ipcop-devel Mailing List for IPCop Firewall

All

I have looked through quite a few of the source files in the last few weeks.

As far as I can tell from the sources the attribution is at least a little
patchy.

A significant number correctly claim copyright Lawrence Manning, with at
least a partial date.

Some are attributed to "The SmoothWall Team", which as far as I can see is
dubious, since that is a very ill defined
entity.

Some have clearly been amended, and contain an amended header, describing
the file as part of IPCop, and with a CVS flag line that refers to
"riddles", Mark W, I believe.

My understanding is that if the file is unmodified  SmoothWall, the original
header should remain.

If the file is amended, the person amending the file is also entitled to
copyright on the "derived work", and should add their copyright notice in
addition. Mark has clearly altered some or all of the files, but does not
have a clear and unequivocal copyright statement attached.

A statement such as "This version amended for the IPCop firewall  (c) Mark
Wormgoor, 2002" would be appropriate.

If  we then want to add clarifying comments about the IPCop project, that's
also fair game.

Outside of the GPL'd source files you have no obligation to refer to
SmoothWall (or anybody else) at all, since this is not the notorious "BSD
with advertising clause".

However,  **IF** you want to publish a credits page, and you are using files
copyright somebody else, it seems very poor form to omit them from the
credits.

As far as I can see "The SmoothWall Team" has no particular status, but, for
example, Lawrence Manning certainly does.

You may also be opening Pandora's box, since the GPL  granted by "The
SmoothWall Team" is exactly as good as their status as copyright holders on
the files.

Cheers,   Harry Moyes

Hi,

I have a problem with 0.1.1 not consistently reporting that the modem is 
connected, when in fact it is not.  If I select "disconnect", it still 
report that it is connected, even though /var/log/messages insists 
otherwise.  This causes some grief - I have to reboot to get things working 
again.  Where do I look to get more info to fix it?

Have there been any changes in the latest pre?  Is it available again?

Cheers,

Steve

> From: Fernand Jonker  Sent: 31 July 2002 15:09
>=20
> BTW what is the status of 0.2?  What's done and what needs to be done=20
> now?  How can we help?
>=20

It just so happens that I tried building 0.2 from CVS this morning.
Three and a half hours later (P3-500) I got an error (LFS:
lfs/ipcop/18-gd).  I haven't had time to look at the logs yet but it's
probably safe to assume that it is definitely still a work in progress.
I don't think anyone has worked on it for a while.

Dave

Mark et al,

	I agree with everyone. I know that sounds strange but everyone
is right.

But.... 

At the end of the day this is returning to the great RM debate. If RM is
wanting credits in lets take a view as to the most appropriate content
and just do it. It just not worth the bother. The last thing we need is
Mark W or ANY of the team feeling ANY stress over this. Just because it
does not have a legal leg to stand on does not mean that it could not
"hop" enough to cause problems.

As I understand it V0.2 will no longer require any SW references so it
will be a mute point in time.

I do like the idea of including a massive list of names of everyone who
contributed to any part of the project/code/anything. It seems only fair
and the Kudos vs. effort is minimal. Sounds like a perfect project for
the less "code oriented" helpers to get their teeth into... For instance
me :)

Anyhow guys and gals lets rise above this one. I REALLY want to forget
all the SW nonsense... Lifes to short ;)


Mark (fat) 

> From: Joe Matuscak  Sent: 31 July 2002 14:55
>=20
> I dont particularly buy the idea that there is any compelling=20
> moral (as opposed to a lawyer avoidance) reason to put the=20
> Smoothwall credits in there. If the idea is to umh, express=20
> gratitude to the folks upon whose shoulders IPcop stands, I=20
> think it appropriate to give credit to the folks that did all=20
> the real heavy lifting. As a start:
>=20
> Linux kernel:
> Linus Torvalds
> Alan Cox
>=20
[snip]
>=20
>=20
> Gee, This could be educational :-) =20
>=20

And we could take it to the extreme to point out the ridiculous nature
of it.  RM _should_ be happy because the Smoothwall team would be
credited.  He may not be so happy about the fact that their approx. 14
names would be hidden amongst many thousands of others.

