LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Networking
User Name
Password
Linux - Networking This forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-22-2003, 10:28 PM   #1
tr4nce
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 75

Rep: Reputation: 15
Sharing internet between DHCP protocol?


I have the "server machine" with WinME and adsl, using DHCP (in win), and in my box i set up Slack9.0 with DHCP... every is fine here, i got internet in my box with linux,

but the problem is when i switch from WINME to Linux in the "server machine" how to do to share internet with the rest of my net via DHCP?

thx
 
Old 03-23-2003, 04:17 AM   #2
mandeltuete
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Distribution: Fedora 3
Posts: 75

Rep: Reputation: 15
Well, you won't share internet with DHCP.
You will probably want to use iptables with the new 2.4.x kernels, if you have kernel 2.2.x on your server try ipchains.

Try a search in google for 'iptables masquerade' in your language.
That will be the things you need.

(if you want to have information about DHCP and linux, also try a search in google)

HTH
mandeltuete

Last edited by mandeltuete; 03-23-2003 at 04:19 AM.
 
Old 03-23-2003, 01:27 PM   #3
rickenbacherus
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: colorado springs. colorado
Distribution: Debian-Sid 2.6.24-rt1
Posts: 290

Rep: Reputation: 30
Re: Sharing internet between DHCP protocol?

Quote:
Originally posted by tr4nce
how to do to share internet with the rest of my net via DHCP?

thx
If you are unfamiliar with networking in Linux I have found this:
http://firestarter.sourceforge.net/ to be a very easy way to get a firewall AND setup internet connection sharing all at the same time.

BTW - you do want to use DHCP if that is how your network is set up with WIN ME. You will make your 'gateway machine' a DHCP server. Your other machines will need to 'broadcst' for an I.P. address. This is the same in windows only it sets things up the one and only way possible and you don't see what goes on behind the scenes. It's easy with Firestarter.

Last edited by rickenbacherus; 03-23-2003 at 01:30 PM.
 
Old 03-23-2003, 04:11 PM   #4
SparceMatrix
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Distribution: SME Server, CentOS
Posts: 219

Rep: Reputation: 30
DHCP is kind of cool because it is such powerful software and it is actually how most people connect with their Internet Service Provider. For just a few computers it is easier to use a static IP address which is how the serious sites that you actually find on the internet get their IP addresses. But, they use a different, much larger range of numbers.

This site explains this pretty well and shows you how to use Masquerade which not only connects your LAN to the internet, but gives you a firewall too:

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/IP-Masquerade-HOWTO/

It shows you how to use static IP addresses. There is an ommited chmod on this page for one of the scripts. Be sure to catch it.

http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/IP-Masquer...-examples.html
 
Old 03-23-2003, 04:26 PM   #5
rickenbacherus
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: colorado springs. colorado
Distribution: Debian-Sid 2.6.24-rt1
Posts: 290

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by SparceMatrix
For just a few computers it is easier to use a static IP address
imho Static is not better because you have to do the extra task of assigning an I.P. address to each machine. If you have a machine that travels and connects to different networks then Static is really a pain. If you set up Static addressing now then you'll have to change you WIN ME machine AND all the machines on your network since you are already using DHCP with WIN ME so why change? Additionally you'd have to set up ICS in windows in an entirely different matter because windoze ICS is not very configurable. In fact you can't configure anything- either it's on or off. You should leave it as it is. Of course we all have our own situations and it isn't hard to assign I.P. addresses. I posted the link to Firestarter because it will do almost everything for you. Just install it, run the wizard and it will start on boot for you and it will serve up I.P. addresses for any machine on your network to grab. Then you can go learn about iptables and such.

Last edited by rickenbacherus; 03-23-2003 at 04:28 PM.
 
Old 03-23-2003, 10:45 PM   #6
SparceMatrix
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Distribution: SME Server, CentOS
Posts: 219

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
... If you set up Static addressing now then you'll have to change you WIN ME machine AND all the machines on your network since you are already using DHCP with WIN ME so why change? Additionally you'd have to set up ICS in windows in an entirely different matter because windoze ICS is not very configurable. In fact you can't configure anything- either it's on or off. You should leave it as it is. ...
Actually, I've used a Masquerade firewall to access the internet with both Windows 98SE and Windows XP Pro and it works much better then the Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) that you can get in Windows. I tried Internet Connection Sharing before Masquerade and prefer Masquerade. Masquerade is also known as NAT or Network Address Translation. You can get ethernet hubs with modems that provide the same feature.

If you have a lot of machines to set up on a network, then static addresses are going to be fussier to setup. The more you have, the more DHCP becomes the only alternative, unless you are actually on the internet in which static is also mandatory.

I have four computers on my little experimental LAN, three of which dual boot, so that is actually seven machines to set up and it is no big deal.
 
