similar to: IP tunneling

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

Hello everyone, I have a problem regarding gre tunneling, I have two linux box both of them has a private network and the linux A is connected to the internet via wireless radio and the other linux B is connected to the internet via lease line. Here is the setup of my two linux box Linux A eth0 = 203.189.x.1 (internet) eth1 = 192.168.1.1 (going to hub private network) Linux B eth0 = 205.198.x.1

Hi, I have a client connected to the ''net through 3 ISP''s. Have set up a Linux box to do routing and load sharing for the 3 connections. A fourth interface is connected to the LAN with private IP addresses. Am using iptables to SNAT traffic to the appropriate IP depending on the interface the packet gets routed onto. The setup looks something like this: Interface IP

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I've got this strange thing: I setup a openvpn link between two openwrts. NetA: 192.168.2.0/24 NetB: 192.168.0.0/24 In netA there is a mail server + DNS: 192.168.2.44, with domain name branch.abc.com In netB there is a mail server + DNS: 192.168.0.44, with domain name abc.com I setup both DNS server to be a slave server of each other

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

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

Hello, I am attempting to set an IP-IP tunnel between two PC in a same LAN in order to evaluate the performances of the tunnel (kernel 2.4.26). I read the section of LARTC HowTo about it and it seems simple but i do not succeed in setting it. I don''t find the new_tunnel.o module (cf LARTC HowTo). I found Configure.help a bit confusing : CONFIG_NET_IPIP "Saying Y to this option

Martin, If I understand whay you are suggesting, there is a problem in your design: It will only work if you use Hide NAT. The problem is that the ip_src == IP0 rule is wrong: The ip_src is not changed by the router and it is not equal to the IP of any of the machine interfaces. Can you think of a solution that will work in the following reasonabl scenario: Lets say I have two T1 internet

I''ve tried with iproute and it works now ! commands for A: ip tunnel add mode ipip tunl1 local IP_A remote IP_B ip addr add dev net1 local virtual-IP_A remote virtual-IP_B ip link set net1 up Same on B. And then from A i''m able to ping virtual-IP_B. It seems one can not use tunl0 as a tunnel name, is it true ? I think it will be a good thing to add to the section 5.2 of the

hi all, We are using squid 25s1 with kernel 2.4.19 and iproute2(+julian''s Pathes) with the following acl.. acl short_path dst 128.0.0.0/8 tcp_outgoing_address myIp2nd short_path we are linked to 2 isp--one having satelite & the other OFC. We want the above mentioned network to go thru OFC(ispB) as the sibling resides there. But when i use squidclient mgr:server_list

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:28:47AM +0100, <Alpt>: ~> On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 11:29:21AM +0100, <Alpt>: ~> ~> The multipath code creates new cached routes. Since ~> ~> after connect the socket is "connected", i.e. saddr and ~> ~> daddr are known and they are always provided when resolving ~> ~> route ~> ~> ~> ~> So, the connected

Hello Tom and others on the list. Tom - you might recall that the other day (night) I had problems with my axip setup (protocol 93) and we made some changes to the policy, zones and interfaces files. You added ''peers and tunl+'' Following that change nothing seemed to work. In fact you wanted to see the shorewall status file, among other things. Well - tonight, I carefully put

Thanks a lot , Everythings is working now. Quoting Alex Martin <alex@rettc.com>: > > > At this point point ip addr show: > > 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue > > link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 > > inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo > > 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000

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) (

Hi, I am tring to us ip route to load balance between two interfaces. ip route add equalize 10.200.1.0/24 nexthop via 10.200.0.2 dev neta nexthop via 10.200.0.2 dev neta2 Where neta and neta2 are gre tunnels. Testing show that packets travel in a single sided manner. Do I need to use the multipath (IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED) module? thx jason

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

Hi, I''ve a gateway host (cali), connected to the Internet via ADSL and a PPTP tunnel (ppp0). I also have a IPIP tunnel to another host over the Internet (mytun), nothing fancy. This is working perfectly. But I want to give more priority to the IPIP packets coming OUT of the PPP (PPTP connection) interface. And I can''t get this to work. Class 2:21 is the one with high

Hi, I am using linux kernle-2.6.15, iptables-1.4 and bridge-utils-1.4. Everything intslled without any issue and i am able to enable the bridge and traffic is also flowing without any issue. But i did not see any traffic on the iptables forward chain due to which i am not able to control the traffic. Do i requie enable anything more to make the traffic pass through iptables forward chain.

Hi, this is my first message to the list and I want to thank the the autor for developing Shorewall. And now the problem. I''m using version 1.3.13 and I have eth0 (IP a.b.c.d/24) as a public interface. I have an alias on eth0:0 (address a.b.c.e/24) and my dns servce listens on this IP (in this moment the dns is stopped). This is my policy file: #SOURCE... fw all