similar to: re-routing network traffic.

Hello Gurus, I am a small problem with routing and here are the details. Interfaces on my server: * ipsec0 - 172.19.58.94 * tunl0 - 172.19.58.94 * eth0 - 172.19.58.94 Now, the problem is that there is another host 172.19.58.200. All communication to 172.19.58.200 should be through tunl0, and all the data should be secured using IPSec (tunnel mode - because there are more machines on my

Hello Tom and others on the list. Tom - you might recall that the other day (night) I had problems with my axip setup (protocol 93) and we made some changes to the policy, zones and interfaces files. You added ''peers and tunl+'' Following that change nothing seemed to work. In fact you wanted to see the shorewall status file, among other things. Well - tonight, I carefully put

I wonder if someone can tell me what these ''unknown'' remarks mean in my status file. They are only in the last portion of the file and are listed below. If they mean nothing, I will rest easy. But if not it means I need to fix something. Your thoughts would be appreciated. ---------------- udp 17 92 src=24.224.173.220 dst=24.222.0.75 sport=1027 dport=53 src=24.222.0.75

Hello, it seems that there is some bug in authentication cache code in dovecot version 1.1.alpha4 - after login attempt with wrong password the correct password also will fail. I can reproduce it very easy: $telnet 10.10.10.30 110 +OK Server. <861.2.46e6c679.jZ8QYpFmU8ZN6XIq7zPhkw==@server2> user testuser +OK pass pass +OK Logged in. quit +OK Logging out. Connection closed by foreign host.

Hi all, I have the following configuration: _______ +------------+ / diginet link | | | +-------------+ Provider 1 +------- __ | | | / ___/ \_

Hi , this probably was asked many times before , but here it goes.. Until now i was using dsl_qos_queue - http://www.sonicspike.net/software/ Which limits outbound traffic and does packet priorites with iptables using MARKed packets.. works very well , I run a ftpserver + webserver so it''s usefull to set these 2 with lowest priority and my multiplayer gaming running on certain UDP ports

Hello, I have set up a multipath gateway. System is a linux 2.4.29 kernel, iproute 20010824, iptables 1.2.11. here is the setup: firewall:/# ip rule 0: from all lookup local 100: from all lookup main 152: from all fwmark 10 lookup wan1 153: from all fwmark 20 lookup wan2 201: from 213.223.96.121 lookup wan1 202: from 82.236.230.217 lookup wan2 1000: from

I''ve tried with iproute and it works now ! commands for A: ip tunnel add mode ipip tunl1 local IP_A remote IP_B ip addr add dev net1 local virtual-IP_A remote virtual-IP_B ip link set net1 up Same on B. And then from A i''m able to ping virtual-IP_B. It seems one can not use tunl0 as a tunnel name, is it true ? I think it will be a good thing to add to the section 5.2 of the

Hello! My system is: Internet ADSL(PPPoE) ---> ppp0 [LINUX server(router)] eth0 ---> LAN Server(router) is running on LINUX Slackware 8.1. I have recompiled a 2.4.22 kernel, enabled all QoS support in the kernel config, including HTB. My ADSL bandwidth is 256Kbit/s for download and 64Kbit/s for upload. I use the following HTB+IPTABLES configuration, because I want to reduce bandwith for

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:28:47AM +0100, <Alpt>: ~> On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 11:29:21AM +0100, <Alpt>: ~> ~> The multipath code creates new cached routes. Since ~> ~> after connect the socket is "connected", i.e. saddr and ~> ~> daddr are known and they are always provided when resolving ~> ~> route ~> ~> ~> ~> So, the connected

Hello all, I have a problem with one of my routing requirements when using IPSec along with a proprietary Mobile IP implementation. And sorry for such a long mail :( Here is a brief description of my situation: My client (mobile-node) has an IP address of 10.10.10.40, my gateway (actually home-agent) has an IP address of 10.10.10.1 and systems in my home network are in 10.0.0.0 network.

Hi, I configured a router box to use 2 providers, as described in the HOWTO. (Apendix 1) I want to use both links to reach a single smtp server. As I read in the kptd and in some old messages of this list, doing a SNAT in the postrouting chain comes _after_ the routing desision. So I guess the following lines I''m trying to use are wrong. (See Apendix 1) What can I do to have multiple

Hi, I am trying to set up a linux box to act as a router for my college. There are two different types of users; students and conference guests, and they have IPs statically assigned by DHCP, from separate ranges (but they are on the same subnet). The students go out onto an academic connection (via eth0), and conference guests go out on an ADSL line (via eth3). eth1 and eth2 are configured for

Hi there, I''m trying to achieve the classic load balancing using the multipath. The gateways are: A (tunl0) and B (tunl1) This is the classical situation covered by the HOWTO: one computer with two Internet connections. The problems come when I try to use the same IPs for both A and B. So A is 10.229.25.8 and B 10.229.25.8. I cannot do otherwise, I''m forced to use the

Hello, I am attempting to set an IP-IP tunnel between two PC in a same LAN in order to evaluate the performances of the tunnel (kernel 2.4.26). I read the section of LARTC HowTo about it and it seems simple but i do not succeed in setting it. I don''t find the new_tunnel.o module (cf LARTC HowTo). I found Configure.help a bit confusing : CONFIG_NET_IPIP "Saying Y to this option

Hello! I''ve the following set-up RemoteClient1 (Win Vista), RemoteClient2 (Win XP) do both connect to my OpenVPN box. They can talk to each other, using their 172.16.1.x tun0 Address on the server. The server itself (Ubuntu gutsy, OpenVPN: 2.0.9-8, shorewall:3.4.4-1) has 1 NIC that connects the machine to a) a DSL-router (forwards several ports to this linux machine, including the

Hi, I am trying to set up a bridge that connects 2 user mode linux (UML) machines. The bridge lets ARP traffic through, but not the IP traffic. linux:~ # brctl showmacs br0 port no mac addr is local? ageing timer 2 00:ff:7d:86:06:47 yes 0.00 3 00:ff:bc:de:07:76 yes 0.00 2 fe:fd:c0:a8:00:03 no

Hi, I have a linux system which is router between several subnets (each also a different segment), in total 3 different lans, 2 dmz, and 4 internet connections, my default FORWARD policy is DROP, here is a simplified example of my config with only two lan segments and internet connection: Allow forwarding between lans -A FORWARD -s lan1/mask -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -d lan1/mask -j ACCEPT -A

Hi! I get this strange behaviour... I don''t know how some packets get into wrong rules. My rules are those: 0: from all lookup local 50: from all lookup main 201: from 192.168.17.0/28 lookup 201 202: from 192.168.16.0/28 lookup 202 222: from all lookup 222 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default Table main has: 192.168.17.0/28 dev eth2

Hi, I have the following config: 1 PC with 3 NICs, that shares internet connection to LAN. eth0 uses a public IP ($public_ip_1) eth1 uses a private IP ($private_ip) eth2 uses a public IP ($public_ip_2) I have a webserver and a mailserver accesible by $public_ip_1 (eth0) I have a LAN with all terminals using private IPs, and $private_ip (eth1) as gateway. $public_ip_1 and $public_ip_2 are from