search for: masquerad

...it. If you attempt to ping it from another machine, you wont necessarily be pinging the same network card every time. Code:  tc qdisc add dev eth0 root teql0  tc qdisc add dev eth1 root teql0  tc qdisc add dev eth3 root teql0  ip link set dev teql0 up  ip addr add dev teql0 64.113.86.126 IP Masquerading is Setup A file name rc.firewall.2.6 is executed at every startup. This file sets up a few routing things and the masquerading setup. Code: #!/bin/sh # # rc.firewall-2.6 #FWVER=0.75 # #               Initial SIMPLE IP Masquerade test for 2.4.x kernels #               using IPTABLES.  #...

...and what is wrong with it. This could also be related somewhat to https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2013-September/msg01311.html but I suppose it is not exactly that thing. I've already figured the source of trouble is anyway related to these rules added: -A POSTROUTING -o br0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -o enp0s25 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -o virbr2_nic -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -o vnet0 -j MASQUERADE Here, virbr2_nic and vnet0 are used by libvirt for arranging network configurations for VMs, ok. However, br0 is a main interface of this host with primary ip address, with e...

...all of them to have access to the internet. In order to do that , I set up a linux router (2 network cards) as a usual router (eth0 : 82.77.69.75 - internet connection ; eth1 : 192.168.10.1 - local network) . The other computers have ips ranging from 192.168.10.2 to 192.168.10.8 . The linux router masquerades the other computers. The problem I have is that I want to do the masquerading based on mac AND the ip not only on the ip (so if I change the ip on a computer and use another ip from another computer which is down , the masquerading process shouldn''t work) What I came up with is this :...

...CEPT 198K packets, 18M bytes)  pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination    24  1812 RETURN     all  --  any    any     10.128.10.0/24       base-address.mcast.net/24     0     0 RETURN     all  --  any    any     10.128.10.0/24       255.255.255.255    17  1020 MASQUERADE  tcp  --  any    any     10.128.10.0/24      !10.128.10.0/24       masq ports: 1024-65535    15  1700 MASQUERADE  udp  --  any    any     10.128.10.0/24      !10.128.10.0/24       masq ports: 1024-65535     0     0 MASQUERADE  all  --  any    any     10.128.10.0/24      !10.128.10.0/24    22  1666...

...e arriving via the virtual network. Because Workstation A can connect to Workstation B , routing should be ok right? Has this something to do with the unknown firewall? And if so, why are the packets then arriving on the other subnet (logged in tincd debug mode)? I've also tried to disable Masquerading on the Masquerading Firewall "oeoe" without succes. And I've checked /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward. I'm out of idea's, so If any of you guys have a suggestion what could be wrong? ================ Routing table of Host "50K": Destination Gateway...

Actually I was wrong on masquerading. I've set it up the other way to masquerade packets from tinc3 to the internet via tinc1/tinc2. Subnet = 172.31.0.0/16 is there for both tinc1 and tinc2 as well as route for tinc3. I can reach any private instance from tinc3. > the return packet from tinc3 should end up back at tinc1, n...

...1.0/24 network. The problem is that, from a 192.168.1.0/24 win98 machine, I can browse the network neighborhood, I can see all machines of 192.168.0.0/24 side, but when I try to access a machine, it says that the machine isn't accessable. If I insert a rule on linux gw 192.168.1.1 telling to masquerade all 192.168.1.0/24 traffic (iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.1.0/24 -j MASQUERADE), then everything works normally. But WHY this masquerade? I don't want to use masquerade. I mean, the cleaner my network topology is, better it will be. Why can't it work with just trivial routing...

Hi Daniel and Laine, [...] >> -A POSTROUTING -o br0 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o enp0s25 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o virbr2_nic -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o vnet0 -j MASQUERADE > > *None* of those rules were added by libvirt (unless your build of [...] > You can verify my "counter-claim" by running "vi...

...ould also be related somewhat to > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2013-September/msg01311.html > but I suppose it is not exactly that thing. > > I've already figured the source of trouble is anyway related to these > rules added: > > -A POSTROUTING -o br0 -j MASQUERADE > -A POSTROUTING -o enp0s25 -j MASQUERADE > -A POSTROUTING -o virbr2_nic -j MASQUERADE > -A POSTROUTING -o vnet0 -j MASQUERADE *None* of those rules were added by libvirt (unless your build of libvirt, in addition to being ancient, has also been heavily hacked by a third party with dow...

