similar to: About two IFs with the same IP and the multipath

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

The problem is described here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-net&m=113550638110682&w=2 and continues here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-net&m=113636640615375&w=2 Do you have any ideas to solve this problem? -- :wq! "I don''t know nothing" The One Who reached the Thinking Matter ''.'' [ Alpt --- Freaknet Medialab ] [ GPG Key

Just a useful FAQ entry to add ;) -- :wq! "I don't know nothing" The One Who reached the Thinking Matter '.' [ Alpt --- Freaknet Medialab ] [ GPG Key ID 441CF0EE ] [ Key fingerprint = 8B02 26E8 831A 7BB9 81A9 5277 BFF8 037E 441C F0EE ]

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

Skipped content of type multipart/mixed-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/bridge/attachments/20050327/fc61de6b/attachment-0002.pgp

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, 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 have /25 addressed on a box (virtual devices on eth0) and I want to tunnel some of these addresses to my home network. One address to my gateway (a.b.c.d, external IP) and one address to my internal network (192.168.0.0/24-style). I will use the tunnels for irc, smtp and surfing. What protocol and which technique is easiest and best to use? One more thing. I don''t want to set up

Hello All, The following is what I was trying to do: A packet [Dest: 10.10.10.2, Src: 10.10.10.30] has a route through "tunl0". The bigger problem is that "tunl0" is a tunnel between 10.10.10.2 and 10.10.10.20... Which means that after encapsulation takes place, the packet would look like [Dest: 10.10.10.2, Src: 10.10.10.20 [Dest: 10.10.10.2, Src: 10.10.10.30]]. Thing

Hi, I''m trying to do some horrible private address routing between networks. Is there a way to handle the following? I''m guessing policy routing *might* be the way, but anyway... Two networks, accessible via public addresses -- a /29 on each. Each network, however, has more machines than this, so one also has 192.168.0.0/24 and the other has 192.168.1.0/24. I have an IPIP

Hi, I have a problem with GRE tunneling. I read Advanced-Routing HOWTO about this and I did all as is written in this documentation. Even the same example is here which I need for my project. I want create (by means of GRE tunneling or IP in IP tunneling) virtual private network VPN - in first phase without IPsec in other phase with IPsec. I have two local networks distant apart with two routers.

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

Hi, I am using linux kernle-2.6.15, iptables-1.4 and bridge-utils-1.4. Everything intslled without any issue and i am able to enable the bridge and traffic is also flowing without any issue. But i did not see any traffic on the iptables forward chain due to which i am not able to control the traffic. Do i requie enable anything more to make the traffic pass through iptables forward chain.

Thanks a lot , Everythings is working now. Quoting Alex Martin <alex@rettc.com>: > > > At this point point ip addr show: > > 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue > > link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 > > inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo > > 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000

Hi, this is my first message to the list and I want to thank the the autor for developing Shorewall. And now the problem. I''m using version 1.3.13 and I have eth0 (IP a.b.c.d/24) as a public interface. I have an alias on eth0:0 (address a.b.c.e/24) and my dns servce listens on this IP (in this moment the dns is stopped). This is my policy file: #SOURCE... fw all

We switched over from a bordermanager firewall to a shorewall firewall. Some stuff is not working now. I realized that I had not created the route for the network that is not working however once I created it, it still didn''t work. Most of our network is fine however some pieces are not working. [Net] - [Shorewall] - [LAN] - [Cisco] - [Clients and servers not working] The firewall

Hi all, I some vlan routing problem, I''m using a linux box with an 8021q kernel. I have connect eth2 ethernet controller from linux box to a switch port that carry for vlan tagged as 2 3 4 5, I''m able to connect to the internet from vlan but not to route traffic between vlan, this is the output of ifconfig -a: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:24:50:E5:B2

I have a domU configured with two virtual ethernet interfaces - one on a private bridge and one to the outside world. If I cat /proc/net/dev (or loop round the interfaces using SIOCGIFNAME) there are loads of them? Should they all be there ? I''m using the same kernel for dom0 & domU. Inter-| Receive | Transmit face |bytes

Commit-ID: 6dc1db1bce863f0e0e0abda1b9a58d8cb22863ca Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=6dc1db1bce863f0e0e0abda1b9a58d8cb22863ca Author: Herbert Xu <herbert at gondor.apana.org.au> AuthorDate: Sat, 19 May 2018 02:39:43 +0800 Committer: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> CommitDate: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 21:42:55 +0000 [klibc] dash: var: Set IFS to