similar to: Problem with routing decisions, and multihop

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''m still trying to solve the problem, about which I already posted in these lists... I''ve been trying to understand where packet routing and NAT is being done. The schemes are quite clear, when it''s about the _first_ packet of a NAT connection (when it enters the NAT table). But it isn''t that clear about the packets NAT''ed by the connection

That is what I thought, but just to clarify: I am using static dhcp hosts in the dhcpd.conf and our network config. is similar to this: 3 subnets 192.168.15.0/24 192.168.16.0/24 192.168.17.0/24 dhcpd.conf ### Global Settings for DHCP Services ### option domain-name="dom.com"; default-lease-time 900; max-lease-time 1800; ddns-update-style none; authoritative; allow bootp; allow

Hello, I need some help about a routing problem on a complex configuration. The problem is that I can''t reach from services outside from my DMZ. The scenario is a gateway linked to three internet connections, so that I used three distinct iproute2 tables for routing. The gw is running ipvs for balancing over the dmz''s servers. DMZ servers are on 192.168.1.0/24 network, .

hi: *I have this 2 boxes set up like this:* 2020::2/128 2020::254/128 3030::254/128 192.168.0.2/24 192.168.0.254/24 192.168.30.254/24 +-------+ eth0 eth3 +-------+ | |=======================| | eth1 | A | | B |---- | | | |

* sorry for the 2 previous schemas, they came out a mess. I hope this one is understandable. hi: I have this 2 boxes set up like this: 2020::2/128 2020::254/128 3030::254/128 192.168.0.2/24 192.168.0.254/24 192.168.30.254/24 +-------+ eth0 eth3 +-------+ | |==================== | | eth1 | A | | B | ---- | |

* sorry for the other schema, it came out a mess. I hope this one is understandable. hi: I have this 2 boxes set up like this: 2020::2/128 2020::254/128 3030::254/128 192.168.0.2/24 192.168.0.254/24 192.168.30.254/24 +-------+ eth0 eth3 +-------+

Hello all I continue fighting with load balancing, I though it was easier :-/ Here is the script with my configuration #!/bin/sh IFI=eth0 IPI=192.168.10.155 NMI=24 IFE1=eth1 IPE1=192.168.1.128 NWE1=192.168.1.0 NME1=24 BRD1=192.168.1.255 GWE1=192.168.1.1 IFE2=eth2 IPE2=192.168.254.128 NWE2=192.168.254.0 NME2=24 BRD2=192.168.254.255 GWE2=192.168.254.254 ip link set $IFI up ip addr add

I''ve applied julian''s paches to a 2.6.14 gentoo kernel with the appropiate options enabled, and i''m using a modified version of the mpath2.sh script also available on julian''s site http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/ Overall everything works nearly perfectly. Incomming connections to either the fios (PPPoE) connection, or cable modem get routed back out correctly. The

Hello Im having a problem similar to sawar Here is my configuration --------------eth1---192.168.1.128---------- -------------192.168.1.1 ISP router 1 | my | ---Eth0---192.168.10.157----| | | linux |

Hi! In our students'' hostel we have 6 DSL lines (dialups to different providers); we have set up a linux box (currently running 2.6.11-rc2-mm2, but the problem described hereafter also applies to previous 2.6-series kernels) with help from http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html#AEN298 Our Setup looks like this: 10.0.0.0/8 10.70.255.1 +----------+ +-----------+ |

Hello Shorewall list, I''m a happy Shorewall user since a few years now and everything works fine for me except one thing that I try to implement since a week, the multi-isp. I''ve downloaded the 2.4.0 Stable release yesterday and tried the RC2 since a week. My config is a Debian running a kernel 2.4.27 home made with the CONNMARK.diff patch applied I''m using 2 ISP,

Hello, I am having big problems with Xen virtual network interfaces. First I tried typical bridge support, no luck. The packets sent from dom0 to domU seemed to disappear somewhere. Then, to debug the problem I have set up a simple point-to-point link and still have the same problem. I am using Xen 3.0.4-1 and Linux 2.6.16.x in both dom0 and domU. I have tried kernel 2.6.16.35 and 2.6.16.41. I

I have a 2.6.12(ubuntu-patchset), kernel recompiled with this routing options: [*] IP: advanced router [*] IP: policy routing [*] IP: equal cost multipath Load balancing is working great, but i have problems whits long term tcp flows (like msn-messenger or vpns or any other type of long term ip based conection). I assume this is because after a period of time, the per-host

Hello all, I am trying to configure a subdomain DNS server on a Cent OS 5.1 - for my lab. Brief configuration: Lab machine ---> 192.168.17.2 (should respond to DNS queries from hosts in 192.168.16.0/20 network) 1. I would also like to forward any queries outside the above network to our corporate domain (no firewalls between our 192.168.16.x network and the corporate network. The domain

As I''ve read in http://gnumonks.org/papers/netfilter-lk2000/presentation.html, there''s said about the "nat" netfilter table: "This table is different from the ''filter'' table, in that only the first packet of a new connection will traverse the table. The result of this traversal is then applied to all future packets of the same connection." I

Hi, my box is connected to 3 networks, eth0 eth1 wlan0. I want "my" traffic to go via wlan0 and everything from eth1 NATed to eth0: eth0 192.168.1.10/24 eth1 172.16.1.1/12 wlan0 192.168.10.190/24 I first tried this with two single hosts: iptables -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -o eth0 -t nat iptables -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -o wlan0 -t nat echo 200 Forw >>

I have centos 6 running kvm. IPv4 works perfectly works. But I am having some problem with ipv6, looks like its bridge routing problem but stuck. here are my bridge detail: bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br0 8000.000af75613f2 no eth1 vnet1 br4 8000.000af75613f0 no eth0 ip -6 route shows : unreachable ::/96 dev lo metric 1024 error -101 mtu 65536 advmss 65476 hoplimit 4294967295

Hi I intent to use brctl to bridge two devices on linux box. One is eth0, the other is USB net which is recognized as usb0 by linux box. Then I run following command # ifconfig eth0 down # ifconfig usb0 down # brctt addbr ipbr # brctl addif ipbr eth0 # brctl addif ipbr usb0 # ifconfig eth0 up # ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 # ifconfig usb0 up # ifconfig usb0 0.0.0.0 # ifconfig ipv6 up

I'm upgrading my configuration to use director and lmtp for delivery. (doveconf -n at end of the mail). I use the same config for auth on mail backends and see no errors. My setup seem to work nicely but i have some auth process crashing when using lmtp protocol. Everything is working a sexpected then i've got 5-6 errors like this in logs and a crach of the auth process: dovecot: