Website subdirectories: httpd.conf or nameserver?

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:13:29 +0000, PC wrote:

> http://www.mustangengr.com this works fine... you are in California.
>
> http://www.mustangengr.com/richgrise this does too from the outside.. saw
> the picture etc.
>
> Your sample address had a colon on the end which should not be there after
> /richgrise
>
> Check the gateway setting on the netcard. I assume you are using a NAT
> router for the 10 subnet, so the gateway is the nat router IP, and not the
> public ip.

Thanks! Actually, I'm using IP Masquerading, rc.firewall, rc.inet1.conf,
dhcpcd, dhcpc, bind, and so on. ;-) Slack 10.0.

Say, have you ever heard of dhcpcd-eth0.exe not getting run? I'll be
posting a Q about that with another subject.

Right now, I'm trying to put three virtual servers on 4.11.176.232 :
http://www.neodruid.com , http://www.neodruid.net ,
http://www.neodruid.org ;

I've go the three VirtualHosts, but I think I should take out the
default ServerName - but that's just a WAG until I read that part.

All I get with any of the 3 is the page at neodruid.com, but like I say,
I scanned httpd.conf, and the HOWTO, and gave it a stab. ;-)

Happy Solstice!
Rich

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:54:14 -0600, ray wrote:

> Rich Grise wrote:
>> I have a web page up:
>> http://www.mustangengr.com , that seems to display OK.
>> ...
> I can see the page from external.
> On my apache web server (www.rollingviolation.com) the listen line is:
> Listen x.x.x.x:80
> where x.x.x.x is the internal address (not the 24.x.x.x it resolves to.)
>
> from the inside, I can't connect to www.rollingviolation.com - I use
> "webbox" (the hostname) to connect. I believe it's because the fqdns
> name resolves to the 24.x.x.x address and my Linksys refuses to pass
> packets that way. (internal destined for external which is actually the
> external IP of the linksys mapped back to a NATted port on the inside.)

I was all set to offer my "wisdom" ( ;-) ), until I saw "Linksys." I'm
a Slacker - I've done mine from scratch. <dislocates shoulder patting
self on back> Except for
# rc.firewall Linux Firewall version 2.0rc9 -- 05/02/03
# http://projectfiles.com/firewall/
#
# Copyright (C) 2001-2003 Scott Bartlett <srb@mnsolutions.com> ,
that is. :-)

Thanks!
Rich

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 19:10:26 +0000, Tim G wrote:

> Hi Rich
>
> In your httpd.conf file what is the ServerName directive set to?
>
> If it's set to 10.0.0.1 then, as far as I know, Apache will use that as the
> base for URLs. This works fine on your LAN but is no good from the
> "outside" since 10.x.x.x is a private IP range.
>
> You could try changing it to www.mustangengr.com or the public IP address to
> see if that does the trick. Adding the port number on the end, eg
> www.mustangengr.com:80 helps to tighten things up too from what I remember
> reading.
>
> Hope this helps
>
Yup!

Thanks!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:
>
>
> I was all set to offer my "wisdom" ( ;-) ), until I saw "Linksys." I'm
> a Slacker - I've done mine from scratch. <dislocates shoulder patting
> self on back> Except for
> # rc.firewall Linux Firewall version 2.0rc9 -- 05/02/03
> # http://projectfiles.com/firewall/
> #
> # Copyright (C) 2001-2003 Scott Bartlett <srb@mnsolutions.com> ,
> that is. :-)
>
> Thanks!
> Rich
>


I have no choice. My wife's work uses some weird non-standard IPSEC
stuff. I say non-standard because it only works with _some_ hardware
routers and is totally incompatible with Windows 2000's RAS. I have no
idea if it's compatible with Linux but I decided it wasn't worth the
effort vs a $40 Linksys. (She works from home.) In fact, on my old SMC
barricade we had to upgrade the firmware with a special patch before it
worked. (It might be compatible with Linux but it ranks about item
#9987 on the todo list...)

I only recently junked my first production slackware box I ever built.
A 486/66 that was my hardware firewall until about 2000. 2.0.x Kernel.
Slackware 4.0? :)

Merry Xmas!
Ray

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:47:45 -0600, ray wrote:

> Rich Grise wrote:
>>
>>
>> I was all set to offer my "wisdom" ( ;-) ), until I saw "Linksys." I'm
>> a Slacker - I've done mine from scratch. <dislocates shoulder patting
>> self on back> Except for
>> # rc.firewall Linux Firewall version 2.0rc9 -- 05/02/03
>> # http://projectfiles.com/firewall/
>> #
>> # Copyright (C) 2001-2003 Scott Bartlett <srb@mnsolutions.com> ,
>> that is. :-)
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Rich
>>
>
>
> I have no choice. My wife's work uses some weird non-standard IPSEC
> stuff. I say non-standard because it only works with _some_ hardware
> routers and is totally incompatible with Windows 2000's RAS. I have no
> idea if it's compatible with Linux but I decided it wasn't worth the
> effort vs a $40 Linksys. (She works from home.) In fact, on my old SMC
> barricade we had to upgrade the firmware with a special patch before it
> worked. (It might be compatible with Linux but it ranks about item
> #9987 on the todo list...)

Ah. Yeah, in a case like this, the $40. L. is the path of least pain. ;-)
I heard a guy once describe himself as "A pragmatist. I go by, 'what
works?'."

But boy, y'know, speaking only for myself, I sure am glad I didn't go that
route a year ago!

I've just embarked on an adventure into sendmail-land, so you'll probably
hear from me again when I need to come up for air. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:
>
>
> Ah. Yeah, in a case like this, the $40. L. is the path of least pain. ;-)
> I heard a guy once describe himself as "A pragmatist. I go by, 'what
> works?'."
>
> But boy, y'know, speaking only for myself, I sure am glad I didn't go that
> route a year ago!
>
> I've just embarked on an adventure into sendmail-land, so you'll probably
> hear from me again when I need to come up for air. ;-)
>
> Cheers!
> Rich
>

Is ok... that's why I like computers. Is a fun way to spend 12 hours... ;)

Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote
news:pan.2004.12.23.17.12.50.991069@example.net:
> different IPs. I can surf index.html, but when I try to look at
> http://www.mustangengr.com/richgrise , from the inside of the LAN it's
> OK, but it puts http://10.0.0.1/richgrise in the address window, since
> that's eth1 on the server, and, of course, when I try to access it
> from the other port on the hub, which is outside, 4.11.176.118 vs.
> 4.11.176.232 , I get the error message:
>
> An error occurred while loading http://www.mustangengr.com/richgrise:
>
> Timeout on server
> Connection was to 10.0.0.1 at port 80
>
> So, clearly, I'm not configured right yet.

Disable UseCanonicalName !

in httpd.conf :

# UseCanonicalName: (new for 1.3) With this setting turned on, whenever
# Apache needs to construct a self-referencing URL (a url that refers back
# to the server the response is coming from) it will use ServerName and
# Port to form a "canonical" name. With this setting off, Apache will
# use the hostname:port that the client supplied, when possible. This
# also affects SERVER_NAME and SERVER_PORT in CGIs.
UseCanonicalName off


Regards