similar to: Bandwidth limited when shorewall is enabled

Hi, I was reading document http://shorewall.net/MultiISP.html#idp3634200. Inspired by the document I was trying to establish the following changes: * one additional interface: COMA_IF * COM[A,B,C]_IF interfaces request IP address via DHCP * all non-RFC 1918 destined trafic is NATed from INT_IF to COMA_IF * all non-RFC 1918 destined trafic from GW is routed via COMB_IF by default * non-RFC 1918

Hi, I've been playing with a little player, and it seems I can't ov_open a file twice? heres a snipit... <p>#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <errno.h> #include <vorbis/vorbisfile.h> OggVorbis_File vf; FILE *f = NULL; int main(int argc, char **argv) { char *file = NULL; int err = 0; if(argc < 2) {

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I found a problem with my tcstart script. First I was running system TC enabled for testing and then to stop all TC I changed TC_ENABLED=No. But I started to wonder why shorewall restart did _not_ clear TC rules after TC was disabled? So I checked firewall and found out that if TC_ENABLED=No TC_CLEAR is disabled automatically. Question is: should

Hello, From a user perspective, the simple (tcpri) and complex TC configs offers two rather distinct choices. A user can very well be OK with only using the simple way and that''s very fine. Then again, even in doing so, the more complex config options are available. What is the interplay between the two as far as having some parameters configured in both at the same time ? So far

hello list, i have a small question regarding the imq patch from www.linuximq.net by default it makes only 2 devices. how can i add interfaces (imqX)? applying the patch to a linux kernel doesn''t let me build it as a module. thanks in advance, adrian _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Hi all, Im new to shorewell, can anyone guide me whether I can use shorewell for my work. I have a requirement in our work: Each system shall have two Ethernet card interfaces(system means hardware devices, servers, clients in other words any device or host used in the project). The IP address of each interface will be of different networks, subnets and gateways completely. Bcoz if one of

> From: "Roy" <roy@xxx.lt> > > I want to set interface to promisc mode and do all routing with iptables. > Is it somehow possible? as I see now kernel do not pass everything to > ipables. > > Basicaly I want to ignore ethernet addess and use only ip for routing. > > I suppose this may require writting special kernel driver or it > is possible > in

Hi, I am trying to do the simplest configuration of traffic shaping. So I did: shorewall.conf TC_ENABLED=Simple tcinterfaces eth0.2 External 500kbit tcdevices eth0.2 500kbit 200kbit And I am testing the speed on that interface - whether I did it ok or not, and my speed is still 4mbit/512kbit. So the question is - How to reduce the speed on interface connected

I want to use lastest version of Shorewall in my fresh debian squeeze instalation, so I follow http://www.shorewall.net/Install.htm#Debian but, modify preferences file was not enough for me, I have to modify/add some other files in /etc/apt/ directory: 1.) include testing repo to source.list 2.) add APT::Default-Release "stable"; to apt.conf and pinning all other packages to stable

Hi all, I am trying to come up with an architecture that has some redundancy. The idea is to hook up the two GbE LAN interfaces of a CentOS server to two Gigabit Ethernet switches. In case one switch goes down, there is a redundant path (the server is redundant too). Here is the idea: ----------- | GbE | PCs

Version 3.0.5 with the two-devices setup (eth0 - net, eth1 - loc). Kernel 2.4.29 tcdevices, tcrules, and tcclasses are clones of the wondershaper example (http://www.shorewall.net/traffic_shaping.htm) with eth0 replacing ppp. With TC_ENABLED=Internal in shorewall.conf: ---- Validating /etc/shorewall/tcdevices... Validating /etc/shorewall/tcclasses... ERROR: device A seems not to be

Hello, I have 2 ISP uplinks (zones: inet1 and inet2), each with a fixed IP on the outside and a routed subnet (/25 and /26) on the inside. So, behind the firewall i have 2 networksegments (lan1 and lan2) with public IP-addresses. The segments are completely isolated from eachother: hosts in zone "lan1" connect only to "inet1" and hosts in zone "lan2" only connect

Having study a number of documents on linux traffic shaper, I started to setup my shaping rules in my network. My linux box is running RH AS3 U3, shorewall 2.0.9. It is using PPPoE connected to the Internet firewall: eth0: connect to the adsl modem eth1: private net ppp0: virtual dial up interface for pppoe There is a ftp server on the private net It is listen for port 21 and configured

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 An Ubuntu 10.04 server running Shorewall 4.4.6.1 hosts three KVM virtual servers on the default libvrt virbr0 bridge at the default vnet+ bridge ports. The bridge and ports are on a separate private subnet (192.168.122.0/24). Each bridge port and the bridge itself are in the dmz, there are two physical interfaces and private local subnets in loc, and

From: Bruno Delbono <bruno.s.delbono at mail.ac> > I'm really sorry to start this thread again but I found something very > interesting I thought everyone should ^at least^ have a look at: > http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2005/06/4-dual-xeon-vs-e4500.html > This article takes into account a comparision of 4 dual xeon vs. e4500. > The author (not me!) talks about "A

Subject: [Sharing] CentOS 8.2 (2004) Linux Server is Compatible with Dell PowerEdge R640 1U Server Good day from Singapore, I have just installed CentOS 8.2 (2004) Linux Server on Dell PowerEdge R640 1U Server for "Donald Trump and Xi Jinping Investment Company LLP" (fictitious/fictional company name used) in Singapore on 11 August 2020 Tuesday. I can confirm that CentOS 8.2

Hi All, I''m using shorewall 4.0.15-1 on debian 5.0.5 and It works fine. I want to start using rules based on users. This is supported in the shorewall-rules file, However it seems that each rule can only be associated with one user or group. Does this mean that I cannot have a rule apply to several users which belong to several groups? Will creating duplicate rules for each user

hello before asking my question I come My name is Santiago and I''m from Spain but I''m in Colombia I followed this guide: https://www.doas.montanalinux.org/proxmox-ve-with-shorewall.html but when I run shorewall check, this error occurs: Checking... Initializing... Determining Zones... IPv4 Zones: net loc Firewall Zone: fw Validating interfaces file... ERROR: Invalid

Hello, My name is Felipe I succesfuly installed Shorewall 4.4.20.3 in Ubuntu 10.04, This installation is for controlling the access into the local Network, My question is if it is possible to make a conecction WAN to LAN using Terminal Name?? i have been searching in goolge but i didnt find an answer!!!! For example we have IP Public into shorewall with 2 interfaces, and in the LAN we have 3

Hello, This is using version 4.4.11.3 (Debian). The following error occurs: ERROR: Duplicate Host Group (eth1:10.128.23.34/16) in zone loc : The configuration is a test config. Commented lines removed to keep it clear: # cat zones fw firewall loc ipv4 # cat interfaces loc eth1 - # cat hosts loc eth1:10.128.23.34/16 # cat policy all all ACCEPT