similar to: Some questions

Can anyone tell me whether I have a routing problem, or an openVPN problem, or something else? I''ve stared at this for so long I think I must be looking in the wrong place! I have 3 machines: Machine A has single ethernet card, eth0, 192.168.5.5 Machine B has eth0, 192.168.5.? on the local net, eth1, 81.2.x.y to the internet, and

Hi, I have established two connections to the same ISP. After that ip route list showed this: 195.14.247.94 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 81.173.141.207 195.14.247.94 dev ppp1 proto kernel scope link src 81.173.237.84 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.1 default via 195.14.247.94 dev ppp0 I want 192.168.0.2 to connect to the internet by ppp1 and all

HI folks, I have a linux router connected to two separate internet connection from an ISP. There is a third interface ( ip -> 192.168.1.1 ) in the router connected to the local network. Configured the routing tables and added the rules and everything seems to be working fine from the routing box. Traceroute to external internet sites reveal that traffic is being routed correctly and

Hi, I have the following situation: 1 gateway box with 2 WAN interfaces (eth1 and eth2). 1 LAN interface eth0 default gateway is eth2 I want to route all traffic with destination protocol tcp 22 (ssh) NOT over the default gateway eth2 but force them to find it''s route over eth1. All other traffic must go the normal way over eth2. Is this possible with tc or an other tool? --

Hello everyone, Please excuse these basic questions but I am new to Linux and I am getting desperate for answers. We are running redhat linux and after many hours of investigation I am unable to get a certain ip rule and ip route command combination to work. These are the software versions installed. [root@c1b04a01 linux-2.4.21-15.EL]# uname -a Linux c1b04a01 2.4.21-15.ELsmp #1 SMP Thu Apr

My TCP clients connect to box A. I need to forward those connections to a server on box B, such that the original client IPs are visible to the server on B. Each box has two Ethernet ports. One port on each box is connected to WAN, and they are cross-connected in a LAN via remaining ports: ------------------- ------------------- WAN -- |eth0 Box A eth1|---LAN---|eth1 Box

Guys After reading through the archives I found some insightful ways to be able to shape traffic to pppoe clients from the server. I have two questions on the topic of setting up a pppoe server however... 1. The clients will all be connected to each other using a normal ethernet network, the segments connected with managed switches. The capacity is roughly 500 nodes. Will these pppoe sessions

Le 26 juil. 07 à 13:55, Georgi Alexandrov a écrit : > Vincent Dautremont wrote: > >> Hi, >> here I have another newcomer question :-) >> in the section 9.6.1 of this how too >> http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Adv-Routing-HOWTO/lartc.qdisc.filters.html >> we can read commands about filters : >> ------------------------------------------ >> >> # tc

Hi, A, B and C are three machines. A and C directly access to theInternet while B access to the Internet through A. +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | +-------------+ +-------------+ | | | A | | B | | | | | --- eth0 ---> <--- eth0 --- | | | | | 192.168.0.1

Gentlemen, First of all, I would like to thank everyone for your input in this mailing list. Every day I glean something new, which is really nice. I also appreciate the effort that some of you put into making tc and iptables work. Now, on to my question. I am running a home network that consists of about three computers, plus a VoIP box. I would like to use tc in order to give priority to

Hello, let's assume we have: [$someshare] path = /some/path create mask = 0644 directory mask = 0755 Within /some/path there's directory named dir1 for example (/some/path/dir1). Is it possible to define alternative masks for that particular directory without presenting it as a different share. My second question - is it possible to define write list for /some/path/dir1 only. --

ehlo list, I''m willing to shape ppp users e.g. each pppX interface to get XXX kbits I classify traffic going to ppp+ interfaces like this: iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -o ppp+ -j CLASSIFY --set-class 0002:0020 then i have a file which is executed when a ppp inteface is up and first argument parsed to that file ($1) is the ppp number (e.g. 35 for ppp35). it generally looks like

Hey everyone, Hope you all had a great Christmas! I am running Linux-2.6.14.3 with iptables 1.3.4. It has been working marvelously for me, but I noticed an unusual entry in my "last" log. I believe it was from me logging on from a friend''s computer, but the entry was not the typical xx.xxx.xxx.xxx entry. The entry I saw was "cpe-24-210-31-27". Why is this

Hi all. I would need to use a single physical interface on a Linux box to manage two different IP addresses (belonging to two separate logical subnets) with two different MAC address. (I need to emulate te presence of two separate physical interfaceses for a PC on the same LAN, at layer 2 and layer 3). Is it possible to use the linux ethernet bridging code and two tap interfaces for this

Hi I was wondering if you ever got better performance out of your Gigabit/IDE/Fc2? I am facing a similar situation. I am running FC2 with Samba 3.x My problem lies in not that I am limited to 10 MBytes per second sustained. I think it's related to this pdflush and how it's buffers are setup. (I have been doing some research and before 2.6 kernels bdflush was the method that was used and

Hi, here I have another newcomer question :-) in the section 9.6.1 of this how too http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Adv-Routing-HOWTO/lartc.qdisc.filters.html we can read commands about filters : ------------------------------------------ # tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 10: prio 1 u32 match \ ip dport 22 0xffff flowid 10:1 # tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent 10: prio 1 u32 match \

Hi, I wonder if the following (apparent) inconsistency is a bug or feature. Since scalars are simply vectors of length one I would think that a and a:a produce the same result. For example, > identical(4.01,4.01:4.01) [1] TRUE However, identical(4,4:4) [1] FALSE and > identical(4.0,4.0:4.0) [1] FALSE A closer look reveals that the colon operator produces objects

Bringing up an old topic on a small technicality. In the help documentation on seq. Value: The result is of 'mode' '"integer"' if 'from' is (numerically equal to an) integer and 'by' is not specified. The arguement in seq specifying length also creates "double" which is not obvious in the wording, as "by" is not specified

Bringing up an old topic on a small technicality. In the help documentation on seq. Value: The result is of 'mode' '"integer"' if 'from' is (numerically equal to an) integer and 'by' is not specified. The arguement in seq specifying length also creates "double" which is not obvious in the wording, as "by" is not specified

+---------------+ +----+ ISP A | | | |-----------------| | +----+ | | +------+ | ROUTER | NET C | www | | LINUX |----------------| |