I like it.  Let's do it :)

OTOH we could just appease Richard and get over it.  Defending IPCop
from legal action would be a waste of time and money and I've see enough
stupid legal decisions to think that it's not worth it. =20

You must remember that Richard is making at least some of his living
from Smoothwall and IPCop is a (free) competitor whereas for the IPCop
team it is just something they do in their spare time (even though some
of the team do make money from IPCop).

Anyone who really wants to make a point of this could maybe think about
creating their own fork with the credits left out.

Dave

At 11:33 AM 7/31/2002 +0200, Mark Wormgoor wrote:
>Jack,
>
> > If you are going to credits page - then LIST EVERY CREDIT in order.
> >
>Well, I do. And here's why....
>
>- The 0.1.2 is the last version based on SW code anyway.  It is a onetime
>   thing.
>
>What options are left:
>- We leave the credits in for 0.1.2 and start working on 0.2 as fast as we
>   can.

I agree with Mark on this issue. Rather than arguing with RM and each other 
over this issue, how big of a deal is it that the credits appear on the 
credit page?  I think we would be better off devoting our energies to 
finishing off 0.1.2 and then working on 0.2.

BTW what is the status of 0.2?  What's done and what needs to be done 
now?  How can we help?

Fernand.

Mark,

AFAIK the GPL rules and as I remember correctly the discussions 
with George Greve we had some time ago, it is necessary to 
include the copyrights of SW devs in the sources (so we did!), but 
there is really no (legal) need to have a credits page with their 
names on it!

If you see a (legal/liability) problem in having a credits page with 
just the ipcop devs' names and omitting the SW devs' names, so 
why not removing any names on the credits page and just 
mentioning the URLs of SW and IPCop - or even better remove any 
credits page..... 

Ludwig

From:           	Mark Wormgoor <ma...@wo...>
To:             	ipc...@li...
Subject:        	Re: [IPCop-devel] Remove Smoothwall Credits!
Date sent:      	Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:37:16 +0200 (CEST)

> Jack,
> 
> > Remove them.
> > 
> > OR Build a credit page that LIST EVERY CREDIT.
> > 
> > Use the copyright notices in all source modules and only list in
> > order of date then alpha.  That is more than RM ever did.
> 
> There is a very clear distinction in the GPL (article 2) between
> distributing unmodified and modified sources.
> 
> > But since we are GPl, all the copyrights are in placed and can be
> > viewed in the source.  If Richard does not like that, have his
> > "mouthpiece" contact me with the papers.
> 
> By integrating and announcing the software, I may be personally liable
> for taking these actions.  So, I will not be the one to take the
> credits out, nor will I release a version without these credits.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>  Mark Wormgoor
> -- 
> ***************************************************************
> * |\    /|      |  /|  /       Mark Wormgoor                  *
> * | \  / |      | / | /        mailto:ma...@wo...       *
> * |  \/  |ark   |/  |/ormgoor  http://www.wormgoor.com/mark/  *
> ***************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
> for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
> http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31
> _______________________________________________ IPCop-devel mailing
> list IPC...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipcop-devel
> 

I do think it is moral. Perhaps we should include a CREDITS file and list
everyone who has contributed. I was not singling out RM, but ipcop has been
derived from smoothwall so RM does have a point.  I do not think every
individual for each product needs to be listed by a line stating something
like "with gratitude to the {smoothwall, apache, ssh etc} teams" would at
least be considerate.

Regards,

Stephen.
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Matuscak [mailto:mat...@ro...]
Sent: 31 July 2002 14:55
To: ipc...@li...
Subject: RE: [IPCop-devel] Remove Smoothwall Credits!


On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 Ste...@bm... wrote:

> I agree with you, even though I don't like the way RM handles things, he
> (and others with him) have built the basis that ipcop 0.1.x is built upon,
> it is morally correct that we acknowledge him and the others involved.
WHEN
> we produce a version of ipcop that is not build upon ANY original
smoothwall
> code then we can remove him from the credits. We do not want to stoop to
> their level. We SHOULD acknowledge them. The quicker we build out own
> complete version the better.

I dont particularly buy the idea that there is any compelling moral (as
opposed to a lawyer avoidance) reason to put the Smoothwall credits in
there. If the idea is to umh, express gratitude to the folks upon whose
shoulders IPcop stands, I think it appropriate to give credit to the folks
that did all the real heavy lifting. As a start:

Linux kernel:
Linus Torvalds
Alan Cox

Apache:
Brian Behlendorf=20
Roy T. Fielding=20
Rob Hartill=20
David Robinson=20
Cliff Skolnick=20
Randy Terbush=20
Robert S. Thau=20
Andrew Wilson=20
Eric Hagberg=20
Frank Peters=20
Nicolas Pioch =20
Brandon Long=20
Beth Frank
Rob Hartill
David Robinson
=20
OpenSSH:
Tatu Yl=F6nen
Bj=F6rn Gr=F6nvall=20
Theo de Raadt=20
Niels Provos=20
Markus Friedl=20
Bob Beck=20
Aaron Campbell=20
Dug Song=20
Damien Miller
Philip Hands


Gee, This could be educational :-) =20


Hey, I'll even volunteer to hunt down more and type it into a credits page
if Mark etc. would like :-)



Joe Matuscak
Rohrer Corporation
717 Seville Road
Wadsworth, Ohio 44281
(330)335-1541
mat...@ro...






-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code1
_______________________________________________
IPCop-devel mailing list
IPC...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipcop-devel


---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------

Copyright material and/or confidential and/or privileged information may be=
 contained in this e-mail and any attached documents.  The material and inf=
ormation is intended for the use of the intended addressee only.  If you ar=
e not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it t=
o the intended addressee, you may not copy, disclose, distribute, dissemina=
te or deliver it to anyone else or use it in any unauthorised manner or tak=
e or omit to take any action in reliance on it. To do so is prohibited and =
may be unlawful.   The views expressed in this e-mail may not be official p=
olicy but the personal views of the originator.  If you receive this e-mail=
 in error, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility=
 in your e-mail software, or contact pos...@bm....  Please also de=
lete this e-mail and all documents attached immediately. =20
Many thanks for your co-operation.

BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited is registered in England and Wales unde=
r company number 01288537.
Registered Offices : Europa House, Bartley Way, Hook, Hants, RG27 9UF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---------------

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002 Ste...@bm... wrote:

> I agree with you, even though I don't like the way RM handles things, h=
e
> (and others with him) have built the basis that ipcop 0.1.x is built up=
on,
> it is morally correct that we acknowledge him and the others involved. =
WHEN
> we produce a version of ipcop that is not build upon ANY original smoot=
hwall
> code then we can remove him from the credits. We do not want to stoop t=
o
> their level. We SHOULD acknowledge them. The quicker we build out own
> complete version the better.

I dont particularly buy the idea that there is any compelling moral (as
opposed to a lawyer avoidance) reason to put the Smoothwall credits in
there. If the idea is to umh, express gratitude to the folks upon whose
shoulders IPcop stands, I think it appropriate to give credit to the folk=
s
that did all the real heavy lifting. As a start:

Linux kernel:
Linus Torvalds
Alan Cox

Apache:
Brian Behlendorf=20
Roy T. Fielding=20
Rob Hartill=20
David Robinson=20
Cliff Skolnick=20
Randy Terbush=20
Robert S. Thau=20
Andrew Wilson=20
Eric Hagberg=20
Frank Peters=20
Nicolas Pioch =20
Brandon Long=20
Beth Frank
Rob Hartill
David Robinson
=20
OpenSSH:
Tatu Yl=F6nen
Bj=F6rn Gr=F6nvall=20
Theo de Raadt=20
Niels Provos=20
Markus Friedl=20
Bob Beck=20
Aaron Campbell=20
Dug Song=20
Damien Miller
Philip Hands


Gee, This could be educational :-) =20


Hey, I'll even volunteer to hunt down more and type it into a credits pag=
e
if Mark etc. would like :-)



Joe Matuscak
Rohrer Corporation
717 Seville Road
Wadsworth, Ohio 44281
(330)335-1541
mat...@ro...

Jack,

> Remove them.
> 
> OR Build a credit page that LIST EVERY CREDIT.
> 
> Use the copyright notices in all source modules and only list in order of date 
> then alpha.  That is more than RM ever did.

There is a very clear distinction in the GPL (article 2) between 
distributing unmodified and modified sources.

> But since we are GPl, all the copyrights are in placed and can be viewed in 
> the source.  If Richard does not like that, have his "mouthpiece" contact me 
> with the papers.

By integrating and announcing the software, I may be personally liable for 
taking these actions.  So, I will not be the one to take the credits out, 
nor will I release a version without these credits.

Kind regards,

	Mark Wormgoor
-- 
***************************************************************
* |\    /|      |  /|  /       Mark Wormgoor                  *
* | \  / |      | / | /        mailto:ma...@wo...       *
* |  \/  |ark   |/  |/ormgoor  http://www.wormgoor.com/mark/  *
***************************************************************

Mark -

Remove them.

OR Build a credit page that LIST EVERY CREDIT.

Use the copyright notices in all source modules and only list in order of date 
then alpha.  That is more than RM ever did.

But since we are GPl, all the copyrights are in placed and can be viewed in 
the source.  If Richard does not like that, have his "mouthpiece" contact me 
with the papers..

jackb

I'm still having real probs with the H323, module.
I'm running ipcop 0.1.2 pre 2, and it's loading the module but it doesn't
get used.
I've found another module I would like to try, but it's the source code, and
as such I don't know how to compile it on my ipcop box.
The address of the module is http://netmeetingmasq.sourceforge.net/

If anyone could help me, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you in advance

Dale :)

> it is morally correct that we acknowledge him and the others involved.

I agree with Mark W

Richard has a habit of threatening legal action, I suspect most of it is hot
air. However, we should be claiming the moral high ground here. Even after
all the old Smoothwall code is removed, it was still the catalyst, for
better or for worse.

Regards,

Marco van Beek.

Hello Mark,

I agree with you, even though I don't like the way RM handles things, he
(and others with him) have built the basis that ipcop 0.1.x is built upon,
it is morally correct that we acknowledge him and the others involved. WHEN
we produce a version of ipcop that is not build upon ANY original smoothwall
code then we can remove him from the credits. We do not want to stoop to
their level. We SHOULD acknowledge them. The quicker we build out own
complete version the better.

Respectfully yours,


Stephen.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Wormgoor [mailto:ma...@wo...]
Sent: 31 July 2002 10:34
To: ipc...@li...
Subject: Re: [IPCop-devel] Remove Smoothwall Credits!


Jack,

> It is not up to you make deals to RM.
> 
> If you are going to credits page - then LIST EVERY CREDIT in order.
> 
> I do not give a F**K what RM wants.

Well, I do. And here's why....

Recently, I received several more e-mails from RM, asking us to put the 
credits back in.  I agreed for several reasons:
- I'm only in this as a hobby.  I enjoy doing this, but I'm not willing
  to take any personal risks over this.
- The 0.1.2 is the last version based on SW code anyway.  It is a onetime 
  thing.
- I attempted to contact the FSF and have them intermediate in the 
  dispute. I'm very disappointed in them, since I did not get a reply from
  them concerning this issue.  It seems they do not want to be involved.

What options are left:
- I leave the project and development to others, who will get to take the
  credits out again.
- Someone comes out who is willing to fund IPCop legal protection.
- We leave the credits in for 0.1.2 and start working on 0.2 as fast as we 
  can.

The third option was the best way to go in my opinion.  If you feel I've 
made a wrong decision, please let me know.

Kind regards,


	Mark Wormgoor
-- 
***************************************************************
* |\    /|      |  /|  /       Mark Wormgoor                  *
* | \  / |      | / | /        mailto:ma...@wo...       *
* |  \/  |ark   |/  |/ormgoor  http://www.wormgoor.com/mark/  *
***************************************************************



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31
_______________________________________________
IPCop-devel mailing list
IPC...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipcop-devel


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright material and/or confidential and/or privileged information may be contained in this e-mail and any attached documents.  The material and information is intended for the use of the intended addressee only.  If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you may not copy, disclose, distribute, disseminate or deliver it to anyone else or use it in any unauthorised manner or take or omit to take any action in reliance on it. To do so is prohibited and may be unlawful.   The views expressed in this e-mail may not be official policy but the personal views of the originator.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software, or contact pos...@bm....  Please also delete this e-mail and all documents attached immediately.  
Many thanks for your co-operation.

BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited is registered in England and Wales under company number 01288537.
Registered Offices : Europa House, Bartley Way, Hook, Hants, RG27 9UF
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jack,

> It is not up to you make deals to RM.
> 
> If you are going to credits page - then LIST EVERY CREDIT in order.
> 
> I do not give a F**K what RM wants.

Well, I do. And here's why....

Recently, I received several more e-mails from RM, asking us to put the 
credits back in.  I agreed for several reasons:
- I'm only in this as a hobby.  I enjoy doing this, but I'm not willing
  to take any personal risks over this.
- The 0.1.2 is the last version based on SW code anyway.  It is a onetime 
  thing.
- I attempted to contact the FSF and have them intermediate in the 
  dispute. I'm very disappointed in them, since I did not get a reply from
  them concerning this issue.  It seems they do not want to be involved.

What options are left:
- I leave the project and development to others, who will get to take the
  credits out again.
- Someone comes out who is willing to fund IPCop legal protection.
- We leave the credits in for 0.1.2 and start working on 0.2 as fast as we 
  can.

The third option was the best way to go in my opinion.  If you feel I've 
made a wrong decision, please let me know.

Kind regards,


	Mark Wormgoor
-- 
***************************************************************
* |\    /|      |  /|  /       Mark Wormgoor                  *
* | \  / |      | / | /        mailto:ma...@wo...       *
* |  \/  |ark   |/  |/ormgoor  http://www.wormgoor.com/mark/  *
***************************************************************

I have a problem with msn voice confrencing.
I've installed ipcop 0.1.2pre2, the ip_masq_h323.o module is running.
But I still can't get the voice conferencing working.

Any idears ?

Thanks in advance.

Mark -

It is not up to you make deals to RM.

If you are going to credits page - then LIST EVERY CREDIT in order.

I do not give a F**K what RM wants.

jackb

 Im just waiting to talk with eric, i need to have the iso uploaded again,
 then it will be available on my mirror, I had to do a big machine and line
 upgrade.

 jeremy

 Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
 If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible
 for delivery of the message to such person), you may NOT copy, forward,
 CC, BCC or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
 this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
 immediately

 This email and its contents are also subject to copyright. No part of
 it should be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written
 consent of the copyright owner.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dale Whitnall" <na...@op...>
> To: <ipc...@li...>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:41 AM
> Subject: [IPCop-devel] ipcop0.1.2pre2.iso
>
>
> > Can anyone tell me where i can download it from ??
> > The links that I've seen are broken.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
> > for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
> > http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31
> > _______________________________________________
> > IPCop-devel mailing list
> > IPC...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipcop-devel
>

Im just waiting to talk with eric, i need to have the iso uploaded again,
then it will be available on my mirror, I had to do a big machine and line
upgrade.

jeremy

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message.
If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible
for delivery of the message to such person), you may NOT copy, forward,
CC, BCC or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
immediately
if you do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions,
conclusions
and other information in this message do not relate to the anyone other than
the sender.

This email and its contents are also subject to copyright. No part of
it should be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the written
consent of the copyright owner.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Whitnall" <na...@op...>
To: <ipc...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:41 AM
Subject: [IPCop-devel] ipcop0.1.2pre2.iso


> Can anyone tell me where i can download it from ??
> The links that I've seen are broken.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
> for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
> http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31
> _______________________________________________
> IPCop-devel mailing list
> IPC...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipcop-devel

Can anyone tell me where i can download it from ??
The links that I've seen are broken.

Thanks in advance 

Folks,

        I forgot to CC the list on my reply to Dave, so here's my
e-mail.  Hope it's of interest.


                                Neil.


In message <Kr6...@da...>, Neil A. Hillard
<ne...@re...> writes
>Dave,
>
>>Got a problem with a IPCop install happening next month and wondering if
>>anyone has come across this before and has any expert advice.
>>
>>The existing network is using network address 192.128.1.0/24 which is
>>assigned to AT&T (actually within netblock ATT-INET1 192.128.0.0/26).
>>Their IT guy is telling me that they cannot change the network address
>>because it is hardcoded (by evil programmers) into some VB programs they
>>need.
>I believe that there's a typo above, the /26 should be a /16 :-)  First
>thing to do is to castigate the programmers and then hit them with the
>Bind book and see what they think of that !!! <g>
>
>>It is obvious that they will be unable to connect to internet hosts in
>>192.128.1.0 from internal machines.  Are there any possible effects of
>>this?  I notice that I do not have a route to 192.128.1.x from Demon in
>>the UK.  I would be interested to know anyone can see this network.
>I too can't get to that network, will try on a routed BTnet connection
>tomorrow.
>
>>If I go ahead and install IPCop using this network address, are there
>>any gotchas to be aware of?
>Apart from the inability to contact this network as you've pointed out,
>the worst that I can think of is that AT&T decide to put a DNS server on
>one of those addresses and your users wouldn't be able to lookup
>anything on that server.
>
>My personal preference would be to start them running an RFC1918 address
>range as well as their 192.128.1.0/24 and try to get the code changed so
>that it either uses a host name or at least the address is configurable.
>
>I recently came across a company that were using a 192.9.200 address
>that their IT support company had set up for them !!!  Does no one
>bother with the RFCs anymore ???
>
>I had a similar problem in the company where I work, we basically have
>some legit external addresses that RIPE may ask to have back at some
>point and we managed to 'pursuade' them that the only way they would be
>able to get Internet access was from an RFC1918 address.  I merely
>'forgot' to add the non-RFC1918 addresses to the firewall routeing table
>:-) (This was on a network with about 4000 PCs !!!)  It's amazing what
>lengths people will go to if they want to 'surf'.
>
>Anyway, hope some of this helps...
>
>
>                                Neil.
>
>--
>Neil A. Hillard                E-Mail:   ne...@re...
>Regional Webs Ltd.             Web:      http://www.regionalwebs.net/

-- 
Neil A. Hillard                E-Mail:   ne...@re...
Regional Webs Ltd.             Web:      http://www.regionalwebs.net/

> From: Jack Beglinger Sent: 29 July 2002 22:08

> No.  Unless you list every person / team that supplied all=20
> parts that make=20
> IPCOP.  So start with Linus...
>=20

And also see
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=3DKB;EN-US;Q181050& for
modifying IE timeouts.

Dave

> From: Jack Beglinger sent: 29 July 2002 22:08
>
> IPCOP 1.1 routes the 192.168.x.x just find.  I have them=20
> cascading from=20
> IPCOP to IPCOP.  My Cable modem is 192.168.100.1 and I can access it=20
> just find.
>

Jack,=20

you are not the first person to read 192.128.x.y as 192.168.x.y.  I
initially assumed the same and it was only when I asked for confirmation
that the client told me that yes, they were using an AT&T assigned
public IP range internally, hence the question.
=20
> Now the other side.  When AT&T cable had to setup the sable=20
> modem, I was=20
> forced to connect directly to the modem, because the JAVA=20
> they used need=20
> direct connection.  Go figure.

It's definitely AT&T's fault all round.  Now if only they would release
192.128.1.0/24 to my client.

Cheers,

Dave

IPCOP 1.1 routes the 192.168.x.x just find.  I have them cascading from 
IPCOP to IPCOP.  My Cable modem is 192.168.100.1 and I can access it 
just find.

Now the other side.  When AT&T cable had to setup the sable modem, I was 
forced to connect directly to the modem, because the JAVA they used need 
direct connection.  Go figure.

jackb

> Hi folks,
> 
> Got a problem with a IPCop install happening next month and wondering if
> anyone has come across this before and has any expert advice.  
> 
> The existing network is using network address 192.128.1.0/24 which is
> assigned to AT&T (actually within netblock ATT-INET1 192.128.0.0/26).
> Their IT guy is telling me that they cannot change the network address
> because it is hardcoded (by evil programmers) into some VB programs they
> need.
> 
> It is obvious that they will be unable to connect to internet hosts in
> 192.128.1.0 from internal machines.  Are there any possible effects of
> this?  I notice that I do not have a route to 192.128.1.x from Demon in
> the UK.  I would be interested to know anyone can see this network.
> 
> If I go ahead and install IPCop using this network address, are there
> any gotchas to be aware of?
> 
> TIA,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
> for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
> http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code1
> _______________________________________________
> IPCop-devel mailing list
> IPC...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipcop-devel
> 

> ! <P><B>Smoothwall</B><BR>
> ! IPCop is based on the <A HREF='http://www.smoothwall.org'>Smoothwall</A> GPL 
>   version, v0.9.9.  We are grateful to them for both inspiring this product and
> ! giving us the codebase to work with.  Smoothwall was developed by:
> ! </P>
> ! <P>
> ! Founder and Project Manager - Richard Morrell
> ! (<A HREF='mailto:richard\@smoothwall.org'>richard\@smoothwall.org</A>)<BR>

No.  Unless you list every person / team that supplied all parts that make 
IPCOP.  So start with Linus...