similar to: No subject

I am managing two Xen containers which are exhibiting a spooky behavior. There are intermittent network failures that affect only the VM''s, and not dom0. This exhibits itself as problems with nfs locks, snmp, and even icmp ping. The arp tables look normal on both the dom0 and the guest. However, it is definitely arp related. Causing arp traffic of any sort results the problem curing

Hi Lars, I have no experience to use tcpdump, here is the output from TCPdump for your reference. Any idea? Use my home PC to ping company PC 01:00:25.154706 ethertype IPv4, IP 192.168.1.2 > 10.0.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 1, seq 17, length 40 01:00:25.154706 IP 192.168.1.2 > 10.0.0.2: ICMP echo request, id 1, seq 17, length 40 01:00:25.154706 IP 192.168.1.2 > 10.0.0.2: ICMP echo

Hi Eric, Am Sun, 14 Feb 2016 01:26:22 +0800 schrieb Eric Yau <ericyaukhy at hotmail.com>: > I have no experience to use tcpdump, here is the output from TCPdump for > your reference. Any idea? A good start for understanding tcpdump is to imagine beforehand which packets you do expect (request, response with source and target addresses). > Use my home PC to ping company PC >

Hi, I got a problem similar to this one (http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/2005q4/017614.html), GRE tunnel can forward normal IP packets such as ICMP but failed to tunnel multicast traffics. Here''s the setup: 192.168.20.0/24 LAN-A--------------RtrA-------------RtrB--------------LAN-B 192.168.50.0/24 192.168.60.0/24 RtrA

Hi Lars, Once I modify the firewall FORWARD rule to ACCEPT. I can ping and access my company PC at home. All traffic can pass through that. But I think it is not a good practice to change the FORWARD rule to ACCEPT. Any idea to check and just allow the tinc VPN traffic only? Instead of allow everything pass through the FORWARD rule. Regards, Eric -----Original Message----- From: Lars Kruse

We have a SLES11 system with XEN 3.3 and configured an internal bridge "intbr1" with interfaces "vif2.1" and "vif9.1" to two Linux-guests: # ifconfig (reduced output) intbr1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr FE:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:169 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:85 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:52 PM, Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> wrote: > > Are you sure B is correctly configured to forward packets at the layer > 3 level between the interface of the "router" tinc and the interface > of the "switch" tinc? (iptables, etc.) > No, I am not sure about this and I think this is what I don?t understand properly

Turns out I needed to masquerade the traffic coming into that INSIDE node. Since I use UFW to manage IPtables, adding this to my /etc/ufw/before.rules and restarting UFW fixed it for me: " -A POSTROUTING -s 10.9.0.0/24 -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE" Very Respectfully, Kismet-Gerald Agbasi IT/Systems Administrator Central Truck Center, Inc. Office: 240-487-3315 Toll Free: 1-800-492-0709

Le mar. 15 janv. 2019 à 03:13, Lars Kruse <lists at sumpfralle.de> a écrit : > Hello Julien, > > > Am Mon, 14 Jan 2019 22:15:47 +0100 > schrieb Julien dupont <marcelvierzon at gmail.com>: > > > > ** Test 1 ** > > On VPN_office I use 'tcpdump -npi any icmp and host 192.168.1.3' > > When pinging 192.168.1.1 from client 1, with no success, I

ip_forward was not enabled, now it is. Still same result: On VPN_office I use 'tcpdump -npi any icmp and host 192.168.1.1' and ping 192.168.1.1 from the client: 5:28:42.646203 IP 172.16.0.3 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 1584, seq 1, length 64 15:28:43.663014 IP 172.16.0.3 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 1584, seq 2, length 64 15:28:44.688133 IP 172.16.0.3 >

Hi I am having a weird problem which I cant figure out - so I was hoping someone here could give me a hand. First off the end goal is that a specific server in my network runs an IPSEC connection to another company and I want all other servers to route traffic for the IP on that network through this single server. Server 1 in this example is the server that runs the IPSEC connection. (CentOS

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=479 Summary: tunnel0 and br0 Product: iptables Version: 1.2.11 Platform: i386 OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: iptables AssignedTo: laforge@netfilter.org ReportedBy: tom@tomdeb.org I have a ipsec

Hi Lars Thank you for reply. My apologies it is running in "*TAP*" mode. root at tinc-srv:~# tincd -n netname -D -d3 tincd 1.0.23 (Dec 5 2013 17:16:47) starting, debug level 3 /dev/net/tun is a Linux tun/tap device (tap mode) I have enabled ip forwarding and it seems that bridging rules is enabled root at tinc-srv02:~# cat /proc/sys/net/bridge/bridge-nf-call-iptables 1 root at

Hello, I have been reading through the documentation and trying to set up a very small VPN as a test for a larger rollout that I would like to complete in the future but cannot get this working. The configuration seems like it should be relatively simple, so I'm most likely missing something basic but I just cannot see what I'm doing wrong. At the moment I am trying to get this working

Peter, I think I agree with your answers to my comments. But it is so difficult to track the questions and answers when written! I've created a network diagram of my setup, and it may help!I'll attached the PDF to this email, but it might get stripped. If so, do email me directly. John   1. Problem with connecting another subnet (jradxl at yahoo.com)   2. Re: Problem with connecting

Hello everybody. I could not find an answer to my problem in the archive. (But that may just be me :-) ) I have a problem with proxy arp and connection from loc (localnet) and from the firewall. Works fine from internet to dmz / proxy arp and vise versa. I have a feeling the solution is simple, but I''m no guru in Linux routing etc. The problem seems to be the routing setup. loc -

Hello tinc mailing list! Nice to be accepted here :) So I've been using tinc for a while just for itself and now I would like to use it to route to another network. To be exact I have two tinc networks with a "central node" that is connected to both tincs: tiutl: 172.16.0.0/24 tiosp: 172.16.1.0/24 I'm doing that because I can then do fancy firewalling on that central node.

? ? ? Hi, all:? ? ? ? ? I'm playing with Gre Tunnel programming in centos 6. ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ? I wrote my program in these steps:? ? ? ? ? a, open /dev/net/tun ?device and ioctl with?TUNSETIFF, get fd to tun device, say "tun0"; ? ? ? ? b, create one socket and use it to set tun0's ?ip address, namyly?SIOCSIFADDR and?SIOCSIFDSTADDR; and then turn it up; ? ? ? ? c, create one raw

Hi all I have a problem splitting traffic behind 2 adsl. My situation: _________router2 | lan1 ------- fw ----------- router1 | lan2----------| lan1 use router1, lan2 router2. The linux default gw is set to router2, lan2 browse internet without any problem (icmp, tcp..). Lan1 is blocked. >From lan1 i can ping router1, and i''ve set

Hello, I have the following setup on linux 2.6.32... CentOS 6.x : ipsec tunnel eth0-10.255.3.254/25 - eth1-pub add1 <-> eth1-pub add2 - eth0-10.255.5.254/25 I am trying to SNAT remote private address 10.255.5.128/25 packets when they come out of the ipsec tunnel to make it appear like it was from local address 10.255.3.254. I am doing a source ping from the right side to a device on the