On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, T. Sean (Theo) Schulze wrote:
> On 11/28/97 3:22 AM, Mark Andres wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, 27 Nov 1997, T. Sean (Theo) Schulze wrote:
> >
> >> Well that got it.  I can now telnet in from my PowerPC using 
> >> BetterTelnet.  I am going to try out MIX next and see how that goes.  Any 
> >> idea what I need to do to telnet *into* the PowerPC?  I have tried a 
> >> couple of times, but I get a message:
> >> 
> >> Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
> >
> >Umm, that is because MacOS does not have a telnet daemon build in. I don't
> >know if there is a Mac version of telnetd.  There is ftpd if you want to
> >be able to telnet from your NetBSD box *to* your PowerPC. If you want to
> >be able to telnet *to* your PowerPC, why not install BeOS ;->
> 
> Hmm...someone else offered me a similar suggestion last night.  Later I 
> went to the ZDNet web site and picked up Peter Lewis' ftpd.  I'll see how 

I believe the most recent versions of this software have been renamed to
Netpresenz (from the last year or two, anyway). be sure to use this to
avoid OS-compatibility problems, etc.

> that works.  Primarily what I want to do is be able to move files back 
> and forth between the Mac PowerPC and my NetBSD IIci.  The PowerPC has 
> the faster modem (and at the moment I'm more familiar with its software 
> ;-), so it is the better platform for ftp'ing things like netbsd source,
> etc.  Also, I have BetterTelnet here, and it is what I am using Mac-side 
> to telnet into the NetBSD box.  I will check out its options and see if 
> it also allows telnet into the Mac.
> 

Telnetting to a mac?! what do you expect to do from a telnet into the mac?
you're certainly not going to get a "login:" prompt, and there is no
terminal-based shell for MacOS (writing one would useless).  only 1
graphical shell is avaiable for macs, which is better known as the finder.
ok, at ease too if you want to count that. niether of which you can get a
"screen" for.

Rhapsody (the "MacNT" of the future) will and BeOS does support protected
memory and some level of multitasking (i think), so i do see some light of
being able to compile shells on those machines, but they probably would be
crippled compared to what a real un*x could do. (probably could do
everything eventually, but that would take a long time to rewrite)

> As for BeOS, I have a CDROM here with a free distribution release on it.  
> It was interesting, but it can't read my PowerPC hard drive either.  
> Sometime in the future after Apple finally succumbs to its 
> (self-inflicted) wounds, I might switch, but not now.  I also have 
> MkLinux here, but neither of these OS's are going to go over well in this 
> house until you can play Chessmates or Shanghai on them. :-)
> 

you can telnet into the mac if it uses mklinux, of course...

> >> Nov 27 14:11:03 hussar routed[170]: sendto(ae0, 224.0.0.2): No route to 
> >> host.
> >> 
> >> What is routed looking for here?  Do I need to have routed on?  Are there 
> >> any other daemons that I should have running or shouldn't have running?  
> >> (I know about needing to choose between routed and gated.)
> >
> >I think routed is looking for a router on the other end. If I understand
> >this correctly, you have a local network that is NOT connected to the
> >Internet or any other network.  In this case, you do not want to have
> >routed running.  Actually, IMHO, you never want routed running at all.
> >
> Your understanding is correct.  It is just two machines talking through a 
> hub.  I am trying to build them a sibling now (a Pentium PC to run Linux 
> on).  Then they will be three.  I am not sure if I would understand the 
> finer points of the routed pro or con arguments.
> 
> ><insert usual rant about routed and RIP; just use gated>
> >
> I tried to get the man pages on gated, but they are apparently not 
> included in the NetBSD distribution.  IIRC, the kernel has to be compile 
> with a multicast (?) option for gated to work, and that option is not set 
> in the GENERIC kernels.
> 
> >Unless your NetBSD is acting as a router, there is no need for any routing
> >daemons to be running.  If you are on a stand-alone net, things should
> >just work.
> >
> Well, it works fine now.  Sure wish I could find a way to keep from 
> having to change my TCP/IP settings in order to get on the 'net, though.
> 
> >Also, if you are not connected to the outside world, I would not be using
> >named. If you set things up properly in your /etc/hosts file, then there
> >is no need for named to be running or to even have an /etc/resolv.conf.
> >You would use the /etc/resolv.conf if you use the NetBSD box to connect to
> >the Internet via PPP though.
> >
> The eventual goal is to connect through the NetBSD machine (or the Linux 
> machine) to the Internet.  So that would be PowerPC --> ethernet --> 
> NetBSD/Linux --> ISDN Router --> ISP --> Internet.  Just for the fun of 
> it, I would also probably want to set up a firewall.
> 

This is very easy to do, actually. the newest generic kernels/snapshots
have all these options compiled into the kernels and all the software in
the distribution, making it much easier to accomplish (no need for
compiling kernels or software!).
take a look at some web pages regarding setup of ipnat (the software used
to route internal fake ip networks to the real internet) and ipf (the
software used that prevents a range of variable possibilities from
floating from your internal LAN outside to the internet).  If you are
looking for a firewall from your Internet->internal LAN, you already have
one, because due to the fake ip's there is no easy way to get to the macs
on the internal network without getting through the NetBSD box first.
and on, and on...

> Cheers,
> 
> Sean.
> 
> 

good luck!
  - a

>             T. Sean (Theo) Schulze
> TSSchulze@aol.com          71410.25 @compuserve.com
> ***************************************************
> Always remember to pillage BEFORE you burn.
> 
>