search for: masquerading

...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.  # # ...

...s host with primary ip address, with enp0s25 being a physical nic of this host, and it is used for all sorts of regular (unrelated to virtualization) communications. Also, br0 is used for attaching bridged (as opposed to NATed) VMs managed by libvirt. Clearly, libvirt somehow chooses to set up masquerading for literally all existing network interfaces here (except lo), but I can't see a real reason for the first two rules in the list above. Furthermore, they corrupt UDP broadcats coming from outside and reaching this host (through enp0s25/br0) such that source address gets replaced by this h...

...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 : ------------------------- #!/bin/sh ipt="/usr/sbin/iptables" $ip...

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  

...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 Gen...

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...

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 -

...0s25 being a physical nic of >> this host, and it is used for all sorts of regular (unrelated to >> virtualization) communications. Also, br0 is used for attaching >> bridged (as opposed to NATed) VMs managed by libvirt. >> >> Clearly, libvirt somehow chooses to set up masquerading for literally >> all existing network interfaces here (except lo), > > It's clear that the rules are there. It's not clear that they were added > by libvirt. > >> but I can't see a real reason for the first two rules in the list >> above. Furthermore, they...

...ddress, with enp0s25 being a physical nic of this > host, and it is used for all sorts of regular (unrelated to > virtualization) communications. Also, br0 is used for attaching bridged > (as opposed to NATed) VMs managed by libvirt. > > Clearly, libvirt somehow chooses to set up masquerading for literally > all existing network interfaces here (except lo), It's clear that the rules are there. It's not clear that they were added by libvirt. > but I can't see a real > reason for the first two rules in the list above. Furthermore, they > corrupt UDP broadcats...

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 here:...

...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 possib...

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 entry:...

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

...ng http://tldp.org/HOWTO/IP-Masquerade-HOWTO/firewall-examples.html : Common mistakes: It appears that a common mistake with new IP Masq users is to make the first command simply the following: IPTABLES: --------- iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE Do NOT make your default policy MASQUERADING. Otherwise, someone can manipulate their routing tables to tunnel straight back through your gateway, using it to masquerade their OWN identity! Maybe I'm wrong or there's another interaction, but I think that the masquerade should be started only when the first domU is tarted, and not wh...

...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 of output, since we have 3 more interfaces disabled) 2: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 link/ether 00:1a:92:9e:6...

...0.0.0.0/0 detect ppp1 0.0.0.0/0 detect ppp0 192.168.32.0/24 ppp1 192.168.32.0/24 #LAST LINE -- ADD YOUR ENTRIES ABOVE THIS LINE -- DO NOT REMOVE So, does the above mean I''m using both masquerading and SNAT currently? How can I use only masquerade ? Thank you for your time, -- Raghu Siddarth ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this...

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...

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 messages...

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.