similar to: about raw table

Hello I have some rules inserted in the NAT table dual SNAT and DNAT for a connection They use at some moment the same port of the outside network. The problem i have is that the connection tracking in the kernel checks first the oldest rule and then the newest one. I use a system based on ARM XScale processor. Is that the default behaviour and how can i change this behaviour? Marius

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1410 Bug ID: 1410 Summary: STATELESS, rules with notrack into a map Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: nft Assignee: pablo at

Hi! The Netfilter project proudly presents: nftables 0.7 This release contains many accumulated bug fixes and new features available up to the (upcoming) Linux 4.10-rc1 kernel release. * Facilitate migration from iptables to nftables: At compilation time, you have to pass this option. # ./configure --with-xtables And libxtables needs to be installed in your system. This allows

Been running this for quite a while and noticed that have intermittent problems getting out. Find that if I ping the same site from 2 computers it may work on one and fail on the other. Also was surprised that some time they are going out different interfaces at the same time. Seems to work all the time from the firewall. Running 2.6.10 kernel with the multipath routing patches on a debian

Hi all, I have 2 ISPs on a Linux router and a local network with one Linux server and many windows. The local network is masqueraded. I want to give access to port 25 and 80 of my server from any incoming request (i.e. from my 2 ISP). I have made a DNAT translation, witch work but the outgoing answers are not routed correctly. Of course, the de-SNAT process is done before the routing process. So

Sorry for the long descritpion of the problem, I''d like to know If I misunderstand something or if I meet an intrinsic limit of my setup. 217.58.51.162 HDSL eth1 - SRV_XP: 192.168.254.10 eth0: 192.168.254.1 -----+------------------+------- 81.121.243.250 ADSL eth3 - I want to allow incoming pptp request (port 1723) to be forwarded to srv_xp

The Shorewall team is pleased to announce the availability of Shorewall 4.5.7. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. P R O B L E M S C O R R E C T E D I N T H I S R E L E A S E ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) This release includes the defect repair from Shorewall 4.5.6.2. 2) The command

Hi, First, never compare a linux box with a cheap and dumb broadband router. I''m not sure if i understand very well your scenario but I asume is like this: 192.168.0.1--------- -----------| ipsec | | --------- 128.X.X.X --------- 192.168.0.254 | ISP ----------| linux |------------------| --------- | ---------

-------------- eth0------eth1 eth0------------ |211.241.219.xx | --- | ROUTER | --- |192.168.1.4 | --------------- --------- ------------ when i send traffic from ROUTER to 211.241.219.xx or 192.168.1.4(masquraded), the filter works fine... In ROUTER, tc filter policy is like this: tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1:0 protocol ip u32 match ip dport 80 0xffff

Even on a i386 machine for a very simple qdisc i get this error answer: RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument what are the options in the kernel that i have to choose to escape this error? I really know nothing about netlink sockets, what they are, where they are in the kernel, what should i do. please help. Thank you in advance, Marius Corici

Hello! I have a problem. May be here exist anyone who has encountered with the following problem. I have a router which is connected to 2 ISP from external side and one LAN internal interface. The feature is that the one ISP allocates a subnet xxx.xxx.xxx.160/28 for me but I split it into two subnets xxx.xxx.xxx.160/29 and xxx.xxx.xxx.168/29 and assign the latter to the internal interface. Also

Hi all, i got the following configuration: * NET1: DSL Line with /28 network, let''s call it 10.1.0.0/28 * NET2: DSL Line with /28 network, let''s call it 10.2.0.0/28 * INTNET: Internal Network with productive servers and workstations, 192.168.1.0/24 Obvisiously the 10er networks are official networks but censored to protect my customer. The routerbox assigns on eth0 all

Hello, I''m observing a weird bug with ip_nat_ftp in a somewhat more complicated constellation. It''s possible that XEN is also involved in this, but I''m not sure. What I''m trying to do is have XEN guest domains on a host, connected via a bridge into a private network. The the privileged domain attaches to this private network and acts as a NAT router to connect

Hi, Below is my Linux firewall network configuration: - eth0 - isp 1, IP: 1.1.1.10, Netmask: 255.255.255.252 eth1 - isp 2, IP: 2.2.2.10, Netmask: 255.255.255.252 eth2 - lan, IP: 172.16.0.254, Netmask: 255.255.255.0 eth3 - dmz, 192.168.0.254, Netmask: 255.255.255.0 isp 1 gateway: 1.1.1.9 isp 2 gateway: 2.2.2.9 Below is my iptables rules: - echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables

You want multiple IP Addresses for email if you are hosting more than one domain. The reason is, everyone now checks for reverse DNS with email so you need a different public IP Address for each email domain. This way, all the reverse DNS translations will be unique. For apache, you can have multiple websites sharing the same IP Address as long as you don''t do anything with SSL. SSL

> Send LARTC mailing list submissions to > lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc > or, via email, send a message with subject or body ''help'' to > lartc-request@mailman.ds9a.nl > > You can reach the person managing the list at >

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=498 Summary: RTP packets are not hitting NAT table Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: All OS/Version: Fedora Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P2 Component: NAT AssignedTo: laforge@netfilter.org ReportedBy:

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1448 Bug ID: 1448 Summary: SNAT/DNAT/Masquerading not working for UDPLite protocol Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: NAT

Hi, I need to simulate (with a certain degree of control) common WAN problems like packet loss/duplication, delay and conditions of limited bandwidth. I found that NISTNet is what i need, but it seems the package has not been updated since October, 2000. This is not really a problem as I found NISTNet runs perfectly with Linux kernels up to 2.4.23 (officially 2.4.18 is the latest mentioned in

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=850 Summary: DNAT applied even after deleting the IP Tables DNAT Rule Product: iptables Version: 1.4.x Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5 Component: iptables AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at