Old 03-24-2003, 12:31 AM   #7
rickenbacherus
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: colorado springs. colorado
Distribution: Debian-Sid 2.6.24-rt1
Posts: 290

Rep: Reputation: 30
I agree - windows ICS sucks. BUT the reason I said for tr4nce to keep DHCP is because windows ICS is ONLY DHCP. If you set I.P.s on your other machines then ICS in windows stops working and you have to use a proxy. What an unnecessary pain. Apparently tr4nce likes to boot his gateway machine into windows & linux therefor it's much easier for him to use DHCP.

I too have a network
166MHz w/Coyote Linux is my firewall-router-DHCPserver and it doesn't even have a hard drive.
3 Linux boxes all set to broadcast for I.P. from DHCP server.2 of which dual boot.
1 windows laptop that travels to multiple corporate networks all of which use DHCP. You can simply bring the laptop home, connect the RJ45 and bam! you're online. If the laptop had to have a static I.P.for the home network then you'd have to set up multiple configurations and select which one you wanted at boot or change it every time from DHCP to STATIC. and we all know how long it takes to reboot a windows machine. <reboot> go take a nap-come back - hopefully it's up. There is nothing wrong with Static I.P.s certainly, I just thought that he would have alot less to do by keeping his current configuration. Afterall everything already works except for ICS on his Linux box right? So nothing else would need to be changed except for setting up ICS on the Linux box. Firestarter is the answer for those who don't know alot about home networking.
 
Old 03-24-2003, 12:01 PM   #8
SparceMatrix
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2002
Distribution: SME Server, CentOS
Posts: 219

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
... I said for tr4nce to keep DHCP is because windows ICS is ONLY DHCP. If you set I.P.s on your other machines then ICS in windows stops working and you have to use a proxy. ...
Only if your gateway is a Windows machine. If your gateway is a Linux Masqueraded machine, then you can use static IP addresses on your Windows machine and still reach the internet.

I agree that if you have a laptop that also connects somewhere else outside your LAN, then DHCP is the best practical solution.

Congratulations on your diskless router. This is in store for me too. I may wind up with DHCP yet, since I have these diskless ambitions. See my other threads here about my Boot ROM problems. Also at Motherboards.org, user name FiberBundle.

Apologies to the initiator of this thread, the subject is drifting.
 
Old 03-24-2003, 11:07 PM   #9
indiretto
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Distribution: Havenít settled on one yet.
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
I am a complete newbie. I just installed Lycrois Linux today and I want to setup internet connection sharing over a 56k modem via a network through my win xp pro machine. I went to download Firestarter but I am confused on which version to get I'm not sure what version Lycrois is. I read that is was an Amethyst edition but I don't really know what that means. I need to know which version to download. My choices are: Red Hat 8.x RPM, Red Hat 7.x RPM, Mandrake 9.x RPM, Debian DEB, Source RPM, Source tarball, and MD5 checksums. I know this is a stupid question and I am terribly sorry but I don't know the answer so if you do please help me out. Iím guessing not Red Hat, Mandrake, or Debian.
 
Old 03-25-2003, 07:05 AM   #10
rickenbacherus
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: colorado springs. colorado
Distribution: Debian-Sid 2.6.24-rt1
Posts: 290

Rep: Reputation: 30
I don't know the first thing about Lycoris but it is sometimes possible to use different packaging systems. That would best be answered by someone other than myself. You can always get the source tarball and do this (as root)

tar xzvf firestarter 0.1.2.tar.gz

then you do a

cd firestarter 0.1.2
ls
./configure
make
make install
make clean

After you give the 'ls' command you will see several files. and most likely one will be named INSTALL or README so use your favorite editor (mine is midnight commander) to read them like this:

mcedit README
That should give you details on how to install. Like I said it's usually the format I gave above but not necessarily.
There's more to it than that but there's an example for you. I don't know what the actual Firestarter tarball is named. Do searches for 'compiling from source'.
 
Old 03-25-2003, 06:38 PM   #11
indiretto
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Mar 2003
Distribution: Havenít settled on one yet.
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
Rickenbacherus,
Thanks for your help I will try what you said.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Internet Sharing w/o DHCP Server Mookid77 Mandriva 1 07-20-2004 07:18 AM
Internet Connection Sharing 'PROTOCOL NOT AVAILABLE' error phoenix07 Linux - Security 3 04-11-2004 11:31 PM
Internet sharing and dhcp trouble iceaway Mandriva 2 03-12-2004 03:50 PM
Internet connection sharing and dhcp SolidSnake Linux - Networking 26 12-02-2003 10:23 AM
Internet Sharing with DHCP connection to the Net Earp Linux - Networking 1 06-15-2003 02:57 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration