SEO

I'll bet I've got 10 hours tinkering trying to get my SCO vmware guest
to accept telnet connections.

Using vmware NAT option:
vm server 192.168.160.15
virtual NAT setup
SCO guest = 172.16.62.128
virt gateway= 172.16.62.2
server virt = 172.16.62.1

All outbound from SCO works great. I can access the internet from SCO
guest. I can telnet to SCO from the vmware-server host OK, just
'telnet 172.16.62.128'. But I cannot telnet from any other host on the
LAN.

I cannot find some vmware docs that explain how to access telnet on a
guest. Remote hosts can ping 172.16.62.1 OK, but not 172.16.62.128
(SCO). It could be I need to use a special port, but I don't know what
that is.

There are no vmware tools for SCO, because SCO is unsupported and not
mentioned on the vmware website. I guess fallout from the SCO lawsuit:
everybody hates SCO and drops support.

I think I am so close, maybe another 24 hours of experimenting and
I'll have it

Has anyone else managed to telnet into an SCO guest on VMWare?

Other than that, it is going very well, SCO apps are fast.

Bob Meyers wrote:

> I'll bet I've got 10 hours tinkering trying to get my SCO vmware guest
> to accept telnet connections.
>
> Using vmware NAT option:
> vm server 192.168.160.15
> virtual NAT setup
> SCO guest = 172.16.62.128
> virt gateway= 172.16.62.2
> server virt = 172.16.62.1
>
> All outbound from SCO works great. I can access the internet from SCO
> guest. I can telnet to SCO from the vmware-server host OK, just
> 'telnet 172.16.62.128'. But I cannot telnet from any other host on the
> LAN.
>
> I cannot find some vmware docs that explain how to access telnet on a
> guest. Remote hosts can ping 172.16.62.1 OK, but not 172.16.62.128
> (SCO). It could be I need to use a special port, but I don't know what
> that is.

NAT is probably not appropriate for this purpose. NAT works best for a
system that is purely a client -- only making outbound TCP connections.
This is the basic property of NAT, has nothing to do with VMware.

Any port opened by a machine behind a NAT gateway is translated into
some other port number on the NAT gateway itself. For instance if you
telnet _out_ of the SCO VM, the telnet client on the VM is opening a
connection from local address 172.16.62.128:12345 (a random port number
that was available in the kernel); connecting _to_ remote address
1.2.3.4:23.

The NAT gateway modifies your packets so they look like they come from
the gateway, and it probably changes the port number at the same time.

The remote telnet server thinks it's talking to a client on the NAT
gateway.

Total packet traffic looks sort of like:

(VM) NAT client NAT gateway remote server

172.16.62.128:12345 -> 172.16.62.1:2468 -> 1.2.3.4:23
172.16.62.128:12345 <- 172.16.62.1:2468 <- 1.2.3.4:23

Because you don't control and aren't easily aware of the port
translation, it's difficult to use this for a server protocol. You
would have to know in advance, on the remote machine, to connect to
172.16.62.1whatever port NAT is going to translate to 23).

If you want inbound access to the VM, use the _bridged_ network choice.
This routes packets directly to the VM without port translation. The
remote system sees the same IP address and port numbers as the VM sees.
Then you would simply be doing `telnet 172.16.62.128 [23]`.

> There are no vmware tools for SCO, because SCO is unsupported and not
> mentioned on the vmware website. I guess fallout from the SCO lawsuit:
> everybody hates SCO and drops support.

Nothing to do with SCO's recent behavior. When I worked at SCO (dating
back to long before any lawsuits), I tried several times to get VMware's
attention. They simply said there wasn't much demand. At that time
VMware's product line was mainly Workstation, being used by developers;
while SCO OSes were being used for stodgy business purposes. There was
little overlap even if both products were popular. By the time VMware's
server virtualization products were becoming popular, SCO's OS business
was in steep decline.

> I think I am so close, maybe another 24 hours of experimenting and
> I'll have it

Just change from NAT to bridged.

> Has anyone else managed to telnet into an SCO guest on VMWare?
>
> Other than that, it is going very well, SCO apps are fast.

Good ;-}

>Bela<

Bob Meyers wrote:
> I'll bet I've got 10 hours tinkering trying to get my SCO vmware guest
> to accept telnet connections.
>
> Using vmware NAT option:
> vm server 192.168.160.15
> virtual NAT setup
> SCO guest = 172.16.62.128
> virt gateway= 172.16.62.2
> server virt = 172.16.62.1
>
> All outbound from SCO works great. I can access the internet from SCO
> guest. I can telnet to SCO from the vmware-server host OK, just
> 'telnet 172.16.62.128'. But I cannot telnet from any other host on the
> LAN.
>
> I cannot find some vmware docs that explain how to access telnet on a
> guest. Remote hosts can ping 172.16.62.1 OK, but not 172.16.62.128
> (SCO). It could be I need to use a special port, but I don't know what
> that is.
>
> There are no vmware tools for SCO, because SCO is unsupported and not
> mentioned on the vmware website. I guess fallout from the SCO lawsuit:
> everybody hates SCO and drops support.
>
> I think I am so close, maybe another 24 hours of experimenting and
> I'll have it
>
> Has anyone else managed to telnet into an SCO guest on VMWare?
>
> Other than that, it is going very well, SCO apps are fast.
>

I have a 5.0.6 vm guest working fine. I used the bridged network option
though not NAT. I just gave the SCO vm guest an unused IP on my real
net and it works fine. It is visible to anyone with routing setup to my
"real" subnet.

vmhost
ip 192.168.0.22
gw 192.168.0.1

SCO vm
ip 192.168.35
gw 192.168.0.1

I have never used the NAT setup of vmware at all. I have always used
bridged or private depending on what I was doing. I am unsure of how
any host (except for the actual vm host) that is outside of the "vm NAT
net" would be able to see the vm guests at all without some form of port
forwarding. Is NAT not an outbound only gateway by default?


Glenn

correction below! I missed the .0. in the sco guest IP
Glenn

Glenn wrote:
>
> Bob Meyers wrote:
>> I'll bet I've got 10 hours tinkering trying to get my SCO vmware guest
>> to accept telnet connections.
>>
>> Using vmware NAT option:
>> vm server 192.168.160.15
>> virtual NAT setup
>> SCO guest = 172.16.62.128
>> virt gateway= 172.16.62.2
>> server virt = 172.16.62.1
>>
>> All outbound from SCO works great. I can access the internet from SCO
>> guest. I can telnet to SCO from the vmware-server host OK, just
>> 'telnet 172.16.62.128'. But I cannot telnet from any other host on the
>> LAN.
>>
>> I cannot find some vmware docs that explain how to access telnet on a
>> guest. Remote hosts can ping 172.16.62.1 OK, but not 172.16.62.128
>> (SCO). It could be I need to use a special port, but I don't know what
>> that is.
>>
>> There are no vmware tools for SCO, because SCO is unsupported and not
>> mentioned on the vmware website. I guess fallout from the SCO lawsuit:
>> everybody hates SCO and drops support.
>>
>> I think I am so close, maybe another 24 hours of experimenting and
>> I'll have it
>>
>> Has anyone else managed to telnet into an SCO guest on VMWare?
>>
>> Other than that, it is going very well, SCO apps are fast.
>>
>
> I have a 5.0.6 vm guest working fine. I used the bridged network option
> though not NAT. I just gave the SCO vm guest an unused IP on my real
> net and it works fine. It is visible to anyone with routing setup to my
> "real" subnet.
>
> vmhost
> ip 192.168.0.22
> gw 192.168.0.1
>

SCO vm
ip 192.168.35 <--missing 0 s/b 192.168.0.35
gw 192.168.0.1

>
> I have never used the NAT setup of vmware at all. I have always used
> bridged or private depending on what I was doing. I am unsure of how
> any host (except for the actual vm host) that is outside of the "vm NAT
> net" would be able to see the vm guests at all without some form of port
> forwarding. Is NAT not an outbound only gateway by default?
>
>
> Glenn

On Nov 9, 3:42 pm, Glenn <ve...@i.hate.spam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> correction below! I missed the .0. in the sco guest IP
> Glenn
>
>
>
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > Bob Meyers wrote:
> >> I'll bet I've got 10 hours tinkering trying to get my SCO vmware guest
> >> to accept telnet connections.
>
> >> Using vmware NAT option:
> >> vm server 192.168.160.15
> >> virtual NAT setup
> >> SCO guest = 172.16.62.128
> >> virt gateway= 172.16.62.2
> >> server virt = 172.16.62.1
>
> >> All outbound from SCO works great. I can access the internet from SCO
> >> guest. I can telnet to SCO from the vmware-server host OK, just
> >> 'telnet 172.16.62.128'. But I cannot telnet from any other host on the
> >> LAN.
>
> >> I cannot find some vmware docs that explain how to access telnet on a
> >> guest. Remote hosts can ping 172.16.62.1 OK, but not 172.16.62.128
> >> (SCO). It could be I need to use a special port, but I don't know what
> >> that is.
>
> >> There are no vmware tools for SCO, because SCO is unsupported and not
> >> mentioned on the vmware website. I guess fallout from the SCO lawsuit:
> >> everybody hates SCO and drops support.
>
> >> I think I am so close, maybe another 24 hours of experimenting and
> >> I'll have it
>
> >> Has anyone else managed to telnet into an SCO guest on VMWare?
>
> >> Other than that, it is going very well, SCO apps are fast.
>
> > I have a 5.0.6 vm guest working fine. I used the bridged network option
> > though not NAT. I just gave the SCO vm guest an unused IP on my real
> > net and it works fine. It is visible to anyone with routing setup to my
> > "real" subnet.
>
> > vmhost
> > ip 192.168.0.22
> > gw 192.168.0.1
>
> SCO vm
> ip 192.168.35 <--missing 0 s/b 192.168.0.35
> gw 192.168.0.1
>
> > I have never used the NAT setup of vmware at all. I have always used
> > bridged or private depending on what I was doing. I am unsure of how
> > any host (except for the actual vm host) that is outside of the "vm NAT
> > net" would be able to see the vm guests at all without some form of port
> > forwarding. Is NAT not an outbound only gateway by default?
>
> > Glenn

You use the same adapter? I'll try that. Man am I going to feel silly
for not asking sooner. I tried bridged to a second adapter but could
not get it to work. NAT looked easy because it worked great going out.

Bob Meyers wrote:
> On Nov 9, 3:42 pm, Glenn <ve...@i.hate.spam.nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>> correction below! I missed the .0. in the sco guest IP
>> Glenn
>>
>>
>>
>> Glenn wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Meyers wrote:
>>>> I'll bet I've got 10 hours tinkering trying to get my SCO vmware guest
>>>> to accept telnet connections.
>>>> Using vmware NAT option:
>>>> vm server 192.168.160.15
>>>> virtual NAT setup
>>>> SCO guest = 172.16.62.128
>>>> virt gateway= 172.16.62.2
>>>> server virt = 172.16.62.1
>>>> All outbound from SCO works great. I can access the internet from SCO
>>>> guest. I can telnet to SCO from the vmware-server host OK, just
>>>> 'telnet 172.16.62.128'. But I cannot telnet from any other host on the
>>>> LAN.
>>>> I cannot find some vmware docs that explain how to access telnet on a
>>>> guest. Remote hosts can ping 172.16.62.1 OK, but not 172.16.62.128
>>>> (SCO). It could be I need to use a special port, but I don't know what
>>>> that is.
>>>> There are no vmware tools for SCO, because SCO is unsupported and not
>>>> mentioned on the vmware website. I guess fallout from the SCO lawsuit:
>>>> everybody hates SCO and drops support.
>>>> I think I am so close, maybe another 24 hours of experimenting and
>>>> I'll have it
>>>> Has anyone else managed to telnet into an SCO guest on VMWare?
>>>> Other than that, it is going very well, SCO apps are fast.
>>> I have a 5.0.6 vm guest working fine. I used the bridged network option
>>> though not NAT. I just gave the SCO vm guest an unused IP on my real
>>> net and it works fine. It is visible to anyone with routing setup to my
>>> "real" subnet.
>>> vmhost
>>> ip 192.168.0.22
>>> gw 192.168.0.1
>> SCO vm
>> ip 192.168.35 <--missing 0 s/b 192.168.0.35
>> gw 192.168.0.1
>>
>>> I have never used the NAT setup of vmware at all. I have always used
>>> bridged or private depending on what I was doing. I am unsure of how
>>> any host (except for the actual vm host) that is outside of the "vm NAT
>>> net" would be able to see the vm guests at all without some form of port
>>> forwarding. Is NAT not an outbound only gateway by default?
>>> Glenn
>
> You use the same adapter? I'll try that. Man am I going to feel silly
> for not asking sooner. I tried bridged to a second adapter but could
> not get it to work. NAT looked easy because it worked great going out.
>


My vm host just has the one NIC. I can even run multiple vm guests with
a "bridged" NIC setup in each guest vm. Just treat it as if it was a
real NIC of its own and vmware handles the details. Let us know how it
worked out!

Glenn