similar to: Multicast only working in promiscuous mode

Hi, I''ve been trying out the wondershaper script, but on several of the examples I keep getting the error message:- RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument On the following line:- tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src \ 0.0.0.0/0 police rate 512kbit burst 10k drop flowid :1 Based on other posts to this mail list, I gather it is an issue with kernel

Hello, i´ve installed a Suse 8.1 minimal System with iproute 2.4.7 and iptables, Suse default Kernel 2.4.19. When I start the Wondershaper 1.1a Script I get the following Error: CBQ: "allot" is required to set WRR parameters. /home/skripte/./wshaper: line 72: allot: command not found CBQ: "allot" is required to set WRR parameters. /home/skripte/./wshaper: line 78: allot:

Hello, This is not really a shorewall problem. But just wanted to check if this problem rang a bell with any of you. I have a linux router with slackware 9.1, and kernel 2.4.27 Everyting works ok except for access to web sites that use akamai from behind the router. >From the router machine itself I can access those sites without problems. But machines behind nat, take forever to access

Hi there. My name is Lucas and I''m from Argentina. Firstly, forgive me for my english since it is not my native languaje. Now, I''ve been reading on how to compile iproute2 and found that I need to add the following to my kernel, which in my case it is 2.4.20, and it is also the one which this document I read talked about: CONFIG_NETLINK=y CONFIG_RTNETLINK=y # CONFIG_NETLINK_DEV

Hello all, I am working with kernel 2.2.20 with the necessary options configured into the kernel to support all of the wonderfully fancy routing features: - routing based on ToS - routing based on fwmark - multiple routing tables This same kernel is in use elsewhere, and is routing based on fwmark with success. This leads me to believe that my kernel is OK and that I have another

Dear Alexey, Sorry to bother you with this small question about nexthop syntax failing, but I haven''t found anyone else who can answer it - including Matthew Marsh or those on the lartc mailing list. The problem, with 2.2.19 and 2.2.20 kernels and versions of iproute2 up to iproute2-2.2.4-now-ss001007 (the most recent that compiles for me), is that this command does not work: # ip ro

Hi , I am trying to set up a GRE tunnel between two linux routers. The routers have a 400 MHz Processor. Linux .2 65.0.0.2 Linux LAN1 -------- Router -------- INTERNET ---- Router ---- LAN2 10.10.10.0 .1 208.1.0.1 (Simulated) .1 .1 192.168.2.0/24 /24 Scripts to Create the tunnel ip tunnel add tun0 mode gre remote 65.0.0.1 local

Hi All, concerning the problem when running the "ip ru ls" command. I faced with the same problem, and I solved it by making sure to include the following settings into the kernel configuration (2.4.18): CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER=y <=== CONFIG_IP_MULTIPLE_TABLES=y <=== CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_NAT=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_TOS=y

hi all, am getting neighbour table overflow messages very often... Dec 9 09:59:54 ICG kernel: NET: 13 messages suppressed. Dec 9 09:59:54 ICG kernel: Neighbour table overflow. Dec 9 09:59:59 ICG kernel: NET: 12 messages suppressed. Dec 9 09:59:59 ICG kernel: Neighbour table overflow. how can i stop/reduce it ?? what factors does it depends on ?? kernel configuration are...

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795 Summary: RELATED doesn't accommodate multicast UDP solicitation resulting in unicast reply Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component:

I'm trying to run Asset UPnP media server under Wine 1.1.27 on Ubuntu 8.04. The problem is that media clients on the same network don't appear to SSDP discover this media server. The server itself *does* advertise itself fine on the network though (but as this is fairly infrequent, then any clients can be hanging around for quite some time before they spot the server). I've tried

Hi, I am getting the errors given below, when I am trying to add the prio to any table. What can be the problem and how can i resolve it.... Kindly help [root /root]# ip rule RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument Dump terminated [root /root]# ip rule list RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument Dump terminated [root /root]# ip rule list table main "ip rule show" need not eny arguments.

Hello, my linux show me that: server2 root # ip route add default scope global nexthop via 192.168.5.1 dev eth2 weight 1 nexthop via 192.168.160.1 dev eth0 weight 1 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument What can I do???? Thanks Matias --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date:

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole > punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my > network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because > one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT [...]. This type of NAT > will stop any UDP hole

On 11 November 2015 at 21:57, David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote: > it is entirely possible to write code that uses threads on Win32 and forks > on POSIX by abstracting the communication bits generically. Signalling could > work over pipes on both. > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365152(v=vs.85).aspx Hum... yes of course, but I

Hi Guus, Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT that won't use consistent source ports for UDP packets that are sent to different destination addresses. More formally, this

On 12 November 2015 at 21:29, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: >> According to an online NAT check service, around 50% of NATs in the >> wild have this problem, making this a very real issue: >> http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/results.php > > Are you referring to port restricted NAT in the

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.4 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.4 Problems Corrected: 1. The error message: Error: No appropriate chain for zone <z1> to zone <z2> has been changed to one that is more self-explanatory: Error: No policy defined for zone <z1> to zone <z2> 2. When only an

fauno <fauno at kiwwwi.com.ar> writes: > Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> writes: >> (I realize that this means UPnP support could possibly be achieved >> simply by suggesting that the user spawn some standalone UPnP client >> process in the background from the tinc-up hook. That's not very >> user-friendly, though. Especially on Windows.) >

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=917 Summary: Kernel OOPS on Kernel 3.14.2 Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P5 Component: NAT AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org