search for: masqueraded

Okay here is my setup: Gentoo Box running 2.6.4 w/ 4 NICs 1 NIC is for internal network 3 NICs are for external network The machine has a static address assigned to the internal network nic. This nic runs dhcp and dns forwarding. The other 3 nics have external dynamic IP addresses. All will have the same gateway. There are 3 NICs because this is a very large pipe, that will only allocate a

Hi all, I'm observing an issue that as soon as libvirt starts, UPD broadcasts going through physical network (and unrelated to any virtualization) get broken. Specifically, windows neighbourhood browsing through samba's nmbd starts suffering badly (Samba is running on this same box). At the moment I'm running a quite outdated version 1.2.9 of libvirt, but other than this issue,

Hello guys I don''t know if this thing has been posted before (if it was , please forgive me). I have 7 computers at home and I want 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

Hello all, I’m currently trying to figure out how to forward ports to guests that are on a NAT Network. I have followed the directions on https://wiki.libvirt.org/page/Networking under the “Forwarding Incoming Connections” Section and get connection refused when attempting to connect. System: Ubuntu Server 18.04.1 Virsh / LibVirtd Version: 4.0.0 Here’s the contents of /etc/libvirt/hooks/qemu  

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 same node, but

Hi everyone! I have a little problem here. First let explain my network topology I have a 192.168.0.0/24 network, with win98 workstations, a NT serving domain and another NT as a WINS server. 192.168.0.3 - NT / WINS 192.168.0.6 - NT / DOMAIN 192.168.0.1 - Internet gateway 192.168.0.2 - Wireless AP 200 that connects to a linux gw ==--==-=-=-==-= AIR :) -- --- == --==--=-- =-=- 192.168.0.4 -

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 "virsh net-destroy" for all

On 6/28/19 10:23 AM, Nikolai Zhubr wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm observing an issue that as soon as libvirt starts, UPD broadcasts > going through physical network (and unrelated to any virtualization) get > broken. Specifically, windows neighbourhood browsing through samba's > nmbd starts suffering badly (Samba is running on this same box). > > At the moment

...It seems, my system (any variations of the listed components above) cant jump to MASQUERADE target. Is there a known solution, workaround etc. related to the problem? Is it a frequent symptom? Or I misconfigured something...? Have a nice day: Balázs NÉMETH, Hungary, Budapest + echo ''Masqueraded Networks and Hosts:'' + save_progress_message ''Restoring Masquerading/SNAT...'' + echo + echo ''progress_message "Restoring Masquerading/SNAT..."'' + echo + read fullinterface networks addresses proto ports ipsec + expandv fullinterface networks ad...

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

Package: xen-utils-common Version: 3.0.3-0-2 Severity: normal I'm not an expert in networking but I think that the current setup when using network-nat for domains is insecure. I've configured : (network-script 'network-nat netdev=eth1') (vif-script vif-nat) So when only domain 0 is started, I get the following : # iptables -L -n Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot

...E was not updated at that time: # tcpdump -i eth1 IP 192.168.2.254 > 195.60.x.x: ICMP echo request, id 10677, seq 242, length 64 (request from .5.147 with wrong source address due to MASQUERADE not updated according to the routing cache purge - hence, no reply, since the source address of the MASQUERADEd packet is wrong) IP 192.168.1.254 > 195.60.x.x: ICMP echo request, id 37387, seq 244, length 64 (request from .5.137) IP 195.60.x.x > 192.168.1.254: ICMP echo reply, id 37387, seq 244, length 64 Here is my MASQUERADE setting # iptables -L -t nat Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 752K pac...

Hello all, I have an asterisk sip/iax peer behind a linux gateway doing nat. I''m using pppoe with a dynamic ip that changes frequently. The problem is when the line drops the sip/iax registrations drop as well, and they don''t register thereafter. When I check the conntrack entries, I noticed the entries still have the old wan ip address and because of keepalive (i''m

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

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

Hello, Since I could not figure out my previous problem, let me ask in a different way. I have 3 networks inside my LAN. They are 172.16.55.0/24 , 172.16.56.0/24 and 172.16.57.0/24 respectively. They all use eth0 as an alias. I also have 2 uplinks to different ISPs. One of them is leased line 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

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.