.

    Make both changes and *then* reboot the modem and release/renew the
    DHCP lease. You *may* need to restart the browser. Firefox in
    particular seems to cache the TCP setup when he starts and does not
    see subsequent changes.

    Oh, it just struck me - what is connected to that modem when the OS/2
    box isn't? If there is anything then it would depend on the other
    stuff using DHCP. Otherwise fixed IPs would need to be changed.

    HTH.
    --
    Regards
    Dave Saville

    NB Remove nospam. for good email address

  15. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Again learned a lot from you Dave ..

    Dave Saville wrote:

    > Mike. You seem to be a little confused as to subnet and subnet *mask*.
    > I see lower down you say you have a Zyxel - If you look in the docs
    > for that on the CD you will find a very good explanation of this
    > stuff.


    Will do.

    > In this case DHCP hands out all the required information on the WAN
    > side. Now as I understand your setup we have one OS/2 box that at the
    > moment is connected to *either* a router to the 'net, *or* a local
    > network that is connected together via a switch. Switches do not have
    > an address of their own, but it does look as though that LAN is using
    > 192.168.1.* as it's subnet. As you say there is no router involved on
    > the LAN then they must all be using fixed addresses. We want to leave
    > that well alone :-)


    Yes .. my original thought. Yes, yes leave well enough alone!

    >
    > Now *if*, fairly big if, there are *no* other connections to the
    > "modem" (Which BTW is actually a router.) then the first thing to
    > check is that this is indeed the case. Then you need to check what
    > address the modem/router hands out when they connect using DHCP.


    Aha! Insight!

    > If it
    > is *not* a 192.168.1.* address then all that needs to happen is that
    > LAN0 needs to be set up for DHCP and LAN1 to fixed - Of course they
    > need to make sure to connect the ethernet cables to the correct NICs
    > :-)


    OK .. and no cable dolt here, grin ..

    > If, as is entirely possible, it *does* hand out a 192.168.1.* address
    > then you need to get into the modem/router and change a couple of
    > things.


    I'm planning on going down there. Trying to learn before the trip enough so I
    can finish the job on one run. Gas in England is sure worse that gas in the
    USA, but we're getting there. Especially with Hurricane Gustav just romping
    through the Gulf and a couple more coming soon...

    > Now you may be able to talk them through it or if the
    > modem/router is set up for WAN support then you could point your
    > browser to its *external* address and re configure it.


    Provided that the Embarq people left it set up for allowed external access
    configuration. I don't allow that on my WRT54GL and they had to send their
    tech personally to the site for this fixed IP address operation there. I'd be
    surprised if they left external IP connection available either, knowing what
    was planned for the site, grin!

    > The two thing to be changed are:
    >
    > 1) The address of the modem itself - ie from 192.168.1.1 to, say,
    > 192.168.0.1.


    OK .. but another learning step, could that be 192.168.1.2 or 192.168.1.3 for
    example?

    For learning purposes here, I can practice this on the LinkSys WRT54GL. I was
    thinking of trying 192.168.1.2 until I read your post! More to learn,

    That doesn't mean, of course, that the Embarq ADSL modem will be exactly the
    same. I think I've found out that it is a Speedstream 5360. There is some
    question still that it is actually working by itself. It might be working
    through a Netgear WGR614 Version 1 wireless router, but that may be for a
    second instance of all this which is a complete Windows ADSL operation. Which,
    over time has been a mess so told me. The instructions were NOT to do this for
    the dedicated fixed IP address operation there.

    > 2) The DHCP range of addresses it hands out.


    Understood. For example, the ZyXel starts at the 192.168.1.32 point as
    normally defined. The LinkSys starts at 192.168.1.100. I do understand that
    it is possible to change the range on allowed numbers.

    > Make both changes and *then* reboot the modem and release/renew the
    > DHCP lease. You *may* need to restart the browser. Firefox in
    > particular seems to cache the TCP setup when he starts and does not
    > see subsequent changes.


    Learning more here. I didn't realize I'd have to reboot the modem. Makes
    sense though as I learn here. The upstream IP router has to re-connect to it
    as well. I'm familiar with release/renew DCHP with the OS/2 DHCP Monitor
    object. I also wasn't aware that Firefox(Seamonkey) seems to cache the TCP
    setting on start!


    > Oh, it just struck me - what is connected to that modem when the OS/2
    > box isn't? If there is anything then it would depend on the other
    > stuff using DHCP. Otherwise fixed IPs would need to be changed.


    Per the agreement in this case with Embarq, NOTHING else is to touch this! The
    new pathway and fixed IP address are in preparation for what will eventually
    use this as a far more complex video real-time medical examination huddle
    route. The intent is for the remote physician to be able to do remote
    psychiatric observation/examination of patients. That's a hugely expensive
    step and totally out of my world, op system and so on. But not now. The
    first step is to get the OS/2 operation encrypt and secured connection to the
    outside through this one box.

