similar to: Dual Gateways, Dual IPs on the same net

I have read the thread at http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2006q1/018287.html and still don''t know how to fix this problem. It appears alot of work has gone into it but the HOWTO is so out of date it doesn''t even begin to addresses this method. So here are my questions 1. what is the current state of these patches? are they in a specific version? do i have to patch myself?

Good morning, I''m writing to ask for collaboration in finding an improvement to a particular process. Today: To get traffic for our IDS sensors and a billing system, we collect everything at our core switches (2) by connecting a SPAN port from each switch to a server (so, 2 interfaces collecting traffic). That server changes the destination MAC address on all traffic to that of

Can anyone please help, I can't tell why it will not connect. I do not know how to read this debug file to were it is wrong. Thanks Sip read: REGISTER sip:192.168.1.101 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.100:9082 From: <sip:2203@192.168.1.101>;tag=97442d5b-75b7-4e23-9021-b8605797eb56 To: <sip:2203@192.168.1.101> Call-ID: ea352d6f-a879-4db6-a361-365487a20d4a@192.168.1.100 CSeq: 1

Hi All, Please for some advice. I have Linux router that do traffic control with HTB , routing and traffic counting. currently machine is with P4 2.2GHZ 1GB RAM. I plan to migrate to dual core CPU. I know well P4 dual core but is it anybody has experience with AMD64 dual core / or single core / for traffic control . I use Deban Linux for my router. Can I expect problems with HTB and iproute 2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm trying to run a QEMU VM on top of a FreeBSD 7.x server ... I've tried the exact same setup on my desktop, using 192.168.1.x and an fxp device, and it all works perfectly, but as soon as I do this on another machine on a public IP, I'm not getting any routing, I can't even ping it from the same machine ... My first thought was

Hi, Please suppose following config: Two external interfaces for two different providers On each of them configured NAT for specific IP addr. ie. 4: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc htb qlen 100 inet 1.1.1.30/30 brd 1.1.1.31 scope global eth2 6: eth4: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc htb qlen 100 inet 2.2.2.66/27 brd 2.2.2.95 scope global eth4 On eth2

I have three ethernet card and two of them connected to diffrent ISP and has diffrent gateways. And one ethernet card is connected to local lan. I have installed iptables and configured the firwall to work as nat gateway for the users. Now I want to route only mail traffic to the perticular ISP and which I am not able to do it. I have done iproute configuration what ever lartc said. But still I

Dear Lists, I have problem regarding multipath connection to internet behind NAT. I use 2.4.26 kernel in RH-9.0 with Julian Anastasov patch, and version iproute2-ss020116 (Fedora RPM package). Dual homing and dead gateway detection work fine as we expected, the problem is , everytime we hit site that have redirect page address (URL no absolute), it''s doesn''t reply. (ex:

Here is the firewall log indicating what ports are being used when I try and make an SMB connection: Time:Aug 30 03:08:32 Direction: Inbound In:eth0 Out: Port:34365 Source:192.168.1.100 Destination:192.168.1.101 Length:90 TOS:0x00 Protocol:UDP Service:Unknown Time:Aug 30 03:08:45 Direction: Inbound In:eth0 Out: Port:34368 Source:192.168.1.100 Destination:192.168.1.101 Length:90 TOS:0x00

Hi, I have a little problem to setup iproute in my network It looks like this: ---- ----- ------ R1 R2 R3 ---- ----- ------ | | | | | | ------------------------------- ETH1 ETH2 ETH3 ETH0 ETH4 -------------> DMZ ------------------------------ | |

Hi all I have two samba PDC installed according to these specifications: domain FOOBAR with pdc server name: BAR (ip 192.168.1.1) opensuse 11.1 samba-3.5.6-15.1 openldap2-2.4.12-5.6.1 smbldap-tools-0.9.5-25.1 A winxp called USUARIO1 joined to the FOOBAR domain (ip 192.168.1.100) domain LAPAZ with pdc server name: SERVERLPZ (ip 192.168.10.4) openSUSE 12.2 samba-3.6.7-48.12.1.i586

Hi all, My machine has got two network cards and both of them are connected to two different ISPs. I have added two ISPs to my default gateway with same metric. Let a.b.c.d be the IP of 1st network card and e.f.g.h be the ip of the second network card i.e., Card1 - IP=a.b.c.d, Gateway=gateway1.isp1.net Card2 - IP=e.f.g.h, Gateway=gateway2.isp2.net route add -net 0/0 gw

Sip read: REGISTER sip:192.168.1.101 SIP/2.0 Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.100:12250 From: <sip:1111@192.168.1.101>;tag=1e263406-3e84-45fb-a971-6f08bf684275 To: <sip:1111@192.168.1.101> Call-ID: 3aef9010-eda5-44b7-9515-fc34c97dbb21@192.168.1.100 CSeq: 1 REGISTER Contact: <sip:192.168.1.100:12250>;methods="INVITE, MESSAGE, INFO, SUBSCRIBE, OPTIONS, BYE, CANCEL, NOTIFY, ACK"

Hello: I have a machine running CentOS 5.2 I added two IP addresses to eth0 by copying /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 to /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0:0 /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0:1 and changing the relevant IP info. I am now seeing outbound connections failing at my firewall from services like NTP, etc. since they are now using a source address from one

I administer a nano-setup on a dorm-network with a couple of hundred active users. The setup uses 2 x 2 2Mb/s DSLs, meaning two DSLs from each of two different ISPs. It works fine except for some minor glitches: https-sites often kicks users. This was solved by tying outbound https to a single DSL. Not the best solution but it works so far that users dont kicked from the sites anymore. Now

Hi folks, I'm trying to access a share on a RedHat 9 server from a Fedora Core 1 workstation. Here is the environment (pretty vanilla), the error I'm getting, and what I've done to try hunt down the problem. Server, 192.168.1.100, has a share of /home/users/herman Workstation, 192.168.1.101, has a mount point of /home/herman/serverdata smb.conf on server has [global] hosts deny =

Cameron Zwarich wrote: > What benefit do you get from having a backend here rather than an interpreter for LLVM IR? The same thing as an interpreter, just a native build (no need for an interpreter program, better speed, etc). This would be beneficial anywhere that "build once, deploy anywhere" functionality is desired, without resorting to using a higher-level language like C# or

Am 01.06.2011 04:57, schrieb Cameron Zwarich: > What benefit do you get from having a backend here rather than an interpreter for LLVM IR? A backend that's self-sufficient and covers the entire Unixoid world. That cuts down on the number of binaries that one needs to provide for autoinstallers and such. Generated Perl could be used to bootstrap an LLVM IR interpreter, for example.

I currently have a single PRI however we are getting a second PRI, and the provider (qwest) wants to know if our PBX supports GSAS (they say its a redundant d-channel technology but searching on google for GSAS reveals less than nothing). I've set something similar up before on a cisco 5350, where if one of the PRIs fails, all of the calls destined for either PRI will be routed down the one