similar to: Simple Traffic Shaping Problem

Hi! I have 2 DC, now add one more DC, but all dcs dont view between they. New DC is "DC2" DC1 - vlan10 -> OK to DC3(Connectad by openvpn) DC1 -> vlan10 -> OK to DC2(vlan50) DC2-> vlan50 -> OK to DC1(vlan10) DC2-> Openvpn -> Dont "see" DC3 DC3 -> Openvpn -> OK to DC1(vlan10) DC3 -> Openvpn -> Dont "view" DC2(vlan50) All version

Hi! Thanks for answer. But, i allowed all ports in my firewall... I tested, shutdown  my DC1 DC2 dont comunication with DC3 I create user in DC2, dont replication with DC3... I waited more in 20 minutes Why ?? Regards; On 17-05-2018 12:01, lingpanda101 wrote: > On 5/17/2018 10:30 AM, Carlos via samba wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I have 2 DC, now add one more DC, but all dcs

Hi all, I've just recently replaced my old firewall with a new one, running CentOS 5.. Yesterday, I decided to get MRTG up and running again, so I entered sections like this into the mrtg.conf file: Title[vlan10]: Bandwidth usage on tenchi.4th-age.com (Internet) PageTop[vlan10]: <H1>Traffic stats on VLAN 10 (Internet)</H1> Target[vlan10]: `ifconfig vlan10 | /usr/bin/awk

hi i've setup the following on debian etch with bridge-utils 1.4 (backported) and kernel 2.6.26 from backports.org: vlan10 with raw device eth0 vlan20 with raw device eth0 br10 with initial port vlan10 br20 with initial port vlan20 i've set hw addr to DE:AD:BE:EF:34:10 for br10 and DE:AD:BE:EF:34:20 for br20 the bridges are used to connect virtual machine nic's. "brctl

Hi! In Option "Inter-Site Transports", i have only  one the name "DEFAULTIPSITELINK" , in properties Sites in this link: Matriz Filial Matriz -> site with DC1 and DC2 Filail ->  site With DC3 Regards; On 17-05-2018 13:12, lingpanda101 wrote: > On 5/17/2018 12:07 PM, Carlos wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Thanks for answer. >> >> But, i allowed

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Subscriber <ml-lists at agoris.net.ua> wrote: > Hello FrancisM, > > Thursday, April 7, 2016, 8:03:38 AM, you wrote: > > > > I tried last night and it seems like the vlans that I created is failing > to > > bring-up. So this is what Im doing > > > in my DATA trunk port at my HomeLab Im doing this > > > 2 port

On 5/17/2018 3:58 PM, Carlos wrote: > > Hi! > > In "NTDS settings" created new connection for: > > DC2 ->DC3 > > DC3 -> DC2 > > All OK, > > I tested with option > > kccsrv:samba_kcc=No > > is ok too. > > But in my DC2, a received one erro: > > May 17 16:54:44 dc2 samba[10421]: [2018/05/17 16:54:44.543336,  0] >

Hello, I''m trying to setup an 8 port wan configuration (pptp+pppoe) with one vlan trunk. My internal networks are : LAN(eth9): 10.0.0.0/16 VLAN10(eth9) 10.10.0.0/24 VLAN20(eth9) 10.20.0.0/24 VLAN30(eth9) 10.30.0.0/24 VLAN100(eth9) 10.100.0.0/24 I would like to post my configuration here since i don''t success to do the following: 1. Communicate between VLANxx to LAN

With outbound QoS setting in Libvirt XML, libvirt will add a tc ingress qdisc for traffic shaping. Then if you set VLAN tag to that tap device, this qdisc will automatically gone by no reason. Could anyone shed some lights where should I look into? I'm really confused and got no clue here. Thanks! Steps to reproduce -- # virsh start instance-name # virsh dumpxml instance-name ...

Hello all, I need a virtual firewall/router solution. I''m thinking of a netscreen 1000 but I want to know if it can be done in Linux. Here is my idea: 1 Linux box 2 GigE interfaces 1 interface setup with a public IP address ($PUBIP) 1 interface setup with 802.1q VLAN trunking with 100 vlans assigned ($VLAN1-$VLAN100) a /25 subnet routed to $PUBIP from my core routers All $VLAN

Hello, I''m receiving this error while restarting/starting Shorewall : Processing /etc/shorewall/init ... WARNING: default route ignored on interface vlan20 WARNING: default route ignored on interface vlan10 WARNING: default route ignored on interface vlan30 WARNING: default route ignored on interface vlan50 WARNING: default route ignored on interface vlan100 My route -n

Hello, From a user perspective, the simple (tcpri) and complex TC configs offers two rather distinct choices. A user can very well be OK with only using the simple way and that''s very fine. Then again, even in doing so, the more complex config options are available. What is the interplay between the two as far as having some parameters configured in both at the same time ? So far

Beta 2 is now available for testing. Problems Corrected since Beta 1: 1) References to the obsolete USE_ACTIONS option have been removed from the manpages. 2) NFLOG has been documented for some time as a valid ACTION in the rules files but support for that action was never implemented until this release. 3) The Checksum Target capability detection in the rules compiler was

Beta 2 is now available for testing. Problems Corrected since Beta 1: 1) References to the obsolete USE_ACTIONS option have been removed from the manpages. 2) NFLOG has been documented for some time as a valid ACTION in the rules files but support for that action was never implemented until this release. 3) The Checksum Target capability detection in the rules compiler was

Hello, Thanks for the great Shorewall which has replaced my hard to maintain home-made scripts. First, what works. Our local network is 10.48.X.X with multiple vlan, each on a dedicated interface. We use Shorewall 4.4.11 from Debian Squeeze. We have a 2 ISP: - isp1 : an optical fiber provider with 10 Mbps. - isp2 : a DSL provider with 15Mbits/1Mbits. We use isp2 as the default outgoing

hello I''m new here can I ask about how to do a patch dscp to shorewall installed from the package in ubuntu? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor your physical, virtual and cloud infrastructure from a single web console. Get in-depth insight into apps, servers, databases, vmware, SAP, cloud infrastructure, etc. Download 30-day Free Trial.

On Thursday, 7 April 2016, James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 April 2016 at 19:21, Subscriber <ml-lists at agoris.net.ua > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Hello James, > > > > Wednesday, April 6, 2016, 5:34:26 PM, you wrote: > > > > > Note that this is pretty much the last use case you cannot use > > >

Hey guys, I have a question regarding shorewall and vrf functionality. I have shorewall 3.4.8 and kernel 2.6.24-gentoo-r8 I have tried to use iproute2 (ip route and ip rule) to establish multiple routing tables. The biggest problem seems to be, that I cannot add interfaces such as vlan interfaces to the routing table. My target is that linux takes attention of on which vlan interface

After some digging in openvswitch code. My wild guess is that vlan tag reconfiguring triggered iface_configure_qos (vswitchd/bridge.c), which in turn called netdev_set_policing to reset ingress policing rate. Although there's no ingress_policing_rate set in my case, existing ingress qdisc still remove by default. Could some openvswitch guy help to confirm and suggest how to fix or workaround?

Hello FrancisM, Thursday, April 7, 2016, 8:03:38 AM, you wrote: > I tried last night and it seems like the vlans that I created is failing to > bring-up. So this is what Im doing > in my DATA trunk port at my HomeLab Im doing this > 2 port configured for teaming1 (set as link only port) -> Create Bridge > (br0 port) on top of the teaming1 -> create slave vlan10,20,30,40