similar to: [Bug 680] Packets disappear after NAT on 2nd gateway

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680 --- Comment #6 from Richard Lucassen <rl-20100926 at xaq.nl> 2011-08-26 14:54:09 --- (In reply to comment #5) > I'm having exactly the same problem. Kernel is 2.6.34.7-56.fc13.x86_64. I > tested the solution (adding the route) and works. Anyhow, it's only usefull for > testing, as the IP address of the "external

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680 Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec at netfilter.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |kadlec at netfilter.org Resolution|

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-02-03 16:49 ------- We haven't seen this

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=727 Summary: Open your firewall by a simple typo Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P2 Component: iptables AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org ReportedBy:

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:02:09 +0100 richard lucassen via nsd-users <nsd-users at lists.nlnetlabs.nl> wrote: > The problem is (was) that I used "include:" statements in nsd.conf > to load zone information. Apparently nsd does not reread the include > files upon a SIGHUP. I scripted everything into 1 file and a HUP > rereads the zone info now. Wrong, I made a mistake it

I''am using the following script to aggregate the bandwidth of one quad gigabit ethernet controller (pci-express). #!/bin/bash sysctl -w net.ipv4.tcp_reordering = 30 ifconfig eth1 up ifconfig eth2 up ifconfig eth3 up ifconfig eth4 up modprobe sch_teql tc qdisc add dev eth1 root teql0 tc qdisc add dev eth2 root teql0 tc qdisc del dev eth3 root teql0 tc qdisc del dev eth4 root teql0 ip link

Hello, LARTC mailing readers, I hope u can help with this mysterious issue i''m having with my linux box acting as a router. Scenario: Linux running 2.6.8.1 /w julians patches Latest iproute (iproute2-ss040702) 4 NICS ----------------- | x eth0 (63.43.x.x) network mask (255.255.240.0) | | x eth1 (63.43.x.x)

Hello, LARTC mailing readers, I hope u can help with this mysterious issue i''m having with my linux box acting as a router. Scenario: Linux running 2.6.8.1 /w julians patches /w support for multipath routing Latest iproute (iproute2-ss040702) 4 NICS ----------------- | x eth0 (63.43.x.x) network mask (255.255.240.0) | |

Hi all, i have a xen 4.3 installation and would like to have a bridge bond szenario: *** eth0 eth1 | | bond0 | br0 | vif = [ ''bridge=br0,mac=xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx'' ] *** With the network script in debian wheezy *** /etc/network/interfaces auto bond0 iface bond0 inet manual slaves eth0 eth1

Hello all, My question: - - - - - - - Does anybody know when the reverse path filtering occurs as the packet traverses the kernel? Does it happen before NF_IP_PRE_ROUTING (PREROUTING) or not? Does it only happen at route selection time? What I have tried to do to find the answer: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I find a posting (from many years ago) [0], which suggests that this

Hi, I have three linux machines, and I want to let one of them forward packets betwen the other two. The forwarding node has two ethernet cards, connecting the two two machines respectively. However, when I ping between the two end points, the forwarding node can receive the ping requests at its eth0, but it never forwards them to its eth1. So is the reverse direction. The forwarding node is

First of all, thank you to all of you who have helped to make iptables possible, whether in writing the code for it or testing it. It is BETTER than sliced bread! :-) Anyways, I have two questions related to the use of iptables. 1. I read on a post somewhere that it is smart to put the following two rules at the end of one''s iptables ruleset: iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -i eth0 -j

Hi. I´m making an script for load balancing of two cablemodems internet connections toward my LAN. The problem is that when I try to ''equalize'' the the two internet connections with the weight=1 it doesn´t work. On the other hand, if I put 5 and 5 it works, but not at 100%, it does intermittlently, some times works and others don´t. example: ip route add default equalize\

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 04:40, Kenneth Porter <shiva at sewingwitch.com> wrote: > > <https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/new-linux-vulnerability-lets-attackers-hijack-vpn-connections/> > Thanks for the heads up > This affects all VPNs and is a consequence of using "loose" reverse path > filtering for anti-spoofing. The default CentOS setting is

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

here''s the setup (two dsl - same provider) +-----> link1 LAN----- linux box --| |----------internet +-----> link2 the setup is ok in terms of the failover requirement. the other link takes over when one is down. however, there is a very noticeable lag when both lines are up. i''ve tried changing

Hello! I had found a script to multipath DSL connections: http://linux.com.lb/beta/index.pl?node=Load%20Balancing%20Across%20Multiple%20Links I have made some modifications, but in second part of this mail are some errors: __________________________________________________________________ First the script: __________________________________________________________________ #!/bin/bash #

To begin with I have not applied and am not using the patches provided by Julian Anastasov. http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~julian/ I do not believe at the moment they apply to the problem I am having. If they are I will go through the process of applying the patch. They mostly have to due with what happens when a connection dies. At the moment both of my connections are live, and I am having

The situation is this: INTERNET -- ROUTER -- ETHERNET+WIFI -- PC's The conection between INTERNET and ROUTER is done with 2 LINKs with static IP's. The conection between ROUTER and PC's is done via ETHERNET lan with many bridges and ACCESSPOINTS. The PC's are in a IP subnet, the BRIDGES in another IP subnet, the AP's in another IP subnet. The ROUTER has 1 bridge interface

hi all, i saw this message today & am reporting it(as it says) [root@cab1 surfNet]# tail -f /var/log/messages Sep 1 04:02:03 cab1 syslogd 1.4.1: restart. Sep 1 09:35:27 cab1 kernel: HTB: mindelay=500, report it please ! [root@cab1 root]# iptables -V iptables v1.2.6a [root@cab1 root]# tc -V tc utility, iproute2-ss020116 [root@cab1 root]# uname -a Linux cab1 2.4.19-r #2 Sun Aug 25 01:49:24