Dear list members, Masquerading does''not work for me. This is a Mandrake Linux 10 system, but I use another kernel, that included in the original distribution (original: 2.6.3, now used 2.6.8 because of a lot of suck with OpenSwan with kernels prior 2.6.4). The problem seems to be similar or identical mentioned he...

...ip: 172.22.0.100 Tinc 1 ip: 172.22.0.101, 21.0.0.1 Tinc 2 ip: 172.22.0.102, 21.0.0.2 Local network tinc (tinc 3): 21.0.0.11 I need to have an access from 172.22.0.100 to 21.0.0.11. I've setup a VPC route table to route all requests to 21.0.0/24 to tinc 1 and had configured tinc nodes to use masquerading. It works perfectly when a traffic flows like this: source -> tinc1 -> tinc3 -> tinc1 -> source But if tinc3 replies to a different node there is a problem since there's no masquerading record for that request source -> tinc1 -> tinc3 -> tinc2 -> xx One of the pos...

Hello Everyone! I am using shorewall-3.0.5 on suse linux. Recently we have implemented dansguardian running on 8080 and squid on port 3128. Previously (before dans guardian) masquerading was working fine but after the implementation of dansguardian masquerading is not working. My rules file has entry Previous entry was ACCEPT loc:192.192.192.3 net REDIRECT loc 8080 tcp www ACCEPT loc fw tcp 443 and masq file has entr...

Hi wondering if anyone can help. I have two NICs on a debian sarge based system and current running as a bridge (br0) which consists of eth0 and eth1. Is it possible to add a virtual interface to the eth1 so I can also do NAT on the box as well? I have tried many times and keep coming up with errors. Kind Regards William Bohannan

...tination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination hortense:~# iptables -L -n -t nat Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination MASQUERADE 0 -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination AFAICT, this means that NAT is active even though no vif interface was started yet, and is potentially insecure since the default FORWARD rule is accept. My assumption on t...

Dear all, I''ve the following problem with routing + NAT: If I''ve two ISP and I''m using two nexthop in default route with MASQUERADE on both ISP links, I see routing cache regenerated, but sometimes packets sent to a new link (after cache regeneration) uses wrong source address for masquerading. Here is the config. I''ve two links to outside via two different providers: eth1 and eth2 eth0 is the LAN # ip a (part...

More than one of our docs issues revolve around some confusion between "IP masquerading" and "SNAT" -- a confusion I might share, or if contagious, I may be catching. <g> I think of SNAT more or less as a special case of IP masquerading, applicable when, for example, the external interface has multiple IP''s and you choose to _explicitly_ set the addre...

...e (i''m assuming) these are not timing out. What I don''t understand is why the conntrack entries don''t get destroyed when the interface goes down. The only solution that works is to remove them manually using conntrack-tools. >From what I learn, the difference between MASQUERADE and SNAT is that MASQUERADE mangles the packets going out the interface so they have a source *address of the interface* while SNAT mangles the packets so they have the address you specify.. I''m hoping by using masquerade only the conntrack entries will be destroyed when the pppoe ip cha...

Howdy, I tried tackling this on irc with Ivo, but I suspect that irc may really not be the best medium for technical discussions, so I'll reprise it here. I am trying to duplicate the "tinc from behind a masquerading firewall" example from the tinc web site: (home) <--> (masquerading firewall) <--> (office) 192.168.1.21 192.168.1.1/1.2.3.4 4.3.2.1 I've encountered some sticky bits to which I was hoping someone here could offer a solution.. The symptom is messag...

...and the other one is ADSL. One of my uplink is 81.8.120.18/30 with gateway 81.8.120.17 on eth1 and the other one is 172.18.10.30/24 with gateway 172.18.10.2 on eth3. I am trying to split my internal networks to these two providers. So, iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.16.55.0/24 -i eth1 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.16.56.0/24 -i eth3 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.16.55.0/24 -i eth1 -j MASQUERADE This is what I am trying to set up. I also looked at the lartc.org and tried to implement split access. ip route add default scope global nexthop via 81...

hi, I am using shorewall 2.0.14 on debian and it is working but for a small problem. I want to allow masquerading only for a few ips in the network to some certain site for ftp, ssh etc. Masquerading will be blocked for other users amd they will access internet thru proxy server. How can I do this ? thanks. wrodrigues. Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.