similar to: Does anyone have a working proxyARP setup?

shorewall-users hi,ALL I have a firewall have three interface, one NIC is internal (eth0), second NIC is SSN(eth2), and other NIC is external(eth1), on internal network have 10.0.1.59 and gw 10.0.1.163 eth0: 192.168.1.254/24 eth1: 10.0.1.55/24 gw 10.0.1.163 I use shorewall''s proxyarp 10.0.1.59 eth1 eth0 no no that is OK. I saw /usr/share/shorewall/firewall, I

I have been trying to get DNAT to work and I actually have succeeded too, however, not how I thought it would work when reading through the documentation. 1. No matter what I do I cannot get DNAT to work unless I have an entry in eiter the nat or the proxyarp file. Is that really how it''s supposed to be? I can''t find anything about it in the documentation. 2. Also, in the

Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727648 for more info. Shorewall executes some bash code like the following: while read address interface external haveroute; do qt $IP -4 neigh del proxy $address dev $external [ -z "${haveroute}${g_noroutes}" ] && qt $IP -4 route del $address/32 dev $interface

Yes, this is a dumb question. I haven''t the time nor the resources to dig into the guts of this right now, so perhaps someone will take a few minutes to help, please. I just implemented a classic "nano" multipath setup. The script is at http://yesican.chsoft.biz/lartc/rc.nano1 What I need to know is if I need SNAT in the firewall when a packet comes in on the

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-02-03 16:49 ------- We haven't seen this

I found the problem! It was me and it was dumb... This was the network layout: 10.10.10.0/24 1.2.3.0/27 10.10.10.n internal hosts | <----+-----+--------+ +-------+------>to the Internet | | | | Proxied | | | H.323 device Firewall Router eth1 eth0 1.2.3.11

Woops - my fat fingers hit the send key before I could put in a subject a minute ago. Hello - I am using kernel 2.4.27 and running into behavior I don''t know how to explain. I have 2 relevant interfaces. eth0 is external, eth1 is internal. My internal LAN is 10.10.10.0/24. My External range is 1.2.3.0/27 (dummied up). I have an H.323 videoconference device inside my internal

Our VPN runs for 3 months very well with a minimum of traffic <100 kbit/s. Only DNS Zones and nagios passive checks were transferred. Everything seems to work. Left side is x.x.x.14 (host 1) Subnet 10.0.0.0/24 openswan 2.4.4 shorewall 2.4.2 & iptables 1.3.4 gentoo 2.6.12-r9 with policy match It´s reachable through a proxyarp entry on x.x.x.11 (host 2) which is another gentoo 2.6.12-r9

I´ve figured out the following. I am able to sftp from shorewall 2.4.2 left vpn gateway x.x.x.14 (DMZ) to shorewall 2.4.1 fw x.x.x.11 with /etc/shorewall/proxyarp x.x.x.14 eth2 eth0 No very well. That´s not through a tunnel (of course a ssh tunnel, but no vpn) but with public ip x.x.x.14 to x.x.x.11 If I try to sftp through the fw to the public internet I have the same

Tom, Is not this query worth answering? -Siva -----Original Message----- From: Sivamurugu K. Pillai Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:14 PM To: ''Mailing List for Shorewall Users'' Subject: ProxyARP in a Routed environment Hi, In a routed network setup , is it possible to use ProxyARP given the condition that the shorewall external interface and the DMZ interface are in a

Hello all, I have a question in regards to proxyarp and shorewall, I am new to shorewall and I have 5 static IP address from my ISP. My current setup is that I have one system with three network cards, (eth0 = xx.xx.xx.42, eth1 = 192.168.110.41 eth2 = 10.10.10.41), two systems with two network cards, (eth0 = xx.xx.xx.41 and eth1 = 10.10.10.42/44), I want to get rid of the eth1 of the two systems

Hello list, I am in the process of switching from IPCOP to Shorewall s the firewall for our small office. I very much like the fact that Shorewall runs on top of the same OS (openSuSE 11.4) that I run on the server and my desktop. Our setup is fairly straightforward. We have 8 static ip addresses from our ISP, which provides a cable modem and a Cisco 800 series router. The ip addresses are

Hi- One last question for the week, I promise. I''ve got one IP ProxyArp''d according to the instructions at http://www.shorewall.net/ProxyARP.htm. I''ve setup the shorewall/proxyarp file as follows: #ADDRESS INTERFACE EXTERNAL HAVEROUTE PERSISTENT 208.4.145.73 br0 eth1 no yes #LAST LINE -- ADD YOUR ENTRIES

Would it be considered normal that a system behind a shorewall box that was setup for proxyarp and able to be reached from the trusted side of the net just fine on the proxyapr ip address would if it were to talk out to the world show as traffic not from the proxyarp address but the firewall''s own address or the masquerading ip used by other zones? We had not really noticed this as an

I have some hosts in a DMZ zone with proxyarp. In my local zone I have a host to which I DNAT. I have discovered that I can reach the host in the local zone by attempting to connect to the fw (As expected) or ANY proxyarped host in my dmz zone (as not expected). Is this normal ? (I''ve just discovered that actually the dnated host answers to requests sent to any IP routed to my host!)

Hello All, I am using shorewall 2.0.7. first i give you my config here and will tell you my problem. ProxyARP: 203.77.204.85 eth1 eth0 no Interface: net eth0 203.77.204.87 loc eth1 192.168.0.255 routeback Masq : eth0 192.168.0.0/24 203.77.204.86 Rules: # Squid access REDIRECT loc 8080 tcp

Hi As per my follow up mail I implemented the ProxyArp configuration as per the Documentation on the Web site and all seemed to be working correctly. However, the one thing that doesn''t seem to be working properly is Samba. I have Samba running on the FW machine and one of the servers 192.168.0.8 on the Local Lan. I can connect to a Share using Samba from Server to Server, however

Stephen, This REALLY needs to be fixed in the code; tc should reject as a syntax error any "add filter" command that does not include a "prio" parameter. It also needs to be documented. === From LARTC mailing list === > Dear list, > After much code crunching and beating my head against the wall > (literally), I discovered the faulty code. Thanks mostly to

I''ve got a serious mess of NAT on our firewall/router systems at the corporate office which seems to do nothing other than confuse the heck out of people. What I''d like to do is gradually migrate the hosts on the various DMZ networks away from private IP addresses and NAT over to public IP addresses and proxyarp. What I''m wondering, before I start this, is how do I

Hello Shorewall gurus, I have a dilemma with a public server. I want to migrate the current public server over to a new machine behind the current server''s firewall (shorewall 1.4). I have included a diagram below to help explain the target network I am working toward. I have read the shorewall online documentation and though I have used Shorewall the past 4 years in the current