similar to: PATCH : [Re: [Fwd: broadcast over gre tunnel?]]

Hi, I''ve never actually even tried to use the IMQ device before, but I''ve watched the emails go back and forth on various problems associated with it, and what looks like some general instability. How stable is it really ? Is it suitable for full-time use on a large number of routers ? Has anyone used it on ipsec0 + eth0 devices for shaping ? and lastly, any difference

Hello, I connected the network 192.168.1.0 with 192.168.2.0 over the internet trough a GRE-Tunnel. I don''t know if I set up all things right: The client-pcs in both networks have a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0 and 192.168.2.x''s default gateway is the server wich has started the tunnel. The 192.168.1.x''s default gateway is 192.168.1.250 wich routes traffic destinated to

I am attempting to setup an IPSec protected GRE tunnel with a Cisco router. I believe the IPSec association is up, however I cannot move traffic over the tunnel. It is not clear how to integrate the tunnel interface (gre1) with firewall-cmd; adding the interface to trusted does not appear to 'stick'. [root at aqueduct ~]# firewall-cmd --add-interface=gre1 --zone=trusted The interface

Hi List, FYI. We have been using CentOS 6.4 and have 2 vpn/gre tunnels to separate cisco rtrs using ospf. with kernel 2.6.32-358.23.2 We have upgraded to 6.5 bit using kernel 2.6.32-431.5.1 and the exact same configuration scripts for our vpn/gre tunnels. What I see is the first gre tunnel works great and I get an ospf neighbor. The second tunnel comes up and I can ping across it and I see

Hi Devik/Patrik, In setting up IMQ/HTB with a GRE Tunnel I''m constantly getting kernel errors: [root@linux /root]# dmesg ... ... ... NET: XXX messages suppressed. Dead loop on virtual device gre1, fix it urgently! ... ... ... This I get only if I''m going to start cross device b/w control. If I remove iptables rule iptables -t mangle -D POSTROUTING -j IMQ then no such warning

I want to send a multicast packet to multiple gre tunnel, but the packet only went to where the routing table configured to. ex. when use ip route add 224.0.0.0/4 via gre0 then the packet go to gre0 when use ip route add 224.0.0.0/4 via gre1 then the packet go to gre1 when use ip route add 224.0.0.0/4 nexthop via gre1 nexthop via gre0 then the packet go to either gre or gre1

we have an external 2Mbit dsl connection and running on it are several gre vpn tunnels so far i''ve given priority to the vpn traffic (using htb) can i now put rules in for the tunnels to control traffic within each tunnel (that''s where our video conferencing etc runs)? or can i only control the real interface (eth1 in our setup)? if not can i somehow see the packets inside the

Hi, I have the following setup. Two linux systems with two [test] external interfaces encrypted with ipsec [transport]. Two gre tunnels that pass 10.200.0.0/24 and 10.200.1.0/24 network traffic. Testing the balanced tunnels I would setup iptraf on one and ping from the other. The results would be as expected; traffic would be split between the two interfaces. Testing with an ftp transfer of

Hi, I have the following setup. Two linux systems with two [test] external interfaces encrypted with ipsec [transport]. Two gre tunnels that pass 10.200.0.0/24 and 10.200.1.0/24 network traffic. Testing the balanced tunnels I would setup iptraf on one and ping from the other. The results would be as expected; traffic would be split between the two interfaces. Testing with an ftp transfer of

Hi, Does anyone tried to get ipip or gre tunnel behind NAT environments. ? i''m trying to make both side tunneling with ipip or gre with private address just like belows.. A -------------------FIRWWAL -------------------INET ------------------- B PRIVATE PUBLIC PUBLIC (10.100.0.1) (211.xxx.xxx.xxx) (

Hello, I''ve set up a GRE tunnel between two Linux boxes and it''s working well, with or without IPSEC (under GRE). The problem is that when I have no traffic for some minutes, side A cannot communicate to side B any more, unless side B tries to communidate to side A. The same thing happens in the other direction. For example, side A pings side B. No reply. Keep pinging. Side B

Hi All, As it is written in the "Linux 2.4 Advanced Routing HOWTO" GRE tunneling has some benefits compare to IP-in-IP, on of it benefits is the ability to transport multicast traffic through a GRE tunnel. I used the mrouted daemon and I know that the daemon supports tunneling but I don''t want to use its tunneling method. Assuming I have gre0 as my tunneling device I did the

Hello, I'm preparing to prepare to take the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) this fall, and I downloaded the GRE PowerPrep software from www.gre.org. Unfortunately, I have not successfully set up the software yet - when I try to get a set of practice questions, the program gives me a Windows dialog box saying "Fatal Error". Then the program stops responding to mouse clicks completely and

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74 Summary: protocols GRE and 47 are not handled as samekind of protocols Product: iptables userspace Version: 1.2.5 Platform: i386 OS/Version: SuSE Linux Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P2 Component: iptables-save

> I tried adding the tun0 interface to the internal zone and firewall- > cmd?told me tun0 was managed by NetworkManager. After that it didn't > show?tun0 as a member of any zone. > #? firewall-cmd --zone=internal --add-interface=tun0 > The interface is under control of NetworkManager, setting zone to? > 'internal'. success > # firewall-cmd --list-all-zones >

I need to send multicast traffic through a GRE tunnel between two Linux routers. The tunnel works for normal IP packets, but I can''t see how to make it work for multicast. Here''s the setup: 10.10.10.0/24 LAN-B--------------RtrB-------------RtrC--------------LAN-C 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.1.0/24 RtrB interfaces: eth0

Hi! Can I create the unnumbered GRE tunnel with iproute2 utility? Can someone provide me a link/howto/example_config how to do it? The topology is one tunnel between two linux boxes: -- eth1-|__|-eth0 <-------------> eth0-|__|-eth1 -- I''m trying now with: ip tu add tun1 mode gre local loc.IP remote rem.IP ttl 255 dev eth0 ip addr add tun1 0.0.0.0 ip link set tun1 up but it

Hi, I have two systems each with 2 two gre tunnels over ipsec. The tunnels are setup to loadbalance using ''ip route''. Using ping from one server to the other I get equal results via the two gre tunnels, but when I try a large ftp transfer the utilization of one tunnel is 90% and the other 10%. The two interfaces are both 100/full. What would be the reason for this, or would

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: I have a strange problem that was described in a previous mail but I have stripped the problem down to the following: I have a debian based router that I have setup IPSec with GRE over top. The tunnel addresses are 192.168.2.97 locally, the other side is 192.168.2.110. The tunnel is 192.168.2.96/28. The end points are locally 192.168.1.97(eth1) and 192.168.1.1 the other side''s