similar to: Re: rfc1918

Hello Tom, Sorry, please but i again return to IFB question. If i correct understand in current situation IFB haven't profit from ESFQ in common cases (i mean internal networks masquarading) so as we wait from ESFQ allocates bandwidth fairly per source IP(internal) but IFB don't know internal IPs. If i correct, what do you think what can help IFB to solve its main disadvantage

Hello list. Yesterday i ask Corey Hickey (maintainer a patch for the original SFQ - http://fatooh.org/esfq-2.6/) about ESFQ perspectives and got your answer: > I do not intend to develop ESFQ any further, since I now maintain a > patch for the original SFQ. As for getting that merged into the kernel, > that will probably happen eventually, but I haven't had much time or >

I have a script (below) which attempts to make an index out of all the man pages on my system. It takes a while, mostly because it runs man over and over... but anyway, as time goes on the memory usage goes up and up and never down. Eventually, it runs out of ram and just starts thrashing up the swap space, pretty much grinding to a halt. The workaround would seem to be to index documents in

В модуле ngx_http_mp4_module была обнаружена проблема, которая позволяет с помощью специально созданного mp4-файла вызвать падение рабочего процесса (CVE-2024-7347). Проблеме подвержен nginx, если он собран с модулем ngx_http_mp4_module (по умолчанию не собирается) и директива mp4 используется в конфигурационном файле. При этом атака возможна только в случае, если атакующий имеет возможность

Hello Tom, On the page 'http://lwn.net/Articles/313328/' i found info about changes in 'cls_flow.c' in kernel-2.6.29: net/sched/cls_flow.c | 4 +- and may be now it will work properly to everyone's entertainment. Thank you, Alex --- Прогноз погоды ТУТ - http://pogoda.tut.by

hello, while starting shorewall4.5.20 on debian7 I get the following from touch touch: cannot touch `/var/lock/subsys/shorewall'': No such file or directory The needed file can not be created because the directory subsys is not present! If I creat the folder manuallly touch does not complain when shorewall start! Thus it would be nice if durring start shorewall could check if the

Typically (or at least somewhat occasionally) after a reboot of my shorewall[-lite] machine I find that I end up with conntrack table entries for unNATted connections such as: # conntrack -L -p udp --dport 5060 -d 99.232.11.14 udp 17 59 src=10.75.22.8 dst=99.232.11.14 sport=5060 dport=5060 packets=5472 bytes=3031488 [UNREPLIED] src=99.232.11.14 dst=10.75.22.8 sport=5060 dport=5060 packets=0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 To reflect recent allocations by the IANA, the following files are available: For Shorewall 2.0.0b and earlier: http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/errata/1.4.10/rfc1918 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/errata/1.4.10/rfc1918 For Shorewall 2.0.1 and later: http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/errata/2.0.10/bogons

Updated rfc1918 and bogons files are now available: rfc1918 for Shorewall 2.0.0 and earlier: http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/errata/1.4.10/rfc1918 bogons for Shorwall 2.0.1: http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/errata/2.0.1/bogons Thanks go to Thomas Backlund for pointing out that the file was out of date. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool

A new rfc1918 file that reflects the recent IANA allocation of 222/8 and 223/8 may be found at: http://www.shorwall.net/pub/shorewall/errata/1.3.14/rfc1918 ftp://ftp.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/errata/1.3.14/rfc1918 -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Shorewall - iptables made easy Shoreline, \ http://www.shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net

Is my RFC1918 file obsolete? I have been assigned an ip in the 83.0.0.0/8 range, and of cource a lot of Shorewall systems drop me with a RFC1918 error. So, is my ISP actually giving me a RFC1918 IP, or am I missing something? .

I don't know if this is the right place, but it is a place to start. I have two machines in a co-location facility. They are both on the same physical network segement and have real internet addresses and RFC1918 addresses. We get charged for traffic which goes across the "real" internet addresses which is part of the purpose for the RFC1918 network. The problem is connecting

Hi I''ve come accross a small problem with the rcf1918 address blocking on my internet interface. Im connected via a cable modem and it has an internel web server that allows me to configure/monitor it but as expected if I enable rfc1918 blocking for my eth0 interface(The internet one) it also blocks the cable modems web server. Is there any way it can add a rule before the rfc1918

In my peculiar setup I need my shorewall router to do one-to-one NAT with RFC1918 addresses. The "external" addresses are 10.215.0.0 and the internal addresses are 192.168.0.0. I can ping, vnc, http, smb from 10.215.144.48 to 10.215.145.237 which is 192.168.44.237 internally. >From 192.168.44.237 I can do http, rdp, ping to 10.215.0.0 hosts. So all seems fine except for the fact

I came across a problem when one of our clients was not able to access any of the servers on our network. This person has never connected to us before and now for this first time was trying to do it from his home is Houston, TX using earthlink cable service provided by Time Warner. All this information, I think, is important because when I started examining my shorewall logs I found out

I have several computers connected to the internet through a DSL router that assigns rfc1918 (192.168.1.x) addresses to the systems connected. I have a server where shorewall is installed with one interface eth0, with a static ip (192.168.1.3). The router is configured to forward all connections from the internet to the linux server. I''d like to know how I can configure shorewall to

Please, help me. Can i forbid and how any outgoing traffic (ping,trace) to rfc1918 networks on my external interfaces? Thank you very much. Aleksandr -------------------- Продукция AcmePower - это зарядные устройства, аккумуляторы формата АА и ААА, сетевые адаптеры, аккумуляторные батареи для фото и видеокамер, ноутбуков и PDA. Гарантия минского сервисного центра.

Hello all, I''m using shorewall on a linux machine that has two interfaces, eth0 being connected on the internal network (10.10.10.0/24) and eth1 being connected to the external network. On eth0 the IP is statically configured to 10.10.10.254 and there is a dhcp server running for the machines in the private network. On eth1, the IP is dynamically assigned by my ISP modem that acts as

On 10/12/2013 18:03, Jim Grosbach wrote: >> That causes dissonance between what the compiler sees and what lit.py >> sees for no particularly good reason. One of the nice properties of >> lit tests is that they're also valid compiler inputs, so trailing >> slash is a bit unfortunate. >> > > How does the backslash break this in any way? The backslash is

On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > > On 10/12/2013 18:03, Jim Grosbach wrote: >>> That causes dissonance between what the compiler sees and what lit.py sees for no particularly good reason. One of the nice properties of lit tests is that they're also valid compiler inputs, so trailing slash is a bit unfortunate. >>> >>