similar to: [Bridge] Multilink + bridge + nat problem

Hi all! After that good thread "DGD patch not detecting dead gateway" I was able to set up a Load Balancing with ping based DGD (without Julian Anastasov patch). But now I''m facing a new problem and tried some options, with only partial solutions. I made a script based on http://www.mail-archive.com/lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl/msg16257.html (Thank you Manish Kathuria),

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)

I''m converting my network from a "one interface per segment" to a "single connection with vlans", well, some hardware I have requires using different vlan IDs. suffice it to say I need bridges to connect a few different vlans that should all be one but can''t be because of firmware constraints. so my first step is to get shorewall to know about bridges.

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

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

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

The situation is this: INTERNET -- ROUTER -- ETHERNET+WIFI -- PC's The conection between INTERNET and ROUTER is done with 2 LINKs with static IP's. The conection between ROUTER and PC's is done via ETHERNET lan with many bridges and ACCESSPOINTS. The PC's are in a IP subnet, the BRIDGES in another IP subnet, the AP's in another IP subnet. The ROUTER has 1 bridge interface

Opps! After reading the email below I noticed something in ''ifconfig''. The wireless interface is ''wlan0'' not ''wan0''. I modified the wireless interface in /etc/shorewall/interface to wlan0 started shorewall I can connect eo the INTERNET with shorewall running Horace From: Horace Franklin Jr

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

I think we discussed this in the past and I floated a hack at the time, but I don''t recall any real resolution. I want to see if time has solved my problem or if it still exists. My scenario is that I have two ISPs, one of which uses DHCP. Because I have two ISPs, history has shown that allowing the provisioning script for the interface to plumb a default route is troublesome and

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:

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 we see the same with debian Wheezy. Apr 16 16:02:25 hypervisor3 kernel: [2441115.664216] vif vif-17-0: vif17.0: Frag is bigger than frame. Apr 16 16:02:25 hypervisor3 kernel: [2441115.664267] vif vif-17-0: vif17.0: fatal error; disabling device Apr 16 16:02:25 hypervisor3 kernel: [2441115.675667] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000000000008b8 Apr 16 16:02:25

Hi all :) I''m new to this list, as I''m new too to traffic shaping ;) I''ve set up an FTP server in my ADSL line and I wanted it to serve as fast as possible as long as I don''t use my outgoing ADSL bandwidth, and I''m currently using HTB for that (succesfully, I must add). The problem is (when the FTP server is serving higher than its

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello All, I have had a problem detecting the network card on my notebook when ACPI is enabled for a year. The problem still exists in 7.1-RELEASE. with ACPI: ... bge0: <Broadcom NetLink Gigabit Ethernet Controller, ASIC rev. 0xb002> irq 17 at device 0.0 on pci8 bge0: 0x10000 bytes of rid 0x10 res 3 failed (0, 0xffffffff). bge0: couldn't

I am working on a split route and ShoreWall system. I reviewed the lartc documentation but have a few areas that I still need help on. Here is my network: 64.xxx.xxx.1/25 66.xxx.xxx.129/26 | | ################################################# # Eth2 64.xxx.xxx.2 eth0 66.xxx.xxx.130 # #

Hi, I''m having a problem with filtering marked packet with tc. I''m trying to run this: /sbin/tc filter add dev imq0 parent 1:0 protocol ip prio 8 handle 0x7/0x000f fw classid 1:8 But the response is: Illegal "handle" Typing the handle without masked mark is working, but I have a configuration were I need 2 mark types and I''m using masks: Multiple

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98240 Bug ID: 98240 Summary: Kernel module fails to load on HP Pavilion V3A33AV laptop. Product: xorg Version: unspecified Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component:

Q: Is there a way to do a reboot (either warm or cold) from a com32 program? I have a com32 program that sometimes (based upon conditions) needs to reboot the system. I would prefer to do a warm reboot (40:72 = 0x1234), but at this point cold would be OK too. grepping through syslinux-3.51 I only found one reference, in iso/pxelinux.asm at the tail end of 'kaboom' ... but presumably