similar to: Two lines and one ftp server: problem with iproute and routing

I am running 2.4.20 with Julian Anastasov''s patches (routes-2.4.20-9.diff), iptables v1.2.6a, iproute2-ss010824 on Debian. I have set up our internal gateway to multihome 2 T1''s as described in http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~julian/nano.txt . The only difference is that I use multiple IP''s on the external interfaces. EXA A.B.C.225 --------------------

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:54:06AM +0100, Rui Correia wrote: > Greetings folks. > I've setup libvirtd on my manjaro linux laptop. > Got a couple of VM's running (Win10 and Debian10) through NAT without any > issues. > > This is what the current network diagram looks like and it works fine: > > +-----------------------------------+ >

Greetings folks. I've setup libvirtd on my manjaro linux laptop. Got a couple of VM's running (Win10 and Debian10) through NAT without any issues. This is what the current network diagram looks like and it works fine: +-----------------------------------+ | +---------------------+ | | |

On 2020-07-20 05:32, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:54:06AM +0100, Rui Correia wrote: >> Greetings folks. >> I've setup libvirtd on my manjaro linux laptop. >> Got a couple of VM's running (Win10 and Debian10) through NAT without >> any >> issues. >> >> This is what the current network diagram looks like and it works

I just tried to set up a tinc test installation, but I guess I did something wrong, because I can only ping one direction. Here's my setup (lan1,192.168.99.0)<-->firewall1<-vpn->firewall2<-->(lan2,192.168.100.0) firewall1 has tap0 on 192.168.88.2 firewall2 has tap0 on 192.168.88.3 i set up the following routes : on firewall1 : 192.168.100.0 gw firewall2(192.168.88.3) on

Hello Shorewall gurus, as outlined on the shorewall site I have done the following after failure to install shorewall via the rpm: I have read all of the FAQ. I have read the quickstart guide with particular attention directed at the Mandrake solution. I have searched the mailing list archives (all old replies). I have studied the documentation index. I have previous experience using shorewall

I think it should work at least for TUN virtual interface as TUn works at IP level. This is a sample configuration. firewall1 lan = 172.16.1.11/19 (ALWAYS ACTIVE) - "Physical Network Interface" - system config as ifcfg-... 172.16.1.10/19 (VIP Keepalived Make active) - Active/Passive configuration with firewall2 firewall1 vpndr1

Samba version 3.0.9 on Red Hat 9.0 workstations: NT 4.0 SP6 When I took over this project, there were two domains connected by a VPN. For reasons that I'm unable to understand, some new users wound up with the intended domain of SATA and some wound up in SATB (even though they joined the SATA domain. Recently, all kinds of problems have materialized and the only thing I can find wrong is

Hi Daniel, First of all, awfully sorry for replying so late. Unfortunately your reply had gone to the Spam drawer... Also, I'm answering from Gmail's webmail which IIRC only allows for 'quote original post below'. So please forgive me for not following the proper netiquette of 'quote original post above'. > Is net.ipv4.ip_forward set to 0 ? > > I assume

This is a vpn for Disater Recovery sites, so it is not necessary to have a seamless failover, strictly speaking. Encryption instead is mandatory. Testing we found that on Keepalived failover remote Tinc take few seconds to reset the connection and correctly re-connect to the new active firewall (probably new firewall resetting the connection + PingTimeout + some seconds to reconnect). This is

This is what I want to avoid :D I want an active Tinc virtual interface active with ip identical of the other firewall, without ip conflict on the same network. Do you know if Tun type virtual interface on one host can have same ip address of another host in the same network without ip conflict ? ie if a tun virtual interface can work active without transmitting on real network ? or if such a

Hi Saverio, I found conflict: 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:1b:ba:5e VMware, Inc. 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 2) 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 3) 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 4) 172.16.1.10 00:50:56:2b:12:e6 VMware, Inc. (DUP: 5) So my assumptions were wrong ! :D Probably Virtual

Hi all, I have a network like this : Provider 1 Provider 2 \ / \ / \ / eth1 \ / eth2 ------------- | | | | | | | | | | | eth0 | ------------- | | | | 2 networks : -

Hi, > iptables v1.2.6a: Unknown arg `--to-source'' > Try `iptables -h'' or ''iptables --help'' for more information. iptables v1.2.6a is way too old for --to-source. Use at least version 1.2.8. If your distribution doesn''t offer it, just get the newest stable release from www.netfilter.org. The other error messages should be verbose enough to

hi i recently searched in the mailinglist archive and found similar problems, whose solutions helped very much, thank you. i have the following scenario: a firewall with one lan interface eth0 10.1.1.1/24 and two uplink interfaces eth1 10.2.2.1/24 eth2 10.3.3.1/24 each uplink interface does SNAT: iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j SNAT --to-source 10.2.2.1 iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING

Hi, I have following setup: BT100 ---- Firewall/nat 1 (www.ipcop.org) ---- Internet ----Firewall/nat2 (Vigor) ---- Asterisk . I'd like to use BT100 as local extension to Asterisk. I've done simple setup and BT100 can call Asterisk and place outgoing calls. However I cannot set him to qualify, cause it is claimed as unreachable. I have port redirection at Firewall 1 (to 5060 and rtp

Check your FW-1 tracker and see if any sip packets are dropped during call initiation. I had this problem and it went away when I upgraded the BT's firmware to the latest (16). Beware, though, that people on the list claim that this firmware breaks functionality of the message button and autoanswer. I haven't checked this yet, cause I can't afford to go back a version. I prefer a

(Please forgive the cross posting; I know many SuSE users subscribe to both the Samba and SuSE-e discussion groups and will get this message twice.) I had always been frustrated trying to get SuSE's Firewall2 to play nicely with Samba and support seamless network browsing. After much experimentation and a lot of Googling, I was finally able to get this working. By "working",

Hi there, I am trying to setup a configuration that requires me to use SIP and asterisk behind a firewall and over a VPN to a remote office and with some local Phones also. I can't use IAX to my provider because they don't offer it and my handsets ( snom 300 ) also don't support IAX so it's all SIP. The configuration is a follows Asterisk PBX 10.202.17.217/24 ------>|

As far as I can remember I only opened sip and tftp ports for the phone. For some reason (didn't look into it too much) the call stays with sip and doesn't use RTP. The problem you describe (the call doesn't even ring on the other side) is something I had and was solved by upgrading the firmware. Checkpoint's tracker explicitly said what connection attempts were blocked and why.