similar to: Ipsec route and non-ipsec route

Does anyone know if load balancing and DNAT work well together? I know that load balancing and NAT do not, but what about a simple port forward? I can''t apply Julian Anastasov''s patches, because they don''t work with PPTP patches. :/ Anyhow, a simple: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport xxx -j DNAT --to yyy:xxx iptables -I FORWARD -i eth0 -d yyy -p

lartc-request@mail man.ds9a.nl To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl Sent by: cc: lartc-bounces@mail Subject: LARTC Digest, Vol 20, Issue 13

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 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

The LARTC howto correctly describes load balancing and split access for traffic from a machine with multiple ISP connections (http://www.lartc.org/lartc.html#LARTC.RPDB.MULTIPLE-LINKS) -- *provided* the traffic originates from the machine itself (i.e. traffic regularly handled by the INPUT and OUTPUT chains of iptables). When forwarding traffic from an attached local network, the following

I am attempting to create an ipsec tunnel between two CentOS 5.1 systems, network-to-network with two different 192.168.xxx.0/24 LAN segments. I have gone through the documentation on the centos web site, and have the machines to the point where the /var/log/messages show ``IPsec-SA established'' on both machines after runnig ``ifup ipsec0'' (same ipsec0 on each machine). IP

Hi, I''m trying to set-up an ipsec tunnel between a Redhat9 box and a Netgear FVS318. When trying to initialise the connection - ifup ipsec0 - I get the error: RTNETLINK answers: Network is unreachable This would lead me to believe shorewall is blocking ipsec. My config is below. The output of ''shorewall status'' is attached. Any help in pointing out if I''ve

This one is a bit complex so if no help is forthcoming, I understand. I have 2 shorewall firewalls (1.3.13) up and running. (both machines running Gentoo Linux 1.4_rc2) I have freeswan (1.98) running on each of them. I have squid setup as a caching/filtering server on each of them. Each of them was originally setup using the Two-interface Quick Start Guide. Then the Squid guide and then the IPSEC

I just got the list confirmation and noticed it''s text only email so here it is again in plain text. Below is the oringal message. Hi all, I am really struggling with this one, I have built a lot of linux machines using IPSEC tunnels and shorewall gateways. I decied to build a new test machine with Debian running 2.4.25 and Shorewall 2.0.15. I have two subnets on their own switches and

[ sorry for cross-posting this to newbies and users, but I''m a bit desperate to get this resolved ] This is strange... I had this working before without any problems, and recently we started to have some odd issues. I can''t be sure exactly what has changed as I''m unfortunately not the only person with access to the server. {sigh} The problem is that I pretty much

Hi, I would like to shape incomming traffic on eth0 and ipsec0 (binded to eth0). I need to set minimal bandwidth to some packets going via ipsec0 interface. It is running fine when I simply mark the ESP (protocol 50) packets in the PREROUTING chain - means all ipsec packets are shaped. Like: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p 50 -j MARK --set-mark 30 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -i

I am have a shorewall firewall and freeswan ipsec running on a redhat 8.0 Linux gateway machine. I have one working tunnel defined, all works well. I am not clear how to define mutiple concurrent tunnels. I can not add further interface entries as all the tunnels come in on ipsec0, do I still have mutiple zone definitions? some of the tunnels will be dynamic roadwarriors and as such would need a

I have tried using iptraf for my NAT firewall to analyse the IP traffic. Basically I am faced with this difficulty of related the source IP to the outgoing interface to the internet, so I am wondering if anyone has a suggestion for a different ways to do it, or a suggestion for a better tool. Details :- Supposed : eth0 - LAN eth1 - WAN1 eth2 - WAN2 And then

hi, I can''t get a freeswan 2.02 ipsec x509 connection at work can somebody help me? ************************************************************************************* global situation ************************************************************************************* the linux gateway (chivas) is a single machine 192.168.1.250 with a local net 192.168.1.0/24, a dyn IP via a DSL

hi there, I just wanted to share a recent discovery I did on how to setup a secure VPN implementation for linux 2.4.x (I''m using 2.4.20 but it should be working, as far as documentation states, for > 2.4.18) without using FreeS/WAN. The tool (ipsec_tunnel: http://ringstrom.mine.nu/ipsec_tunnel/, by Tobias Ringström) is a kernel module based on ipip and ip_gre. It uses CyptoAPI to

Hello, it looks like the usual way to do ipsec on centos5 won't work anymore on centos6 I installed ipsec-tools but an interface type IPsec is not recognized by the kernel ifup ipsec0 Device does not seem to be present, delaying initialization. I am not planning to use the awful OpenSwan, I Want to sue the Kame implementation which was working fine on CentOS5 any hints ? thank you

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, been awhile since I''ve written. I now have a situation where I get to use traffic shaping for a client. ~ We implemented the WonderShaper script on our own firewall and experienced no problems. I made some modifications to it to add IPSec protocol packets into the 1:10 high priority class using the u32 filter. ~ So far on our

Hi, Could not conceive an working set-up for an IPSEC VPN made with racoon/setkey on which I have one address on my side acting as an SNAT router for all traffic from my network to a network segment on the far side. my network --- my gateway ---------------------- remote network 10.0.0.0/24 - 10.0.0.1 (10.253.0.2) -- tunnel - 192.168.0.0/22 All traffic starts on my side, so if I can

I just wanted to drop a success notice to the list. We always hear the failures, and rarely the successes! ;-) After switching from FC1 and freeS/WAN ipsec to the new native linux 2.6 ipsec (ie: setkey-based) my QoS code suddenly started working properly! Previously, with FC1 and freeS/WAN, I found it impossible and rather buggy (kernel panics!) to get QoS to make any difference at all. My

hello, my setup is rh8 2.4.20-8, shorewall 2.0.7, freeswan-2.04. ------- policy------- vpn loc accept loc vpn accept vpn fw accept fw vpn accept --------------------- --------zone ------- net net loc local dmz dmz vpn vpn ------------------------ ----- tunnels --------- ipsec net 0.0.0.0/0 vpn ipsecnat net 0.0.0.0/0 vpn -------------------------------------- ------ interfaces