similar to: ip route config question, forcing src address

I''m setting up a reverse-proxy on a limited-bandwidth pipe. The system is Debian "etch" on Linux 2.6, using squid as the proxy. As we''ve only got 5mbit to play with, what I''d really like to do is set up priority levels based on the Content-Type of the (outgoing) response: 1. text/* gets highest priority (along with application/x-javascript). 2.

Hi, I have a box running with iptables and iproute2. it has 3 ethernet cards. One for the internet. another for LAN and yet another for DMZ. @ DMZ ZONE I have 3 web servers. But I have only one real ip on my firewall. Now , I want to forward port 80 to theese 3 web servers. How can I do it? I searched a lot from google. But, still no luck. -- Thank you Indunil Jayasooriya

Hello everybody. I''m running linux 2.6.19 with nth match to alternatively snat outgoing connections to two different ip addresses for load balancing between two adsl lines: Here is: $IPTABLES -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s my_ip --protocol tcp -m multiport --dports 80,443 -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 -j SNAT --to adslA $IPTABLES -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s my_ip --protocol tcp -m multiport

Hello all, I have a small ISP and I work all my clients networks over a routed network (now I am using 201.35.16.0/24 and 200.140.222.128/25 for my clients). The gateway server of the ISP is capable of running a web-cache (only http) using squid but I dont want that my clients go to the internet with the proxy/cache IP. Like when they enter in this site www.meuip.com.br it shows

yes, I have these in C host file: Subnet=10.10.0.0/24 Subnet=0.0.0.0/1 Subnet=128.0.0.0/1 ## not metioned, because I think is maybe works in same as 0.0.0.0/1 B host file doesn't have 0.0.0.0/1 and 128.0.0.0/1 I only added one route to 5.6.7.8 via B, not via C On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Maxim Vorontsov <6012030 at gmail.com> wrote: > hi. > > Are you add only

Helmut Drodofsky wrote: > Hello, > > there is one route missing: > > 128.0.0.0/1. > Did you mean 127.0.0.0? mark > config client: > route-nopull > redirect-gateway def1 bypass-dhcp > > best regards > Helmut > > Viele Gr??e > Helmut Drodofsky > > Internet XS Service GmbH > He?br?hlstra?e 15 > 70565 Stuttgart > > Gesch?ftsf?hrung

Hey Marek, I´know that i must to works whith the INGRESS (instead of EGRESS), i´ve well formed my kernel. My others TC rules for source IP address (not for MAC address) does work fine...!!!, the problem is whith the MAC because is a not "IP PROTOCOL" and for that i must to use the "u32/u16 match" to solve it, and if i make an analogy from my others INGRESS rules applied to Src

hi all, We are using squid 25s1 with kernel 2.4.19 and iproute2(+julian''s Pathes) with the following acl.. acl short_path dst 128.0.0.0/8 tcp_outgoing_address myIp2nd short_path we are linked to 2 isp--one having satelite & the other OFC. We want the above mentioned network to go thru OFC(ispB) as the sibling resides there. But when i use squidclient mgr:server_list

my network: local pc(192.168.1.2)-->openwrt_adsl_router A( 192.168.1.1/24&11.22.33.44pppoe&10.10.10.1/24 tinc)<---remote B: 10.10.20.1/24 ^ | remote C:10.10.0.1/24 all running tinc 1.0.x, ADSL router

hi. Are you add only 0.0.0.0/1 as route, not 128.0.0.0/1 too? Did you tried to add route to 5.6.7.8 via C with lesser metric then via B? If you have to add static routes only on a few servers, you can add them to the $HOST-up scripts. On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Zhang Jun <gb2313 at gmail.com> wrote: > my network: > > local pc(192.168.1.2)-->openwrt_adsl_router A(

Trying to understand "redirect-gateway" option Is this url info correct for the current Tinc 1.0.35 version? .../tinc-vpn.org/examples/redirect-gateway What is the script? /etc/tinc/myvpn/hosts/server-up Is it really a extra bit to be added to,/etc/tinc/myvpn/tinc-up If I read and apply the instructions to my routed setup, then all I need to add isip route add 0.0.0.0/1 dev $INTERFACE

Hi, Guus I did some test regarding the points you mentioned below, and yes, you’re right, but some of points may need further adjusted: 1. The destination of IPv4 wouldn’t be changed, Yes I agree, that’s the goal and final destination for the communication. But during the path, it may be encapsulated into another packet(tunnel mode), where the outside IP header is the physical address, but the

Hi Guus, Am Freitag, den 25.09.2015, 17:04 +0200 schrieb Guus Sliepen: > Ok, that means by default the UDP NAT timeout on the Cisco is extremely > short. > > > I check the manual of the the Cisco NAT for any TCP/UDP > > timeout settings, but there is no way to modify anything like "keeps > > TCP/UDP connections alive". > > It wouldn't be called

Changes since Beta 1: Problems Corrected: 1. Corrected a problem in Beta 1 where DNS names containing a "-" were mis-handled when they appeared in the DEST column of a rule. New Features: 1. The limit of 256 addresses for an address range has been removed. Shorewall now decomposes the range into an optimal set of network/host addresses (see also the

Am Freitag, den 25.09.2015, 22:45 +0200 schrieb Marcus Schopen: > Hi Guus, > > Am Freitag, den 25.09.2015, 17:46 +0200 schrieb Marcus Schopen: > > Hmmm ... I've tried "LocalDiscovery = yes" > > in /etc/tinc/mytunnel/tinc.conf already, but that didn't help. Config on > > client A is: > > > > --------------- > > Name = clienta >

This looks like a very cool feature addition to RELENG_7! Are there any performance penalties that you know of with this built in ? ---Mike At 09:13 PM 7/23/2008, Julian Elischer wrote: >julian 2008-07-24 01:13:22 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_7) > contrib/pf/pfctl parse.y > lib/libc/sys

Hi Tinc Mailing Group, I've got Tinc-1.0pre3 set up on two Redhat Linux 6.2 / kernel 2.2.18 servers. It compiles okay, it reads the configuration files okay, it makes a valid connection between the two tincd daemons. However, it does not route data from one subnet to the other subnet. I will describe my setup below, and if anyone can suggest why it is not working, can they please reply to put

Marcel Moolenaar wrote am 17.03.2008 17:28 (localtime): > > On Mar 17, 2008, at 3:33 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> phk 2008-03-17 10:33:23 UTC >> >> FreeBSD src repository >> >> Modified files: >> sys/sys ata.h >> sbin/atacontrol atacontrol.8 atacontrol.c >> sys/dev/ata ata-all.c ata-all.h

Processing commands for control at bugs.debian.org: > # reassigning all open bugs reported against versioned xen packages that are no longer in the archive to src:xen > reassign 399073 src:xen 3.0.3-0-2 Bug #399073 [xen-hypervisor-3.0.3-1-i386] xen-hypervisor-3.0.3-1-i386: dom0 crashes with a domU that define more than 6 vdb Warning: Unknown package 'xen-hypervisor-3.0.3-1-i386' Bug

Am 24.04.2006 um 23:17 schrieb Colin Percival: > cperciva 2006-04-24 21:17:02 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/amd64/amd64 mp_machdep.c > sys/i386/i386 mp_machdep.c > Log: > Adjust dangerous-shared-cache-detection logic from "all shared data > caches are dangerous" to "a shared L1 data cache is