similar to: RTNETLINK answers: File exists when adding providers

For a same configuration in which the default policy is drop and only one connection is accepted in rules, continuous pinging to devices will stop squarely in 4.0.15 as soon as a very basic firewall is enabled whereas in 4.4.26.1, pinging will still continue after the firewall is enabled. All tests are done with proper reboot of the unit3 where the firewall is applied: unit1 <---> eth4

OS: Debian Lenny (kernel 2.6.26-2-686 Shorewall: 4.0.15 (installed from Debian repository) I have an FTP server behind Debian system I am using for a firewall and I am wanting to use Shorewall on it (the Debian firewall). Following the instructions for configuring FTP (at <http://www.shorewall.net/FTP.html>), I have the following rule in my /etc/shorewall/rules file: FTP(DNAT) net

Hi list, My network was assigned a private AS and my ISP(4) urged me to use BGP ! My Other 3 providers on my Shorewall BOX are typical aDSL lines while the 4th is an 1G optical uplink with 64 addresses. Currently I am in a balance, track mode in shorewall ISP setup.. After I installed - configured and started zebra + bgp my static routing tables got filled with about 850 static routes to

I am a Linux novice. I have set up a Linux Router that is running the 2.6.15-1.2054_FC5 kernel. I boot to an initial router state and then I experiment with various "tc" commands by executing them at the command prompt. I reboot often to restore the initial state. When I booted up the router today I got the following messages during the boot process: Bringing up interface eth0:

how can i get rid of that ?? i do del roots before scripting. -- *Dariusz ''tdi'' Dwornikowski | Gentoo | admin at pozman.pl | *[JID]:tdi@gentoo.pl|[gg]:2266034|[IRC]:#gentoo-pl@freenode | *[MAIL]:tdi@pozman.pl|[WWW]:www.tdi.pozman.pl | *Serwery,administracja,webapps - www.ProAdmin.com.pl | *Fingerprint:43E21CC46DAFD2F754E91547D59B39F56AAA4B5F

I am running Xen on Debian wheezy. I switched from routed networking to bridged networking. Now I can''t seem to get eth0 to come up. When the network script tries to bring it up, it gets an error: RTNETLINK answers: File exists Any tips? details below brian root@trout:/etc/xen# egrep -v ''#|^ *$'' xend-config.sxp (network-script network-bridge) (vif-script vif-bridge)

Greetings, I''m new to Shorewall but not to working with Iptables. Shorewall is the simplest firewall front end I have found thus far. I''m currently trying to build a Cfengine policy to maintain Shorewall configurations. My main problem at them moment is confirming that the running iptables rules match what Shorewall originally built. If I understand Shorewall correctly the

Hi List, I am new at this and trying to set up shorewall. I was using mnf-en to do it but it was using an old version of shorewall (shorewall-2.0.8-2mdk) and didn''t have the features I wanted. So I''ve installed shorewall-2.4.0-1mdk. Other bits of interest: iproute2-2.6.10-1mdk iptables-1.2.9-8mdk I''m trying to get the providers feature working. show capabilities:

Can someone tell me what concept I''m missing here. The setup is simple. I have two default routes after ifup operations. I use "ip route del" to remove one, but then decide to add it back. The attempt is refused. Why? # ip route ls 66.95.83.208/28 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 66.95.83.210 65.84.205.96/27 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 65.84.205.104

Hello all, I''m reading the nice documentation about shorewall with multi isp. And I wonder about squid (non transparent) and shorewall Can I use on same machine, squid with ldap ident, dansguardian, and shorewall with multi-isp (four or five) ? Perhaps there is a problem because squid mask source IP, shorewall can maintain and load balance sessions for the same source IP ? Thanks Fred

Hi, in shorewall version 3.4.8 used this rule to block access to Facebook through port 443 (https): /shorewall/rules: REJECT loc net:69.171.224.12, 69.171.224.0/19,69.63.176.0/20,66.220.144.0/20 tcp 443 What I did was block the public IP network segment to fitthrough https. Now I use this same rule in version 4.4 and I works already. Has anything changed in this

Hi, On this Fedora Core Devel (Raw Hide) system, if I boot on a distribution kernel (based on 2.6.12rc1-bk2) the network is fine. If I build a custom 2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.43-06 or 2.6.12-rc1-mm4 kernel the network interface fails to initialise on boot with RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument. What can possibly cause this ? My kernel config should be mostly fine - I used it extensively at a time and

Hi All, We are running a 2.4.20 kernel, with the htb modules loaded, and are receiving the RTNETLINK error when trying to filter on handles. We also have the latest tc downloaded from htb site, and verified it is the executable being executed. We have tracked it to the {handle 1 fw} portion. Hardware is 4501 Soekris and WISP-Dist latest, patched with latest tc. Any ideas on what would cause

I am currently using Fedora 16 with the distribution provided shorewall-*-4.4.23.3-6.fc16 packages. shorewall-init seems to be missing a critical file. /lib/systemd/system/shorewall-init.service attempts to call /sbin/shorewall-init, but, /sbin/shorewall-init does not exist. I thought maybe it was a packaging error, so, downloaded the original source, (i.e., shorewall-init-4.4.23.3.tar.bz2), still

Hi everybody, I''m not so glad because of the error I describe in the subject. I have two internet lines and I want to do equal cost loadbalancing on the two uplinks to the internet. This is what I do: ip route add 200.200.200.0/24 dev eth2 table 200 ip route add default via 200.200.200.254 dev eth2 table 200 ip route add 100.100.100.0/24 dev eth1 table 100 ip route add default via

Hi, I''ve been trying out the wondershaper script, but on several of the examples I keep getting the error message:- RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument On the following line:- tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src \ 0.0.0.0/0 police rate 512kbit burst 10k drop flowid :1 Based on other posts to this mail list, I gather it is an issue with kernel

Hi All, concerning the problem when running the "ip ru ls" command. I faced with the same problem, and I solved it by making sure to include the following settings into the kernel configuration (2.4.18): CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER=y <=== CONFIG_IP_MULTIPLE_TABLES=y <=== CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_NAT=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_TOS=y

I''m using htb classes on my firewall to queue traffic and implement different restrictions on different protocols. tc qdisc del dev eth0 root tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb default 190 tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:3 htb rate 2mbit burst 30k tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:90 htb rate 50kbit ceil 384kbit burst 5k tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:90 handle

Hi all, I have installed 2.4.5 kernel, Debian Potato. my tc script: #!/bin/bash tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 20: cbq bandwidth 10Mbit avpkt 1000 echo root tc class add dev eth1 parent 20:0 classid 20:1 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit rate \ 10Mbit allot 1514 weight 1Mbit prio 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000 echo class tc class add dev eth1 parent 20:1 classid 20:100 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit rate \ 5Mbit allot

hi Tom I have use Shorewall version 3.4.8 what it would be for me in this rules? > As I can have more than two MAC addresses to apply a rule > in shorewall, I have the following to block port 443: > > > REJECT loc:~00-11-22-33-44-55 net tcp 443 > > > I try this > > > REJECT loc:~00-11-22-33-44-55,~AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF net tcp 443 That