search for: masquerade

...k 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.  # #               Once IP Masquerading has been tested, with this simple #               ruleset, it is highly recommended to use a stronger #               IPTABLES ruleset either given later in this HOWTO or #               from anothe...

...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 en...

...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...

Hello! I've setup tinc almost succesfully, but there is one problem remaining with a routing issue. Short Description of the situation : Workstation A (192.168.1.3) | | Tinc Host "50K" (192.168.1.1) | | <Unknown Firewall> + + + <Masq Firewall (Linux)> and Tinc Host "oeoe" (192.168.2.1) | | Workstation B

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, not tinc2. I suspect tinc doesn't reply to the s...

...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 "vir...

...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 down...

...ives.msfree.ca/shorewall-users@shorewall.net/2003-09/msg00491.html The difference in contrast the above post is : IN THE POST: "The same command line that fails with -A ppp0_masq succeeds with -A POSTROUTING." AT MY HOST: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.0.0/24 -d 0.0.0.0/0 -j MASQUERADE iptables: Invalid argument I tried some variation: iptables-1.2.9 kernel-2.4.25.7mdk-1-1mdk (default 2.4 in MDK10) kernel-i686-up-4GB-2.6.3.15mdk kernel-i686-up-4GB-2.6.8.1.1mdk shorewall-2.0.7-1mdk.noarch shorewall-2.1.4-1.noarch The result was always the same -- see below. The failed comma...

Hello, I've got an AWS cloud and a local network. I'd like to setup an access from private EC2 instances to local network tinc server. There are two public EC2 instances with tinc server installed, other (private) EC2 nodes do not have tinc. http://imgur.com/tq84crc VPC subnet: 172.22/16 VPN subnet: 21.0.0/24 Source EC2 instance ip: 172.22.0.100 Tinc 1 ip: 172.22.0.101, 21.0.0.1 Tinc 2

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

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 th...

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 o...

...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 chan...

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 address through

...nection from (home), this would appear to be completely unnecessary, but for the sake of matching the online example I'll leave it for now. I may be missing something terribly obvious here, but I'm not sure how to fix the source port of outbound packets while still allowing the firewall to masquerade connections. In the hope that someone on this list can set me straight I've included details of my configuration below: (1) The firewall is currently running a very permissive configuration that boils down to: ipchains -A forward -s 192.168.1.0/24 -j MASQ ipmasqadm portfw -a...

...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.