    Form that step, my world actually is focused eventually on not even a full OS/2
    complement of what one normally sees on a desktop. I want facility needed
    task specific much smaller presentation of only what we want the operator to
    have. On an embedded system small industrial box hardware platform.

    Hosted by a complete rack mounted industrial SMB computer system using passive
    back plane technology. Eventually connected to the outside world through
    fiberoptic technology and with one more very important step ..

    EMP Pulse protection on the systems on the AC mains side.

    I'm headed toward a complete EMP Pulse safe building communications template
    solution here for professional management operations for defense purposes.
    That as well as where this all started back in 1976 with me, telecommunications
    site operations where the site takes regular hits from lightning all the time
    at big antenna operations.

    I have a mission critical SMB firm working very closely with me to extend their
    existing beautiful 100,000 hour MTBF boards to their very latest Intel 945
    video and Intel 10/100/1000 NIC chipset stuff. As well, I also have a case
    vendor that has for years solved this problem with full pig iron transformer
    linear power supply 100,000 hour MTBF cases.

    The new SMB industrial ATX level boards simply would not work with the old
    linear power supply cases. But at this point there is a new design test system
    working with the latest SMB industrial board and backplane using unconventional
    AC power level choke and capacitor surge protection techniques. And these are
    headed for EMP pulse certification formally for such work. So we can package
    the entire protected relay rack operation for the facility together with full
    industrial relay rack UPS operations using Rose KVM switching for backup and
    file maintenance servers like already have been using here for many, many years.

    No, I don't have the prototype SMB and new case in here yet for OS/2 system
    testing. We've been at this over six months now between us all. But it is due
    in here in a couple weeks, so told me.

    > HTH.


    I think you can tell. It has. We're getting there. And, at least as far as
    I am concerned, this is plenty fair game for public discussion. It REALLY does
    help Dave. And all others that can contribute.

    ************************************

    A specific other question, yet thread related! In experimenting here with
    this test dual NIC modem box, I've learned that you apparently cannot complete
    a NIC setup with MPTS unless you at least load IBM's OS/2 Netbios protocol as
    well as TCP/IP for OS/2. I tried just TCP/IP for OS/2 and it won't work.
    Thats, again, the choice for the NIC to interface to the WAN at Embarq.

    But that done on LAN0, now whenever I then install the Kingston KTC120 second
    NIC as LAN1, with only the agreed upon OS/2 Netbios protocol as a fixed address
    setup, I hit an error I cannot seem to solve. What I am trying to do here is
    go back to my local Fixed IP Address LAN system here for testing.

    No matter what Address and 255.255.255.0 master definition I use, I think I
    should not use a NET route configuration. Since we are NOT interested in any
    IP work and IPGATE is off. That means to me I should be using a HOST route
    setup. But no matter what I do at any of this, during the CONFIG.SYS boot run,
    during the .CMD operation I get the following error, I think ref IOCTL:

    SIOCAIFADDR Invalid Argument

    I've Googled this one and can see it's been around for a decade. But I can't
    drill down into any actual solution, at least in English, perhaps! Again, is
    this because the DHCP operation is focused on the 192.168.1.1 Linksys router,
    in my case here, and the fixed IP address side of my LAN is tied to the ZyXel
    router, which is also set up for DHCP, and I can't change, and also on
    192.168.1.1 as well?

    I get the above error even without the CAT5 cable plugged into the other LAN at
    all if my notes are correct.

    Separate thread snip all above and any help on this here as a separate post
    from anyone here or you Dave. maybe?

    Thanks!


    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  16. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:04:35 UTC, jch wrote:

    > > Why not simply remove the TCP/IP protocol from all other systems? You
    > > should be able to use NETBEUI for peer networking.

    > _____
    > That is even simpler! Only need simple fire wall rules to protect the
    > OS/2 machine that has 2 NICs and connects to the iNet. No need for fire
    > wall rules for the PEER LAN.


    I don't even think a machine with two NICs is necessary.

    Just plug all the machines into a router that connects to the Internet.
    Install TCP/IP on the one machine to have 'net access. Don't install it on
    any of the others, and they won't be able to access the Internet. Problem
    solved.

    Unless I missed something...

    --
    Alex Taylor
    Fukushima, Japan
    http://www.socis.ca/~ataylo00

    Please take off hat when replying.

  17. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Interesting thought Alex ..

    Alex Taylor wrote:

    > I don't even think a machine with two NICs is necessary.
    >
    > Just plug all the machines into a router that connects to the Internet.
    > Install TCP/IP on the one machine to have 'net access. Don't install it on
    > any of the others, and they won't be able to access the Internet. Problem
    > solved.
    >
    > Unless I missed something...


    I can understand the thought. With two sideswipe thought paths though.

