similar to: netmask 255.255.255.255 vs ip route add via ... (bug?)

Hello people: I''m new in the forum. I''ve implemented the script for load balancing of "Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control HowTo" and I''ve a question: When I run the next command : "ip route" I get the folowing information: -------------- 192.168.0.32/27 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.33 192.168.0.96/27 dev eth2 proto

Hello all, Tomas Bonnedahl and I recently corresponded about a rather odd behaviour with routes in ancillary routing tables. We both receive a "Network is unreachable" error when we try to add gatewayed routes to ancillary tables and the main routing table does not contain an entry for the gateway IP. It seems that unless a route to the gateway IP exists in the main routing table, I

Ok ive been trying to get this to work for about half a year now. Ive searched all over the internet for a solution for my problem. Ive found some solutions, but they only led me to yet more problems. What we want to do is the following: I live in a student complex with 7 other people. Every room has its own internet connection from the same ISP. Ip, gateway, subnet are asigned through dhcp on

Hi, I have a linux server running kernel 2.6.19 that is connected with 2 seperate 100Mbit links to the same isp: +---+ +---------------+ | I | +---------------+ | | | S | | | | eth0 --+--------------+ P | | |

Hi. I''ve got here the following configuration: (turn on fixed pitch font to be able to see the scheme in a more accurately way) Client machines <-----> ADSL Router 1 <-----> INTERNET (192.168.0.0/24) (192.168.0.229) NAT Client machines <-----> ADSL Router 1 <-----> INTERNET (192.168.1.0/24) (192.168.1.229) NAT [if doesn''t really

Hi, On my network, I use real IP numbers for all of my hosts. They all get nat''d at the gateway. I use real IPs because sometimes someone needs to connect directly to a host behind the firewall. With my old firewall, I had a trusted-hosts file with trusted host IP numbers in it. My hosts talking to external trusted hosts would not have their IPs nat''d instead they were

Dear List. I try to build multipath connection w/ load balance to internet with two different gateway; My system is RH-8.0 with iproute-2.4.7-7.90.1.rpm and Kernel-2.4.26 (patching with Julian A. patch),and follow guide from http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~julian/nano.txt, The problem is; when i try to connect to Internet form gateway machine it;s success , but only one interface is

Hi, Below please find the reserved ports and log, thanks. sysctl net.ipv4.ip_local_reserved_ports: net.ipv4.ip_local_reserved_ports = 30000-32767 glusterd.log: [2017-06-18 07:04:17.853162] I [MSGID: 106487] [glusterd-handler.c:1242:__glusterd_handle_cli_probe] 0-glusterd: Received CLI probe req 192.168.1.17 24007 [2017-06-18 07:04:17.853237] D [MSGID: 0] [common-utils.c:3361:gf_is_local_addr]

Hi, I have tried on my host by setting corresponding ports, but I didn't see the issue on my machine locally. However with the logs you have sent it is prety much clear issue is related to ports only. I will trying to reproduce on some other machine. Will update you as s0on as possible. Thanks Gaurav On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Guy Cukierman <guyc at elminda.com> wrote: >

Hi, I am able to recreate the issue and here is my RCA. Maximum value i.e 32767 is being overflowed while doing manipulation on it and it was previously not taken care properly. Hence glusterd was crashing with SIGSEGV. Issue is being fixed with " https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1454418" and being backported as well. Thanks Gaurav On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Gaurav

Thanks Gaurav! 1. Any time estimation on to when this fix would be released? 2. Any recommended workaround? Best, Guy. From: Gaurav Yadav [mailto:gyadav at redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:46 AM To: Guy Cukierman <guyc at elminda.com> Cc: Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com>; gluster-users at gluster.org Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] gluster peer probe failing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:53:30PM +0100, Rowland Penny wrote: >On 22/10/15 22:33, Guy-Laurent Subri wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 10:13:01PM +0100, Rowland Penny wrote: >>> On 22/10/15 21:51, Guy-Laurent Subri wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 07:06:33PM +0100, Rowland Penny wrote: >>>>> On 21/10/15 18:35, Guy-Laurent Subri wrote:

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 10:32:31AM +0000, Rowland Penny wrote: >On 28/10/15 10:09, Guy-Laurent Subri wrote: > >> My version of Samba is 4.1.17. I don't think this changes anything, but >> I can try to upgrade if needed. > >OK, looks like you are running Debian, either wheezy using backports or >Jessie and my old DC is running wheezy and net ads info works on that.

Hi, I have a gluster (version 3.10.2) server running on a 3 node (centos7) cluster. Firewalld and SELinux are disabled, and I see I can telnet from each node to the other on port 24007. When I try to create the first peering by running on node1 the command: gluster peer probe <node2 ip address> I get the error: "Connection failed. Please check if gluster daemon is operational."

Could you please send me the output of command "sysctl net.ipv4.ip_local_reserved_ports". Apart from output of command please send the logs to look into the issue. Thanks Gaurav On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Atin Mukherjee <amukherj at redhat.com> wrote: > +Gaurav, he is the author of the patch, can you please comment here? > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:28

https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17494/ will it and the next update of 3.10 should have this fix. If sysctl net.ipv4.ip_local_reserved_ports has any value > short int range then this would be a problem with the current version. Would you be able to reset the reserved ports temporarily to get this going? On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Guy Cukierman <guyc at elminda.com> wrote: >

Thanks, but my current settings are: net.ipv4.ip_local_reserved_ports = 30000-32767 net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 32768 60999 meaning the reserved ports are already in the short int range, so maybe I misunderstood something? or is it a different issue? From: Atin Mukherjee [mailto:amukherj at redhat.com] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 10:56 AM To: Guy Cukierman <guyc at elminda.com> Cc:

+Gaurav, he is the author of the patch, can you please comment here? On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Guy Cukierman <guyc at elminda.com> wrote: > Thanks, but my current settings are: > > net.ipv4.ip_local_reserved_ports = 30000-32767 > > net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 32768 60999 > > meaning the reserved ports are already in the short int range, so maybe I >

Hi All, I need to establish an IPSec tunnel between two FreeBSD systems, using IPv6 addresses.The connetcion is host-to-host between two FreeBSD( RELEASE 4.11) systems with KAME IPSec implementation. I tried to establish the connection, but it has some problems which are explained below. |----------------->| host1-[mohan]| |host2-[ram]

Hi guys, I realise this is problaby more basic than what this list is intended for, but I had no luck elswhere. Short version: I have previously used these lines on a server with two network interfaces, two public IPs, and one common default gateway, to make sure that connections coming into eth1 is replied to replied to via the same interface. eth0 is 196.xx.xx.35, eth1 is 196.xx.xx.54,