similar to: weird fail with conversion to bridges?

Hello to everyone, Here is the situation: [LAN1]---[eth3]/----------\ | LinuxBR |[eth2]---[LAN0]---[linuxGW]---[internet] [LAN2]---[eth4]\----------/ Whole LAN is in subnet 10.0.0.0/24. So I need: LAN0, LAN1, LAN2 could not see each other. LAN0, LAN1, LAN2 is in same subnet (10.0.0.0/24). All LANs have to get only internet. How can I configure LinuxBR to do so?

IMHO, i believe that it would be more realistic to have one router providing load balancing/dead gateway to one/several subnet(s). otherwise, each server/user would have to do their own load balancing for each subnet! that, or you would need 3 routers, one for each subnet and a linux router doing the load balancing in the middle. with 3 routers, the load balancing configurations

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 09:07:53PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote: > Not true, it reveals that I forgot to put it in the patch, that's all. As > I cannot run several of these tests because of memory constraints I link > the file to a copy in a rw area where I modify the list and just run one > of the subtests at a time. If I try to run the whole it always fails > after a couple of

I need to change the host name on a test server, and in the past when I used hostname to change the hostname, it did not seem to change it everywhere. I really don't want to do a rebuild just yet, but I have to feel confident that hostname is really changed (reboot is not too much of an issue). What is the recommened practice? Other than get it right the first time.

Hello... Im trying to setup HTB to allow me to shape traffic from two upstreams that meets on single lan0 interface. I prefer to use HTB qdisc within HTB root qdisc for cleaner rules design. Seems that it doesnt work at all. tc -s class show doesnt show any traffic on other classes attached to HTB qdisc. Linux 2.6.20.7 iproute-2.6.20-070313 Weird thing is that tc -s class show that 1: and 2:

Hi, I have a suspicious problem with multiple uplinks configuration. First of all my configuration: 1) kernel 2.6.20.3 2) iptables 1.3.7 3) last iproute (for masked marks) All wan interfaces are bridged (stp disabled) in only one interface (wan0), all lan interfaces are bridged (stp enabled) in only one interface (zlan0). The wan0 bridge is to allow UPnP works. To allow related

I recompiled yet 2.6.19.1 kernel (using iptables with the same patches too). The configuration for this test is: 1) linux box with 2.6.19.1 kernel (SMP machine) with these patches/modules: a) l7-filter b) ipp2p c) connlimit d) set 2) 4 ethernet interfaces: a) 2 external (eth1 and eth3) interfaces with balanced links (as described in nato-howto) bridged as wan0

Hi, could anyone provides any example about the use of ip route command to force the use of one route using masks in the mark? The configuration is: 1 LAN (zlan0) iface N WAN (wan0 ... wanN) ifaces with static IPs and load balanced. iptables 1.3.7 kernel 2.6.19.2 iproute 2.6.19 I''m yet setting marks into packets for QoS and its working, I now want to set some bits (OR)

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 Samba experts, Please read all email because i'm desperate!!!!! I have problem on joining to LAN-s using Samba. Finally i got a solution to "see" booth workgroups on "Entire Network", but i'm having problem with stations located in LAN2. From any station located in LAN1, I can see LAN2 workgroup and the browse list with stations located in LAN2, but when

I'm having trouble figuring out how to make a bridge that does not block forwarding of packets when there is no receive channel in the same bridge. The reason I want to do this is that the return path is via another circuit. The two directions are on two different radios. I would think this would be like the response given to someone in July 2007 about setting a "hub" mode by

An very interesting test did yesterday that, LAN1 and LAN2 setup an tinc VPN which is quite simple(the physical link between tinc nodes are quite stable/fast), and no any application traffic to go through the tinc. Later, I setup smokeping which LAN1 initial 20 ping to LAN2 on a per-minute basis, but as you saw from the below picture, it had packet drop. But if I perform a constantly ping from

I have a question about samba and sticky bits. I have a share with the following configuration: [documents] comment = documents path = /shares/documents public = no writeable = yes printable = no valid users = @lan1 force user = docadmin force group = lan1 create mode = 0440 force create mode = 0440 directory mode = 1770 force directory mode = 1770 delete read only = no

Hi, We have a 256 kbits/s (kilobits per second) link to the internet. it is a router running Linux that belongs to our ISP. They have given us 8 internet ips. (i.e- subnet is 255.255.255.248). one has been given to this router. I have given another internet ip to the firewall running CentOS 4.5. iptables is running on it. And also, I have installed iproute2 pkg as well. pls see below for

Thanks for this answer. As I understood, for example if parameter bind interfaces only = yes is and interfaces = lan0 (192.168.0.254) is and if broadcast packet goes from 95.95.95.14 such packet will be dropped (in other words) ? Am I right ? And other thing. Why is 192.168.0.255 (network broadcast) opened for ? May be exact such address (network broadcast) is inbtended for receiving broadcasts

Hi, list members. I''ve been reading a lot about traffic control because at work we have the following configuration...... LINUX BOX _____ 100 mbit | | LAN1--------------|eth0 | | | 2 mbit SDSL | eth1|-------------------INTERNET 100 mbit | | LAN2--------------|eth2 | | | ------- The linux box (REDHAT 9-2.4.20-30.9) acts as a firewall-NAT solution for both

Hi all, I have a strange setup I am trying to get working. Initally I thought I could set it up by just setting up the correct routes. However after thinking about it I have convinced myself (maybe incorrectly) that I most likely need some sort of advanced NAT/routing setup. Below is a description of the networks involved: Local net (192.168.101.0/24) | | Linux machine eth1

Dear Friends, I have been using shorewall for some years. I want to set up "shorewall 2" router behind firewall, accordind to this picture: I have lost at setuping "zone"-s (wifi, lan1, net). Plese help me ! Thanks, psw net | | SHOREWALL 1 ------- lan 1 | | |wifi | | SHOREWALL 2 ------- lan 2 | ---------------- lan 3

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 22:27, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 09:07:53PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote: >> Not true, it reveals that I forgot to put it in the patch, that's all. As >> I cannot run several of these tests because of memory constraints I link >> the file to a copy in a rw area where I modify the list and just run one

On 9/23/20 7:07 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 04:33, Carlos Lopez <clopmz at outlook.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> >> With SystemD, how can I make certain service dependent on certain network >> interfaces being up? >> >> For example, I have an 802.1ad bond interface I need to wait on for being >> up (this