similar to: problems setting up tinc.

I think it should work at least for TUN virtual interface as TUn works at IP level. This is a sample configuration. firewall1 lan = 172.16.1.11/19 (ALWAYS ACTIVE) - "Physical Network Interface" - system config as ifcfg-... 172.16.1.10/19 (VIP Keepalived Make active) - Active/Passive configuration with firewall2 firewall1 vpndr1

This is a vpn for Disater Recovery sites, so it is not necessary to have a seamless failover, strictly speaking. Encryption instead is mandatory. Testing we found that on Keepalived failover remote Tinc take few seconds to reset the connection and correctly re-connect to the new active firewall (probably new firewall resetting the connection + PingTimeout + some seconds to reconnect). This is

This is what I want to avoid :D I want an active Tinc virtual interface active with ip identical of the other firewall, without ip conflict on the same network. Do you know if Tun type virtual interface on one host can have same ip address of another host in the same network without ip conflict ? ie if a tun virtual interface can work active without transmitting on real network ? or if such a

Hi Saverio, I found conflict: 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:1b:ba:5e VMware, Inc. 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 2) 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 3) 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 4) 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 5) So my assumptions were wrong ! :D Probably Virtual

Hi there, I am trying to setup a configuration that requires me to use SIP and asterisk behind a firewall and over a VPN to a remote office and with some local Phones also. I can't use IAX to my provider because they don't offer it and my handsets ( snom 300 ) also don't support IAX so it's all SIP. The configuration is a follows Asterisk PBX 10.202.17.217/24 ------>|

Hi list, I try to install the following network: /-----------------\ | Firewall 1 | \-----------------/ ___________________| |_________________ | 10.2.6.1 10.2.2.1 | | eth1 | | 10.2.6.11

I have 2 firewall in HA with keepalived. Can I use active the same tinc configuration on 2 firewalls ? using tun Interface with same ip on all 2 nodes is a problem ? tun device advertise itself on the network having an IP/MAC pairs (ARP) or the IP is only used by the system internally for routing so using the same configuration is right ? so one firewall be active, the other is passive. With this

Samba version 3.0.9 on Red Hat 9.0 workstations: NT 4.0 SP6 When I took over this project, there were two domains connected by a VPN. For reasons that I'm unable to understand, some new users wound up with the intended domain of SATA and some wound up in SATB (even though they joined the SATA domain. Recently, all kinds of problems have materialized and the only thing I can find wrong is

I am trying to join an existing samba server but I get an error message that the DNS update failed. I have read that this doesn?t matter and the join is still successful. But the problem comes when I try to grant privileges to the unix admins. root at dna:/home/pi# net ads join -U administrator Enter administrator's password: Using short domain name -- DOMAIN Joined 'DNA' to dns

Hi, I have following setup: BT100 ---- Firewall/nat 1 (www.ipcop.org) ---- Internet ----Firewall/nat2 (Vigor) ---- Asterisk . I'd like to use BT100 as local extension to Asterisk. I've done simple setup and BT100 can call Asterisk and place outgoing calls. However I cannot set him to qualify, cause it is claimed as unreachable. I have port redirection at Firewall 1 (to 5060 and rtp

Check your FW-1 tracker and see if any sip packets are dropped during call initiation. I had this problem and it went away when I upgraded the BT's firmware to the latest (16). Beware, though, that people on the list claim that this firmware breaks functionality of the message button and autoanswer. I haven't checked this yet, cause I can't afford to go back a version. I prefer a

See below, basicly what now happend is. This one line : > 127.0.1.1 gaia.rompen.local gaia <<<< CHANGE THIS Is what is your problem. Read throught the settings, you need a few changes. Its mostly good. After the changes, reboot the AD-DC. Then after its rebooted and after the changes for the member, reboot that also. Then is should be ok. Greetz, Louis >

(Please forgive the cross posting; I know many SuSE users subscribe to both the Samba and SuSE-e discussion groups and will get this message twice.) I had always been frustrated trying to get SuSE's Firewall2 to play nicely with Samba and support seamless network browsing. After much experimentation and a lot of Googling, I was finally able to get this working. By "working",

The output is: getent group 'domain admins? Copying without understanding what it does is not smart I know. But sometimes you will understand it later. And atm I am using a test setup. Here are is all the info you need: Main AD: Collected config --- 2020-09-05-18:16 ----------- Hostname: gaia DNS Domain: rompen.local FQDN: gaia.rompen.local ipaddress: 192.168.88.2 -----------

On 10/10/2020 14:20, Philip Offermans wrote: > I have 2 samba servers. A domain controller, and a domain member. > > Domain controller(GAIA): > > /etc/hosts > 127.0.0.1 ? ? ? localhost > 192.168.88.2? ? gaia.rompen.lokaal gaia > ::1 ? ? ? ? ? ? localhost ip6-localhost ip6-loopback > ff02::1 ? ? ? ? ip6-allnodes > ff02::2 ? ? ? ? ip6-allrouters > > 127.0.1.1 ? ?

>> Are you sure the vmware NIC is configured as bridged, not NAT on the host side? Not really. Does it help if I say I'm using the same Network Adapter configuration with which another VM in same subnet works fine? I've added a screen shot if that helps, though I think it shows the guest config and not host which you questioned.PicPaste - Untitled3-cJQlcohB.png | ? | | ? | ? | ? | ?

As far as I can remember I only opened sip and tftp ports for the phone. For some reason (didn't look into it too much) the call stays with sip and doesn't use RTP. The problem you describe (the call doesn't even ring on the other side) is something I had and was solved by upgrading the firmware. Checkpoint's tracker explicitly said what connection attempts were blocked and why.

On 6 March 2015 at 02:15, Kashyap Bhatt <thekashyap1 at yahoo.co.in> wrote: > > > >> Are you sure the vmware NIC is configured as bridged, not NAT on the > host side? > Not really. Does it help if I say I'm using the same Network Adapter > configuration with which another VM in same subnet works fine? I've added a > screen shot if that helps, though I

--------------------------------------------------------------------- Red Hat, Inc. Security Advisory Synopsis: Buffer overflow in mars_nwe Advisory ID: RHSA-1999:037-01 Issue date: 1999-09-13 Updated on: Keywords: mars_nwe buffer Cross references: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Topic: There are several buffer overruns in the mars_nwe

I've just posted this to another list where we were talking about the same old issues we've been plagues with recently - I'd already posted some iptables rules, but added more to it for this... This script probably isn't compatable with anything else, but I don't run anything else. It's also designed to act on the incoming interface, not to run in a router, but