    1.) Do you also then disable IPGATE on the box that the TCP/IP on it
    as well?

    a.) Does that prevent IP operations from moving across it to
    the file system operations it works with on the connection
    LAN operations on the PEERLAN too?

    b.) Does that also prevent bash type operations that might be
    attempted from the other side. I think I realize that
    one would have to be careful about how sharing and connecting
    was done on all the boxes. Or .. could be done .. but does
    this help prevent things perhaps naughty?

    2.) Yes, I realize I am proposing the use of only NETBIOS for OS/2 on
    any of the other machines. I've already paid the price here once
    long ago for working with a remote application which used NETBIOS
    over TCP/IP as a protocol as well. It took HOURS to clean up the
    mess of hundreds of files in hundreds of directories on the whole
    network that were contaminated with Windows virus infected files
    uploaded by a Win virus mess.

    In this case, since the IP accessible router would actually touch
    each and every box, doesn't this automatically open up a potential
    future route to contaminated touching of every machine that touches
    it. Sure .. anything might happen .. sometime in the future! But
    doesn't this get us one step closer to 'bad boy land'? And no,
    without TCP/IP ain't no Java Jitters here maybe. Or could this
    way might there be a little sip goes a long way, chuckle?

    Or at least make it apparently a lot easier to mess with things
    somehow in the future if the router touches every box?

    --


    --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake!

    Mike Luther

  18. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Mike Luther wrote:
    Mike Luther wrote:

    > A specific other question, yet thread related! In experimenting here

    with this test dual NIC modem box, I've learned that you apparently
    cannot complete a NIC setup with MPTS unless you at least load IBM's
    OS/2 Netbios protocol as well as TCP/IP for OS/2. I tried just TCP/IP
    for OS/2 and it won't work. Thats, again, the choice for the NIC to
    interface to the WAN at Embarq.
    >
    > But that done on LAN0, now whenever I then install the Kingston

    KTC120 second NIC as LAN1, with only the agreed upon OS/2 Netbios
    protocol as a fixed address setup, I hit an error I cannot seem to
    solve. What I am trying to do here is go back to my local Fixed IP
    Address LAN system here for testing.
    _____
    MPTS appears to have a bug. I needed the TCP/IP protocol _and_ access
    my samba servers and Windows NT5/NT5 via the SMB protocol. This
    following link may or may not be of help. It explains how to check and
    fix LAN0 and LAN1 setups.
    http://www.mit.edu/activities/os2/peer/WARPPEER.HTM

    Standing back a bit, i share the following observations: It would be a
    great help if you could provide what we call in the IT industry a
    Requirements Definition. You have provided fragments of this
    definition. Your document describes in as much detail as possible what
    the requirements are, what functions (services) should be provided, and
    who uses these services. You need to get agreement from the users of
    the system(s) that their needs will be met with your proposed network
    design. You need to include an ASCII sketch of the networks you propose
    or provide a link to a web site that has a line drawing of the networks.
    The drawing(s) should include all hardware boxes, such as routers,
    hubs, firewalls, computers (OS/2 and other), distances and so forth.
    Once you do this, you will have embarked on a proper design methodology.

    Other thoughts: Why is it necessary to use the OS/2 platform (as good as
    it is)? What version(s) of OS/2 (eCS) do you plan to use? These kinds
    of questions are answered _after_ you have done a proper Functional
    Design that follows from the Requirements Definition. In other words,
    the solution that satisfies your needs is driven by the requirements only.

    Have you considered engaging a Network Specialist who also happens to
    know the OS/2 platform inside out?

    / John

    --
    Regards / JCH



    --
    Regards / JCH

  19. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:54:17 GMT, jch wrote:

    > Standing back a bit, i share the following observations: It would be a
    > great help if you could provide what we call in the IT industry a
    > Requirements Definition. You have provided fragments of this
    > definition.


    It amazes me that anybody bothers with this guy any more. His posts are
    rambling, vague, full of "flowery" language that means nothing apart from
    to himself, presumably, and reading one of his posts is usually an exercise
    in frustration and futility.
    Any sort of logical thought process, such as you allude to, seems to be
    beyond him.

  20. Re: Multiple OS/2 PEERLAN help please

    Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
    > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:54:17 GMT, jch wrote:
    >
    >> Standing back a bit, i share the following observations: It would be a
    >> great help if you could provide what we call in the IT industry a
    >> Requirements Definition. You have provided fragments of this
    >> definition.

    >
    > It amazes me that anybody bothers with this guy any more. His posts are
    > rambling, vague, full of "flowery" language that means nothing apart from
    > to himself, presumably, and reading one of his posts is usually an exercise
    > in frustration and futility.
    > Any sort of logical thought process, such as you allude to, seems to be
    > beyond him.

    _____
    Paul,

    I have sent a message to the email address that is listed on your home
    page. Please have a look.

    / John

    --
    Regards / JCH

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast