similar to: C7 : Firewalld

Does someone have a link to a how-to-do-it with firewalld, not "disable firewalld and use iptables"? mark

Yesterday I noticed that I was not able to ping one of our development servers so I logged in via VNC and ran the Firewalld GUI. To my surprise, except for the interface definition for public and trusted zones, nothing seemed to be configured. That is, none of the services were checked off that we want open at the firewall. Also, this server is a gateway and masquerading and forwarding appears

On 10/23/18 14:45, Phil Perry wrote: > On 23/10/18 19:05, mark wrote: >> Been looking, and haven't found the answer: in c7, is there a firewall-cmd >> command, or a systemctl cmd, to check whether ip6tables firewall is >> running > > Yes, the same as for any other service: > > systemctl status ip6tables.service > Um, no. I've discovered that on our

Hi List, Are you really using firewalld and network-manager on Centos 7 production servers or old way disabling network manager and using pure iptables like on C6? -- Eero

On 10/26/18, Andrew Pearce <andrew at andew.org.uk> wrote: > On 2018-10-26 16:25, mark wrote: > I believe this should remove any ipv6 rules (rules and chains) > > ip6tables -F > ip6tables -X You might want to clear the other tables, too: for x in filter nat mangle raw security "" do ip6tables ${x:+-t $x} -F ip6tables ${x:+-t $x} -X done > You may need to

On 1/30/19 10:05 PM, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: > Did you look at Shorewall? IMHO that's what is best used in such > situations and it works since many years now. shorewall doesn't support nftables, which is largely the point of firewalld:? The Linux firewall system is currently undergoing yet another deprecation and migration from iptables to nftables. firewalld should

I just installed a host with CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1511.iso It seems that firewalld is not included in the minimal set. I wonder why? If I recall correctly CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1503-01.iso did include it. And, this could be a very stupid question, am I running without a firewall or just without a way to control my firewall? Thanks Patrick

Hi, again, folks, I'm trying to convert a number of iptables rules to firewalld rich rules. I need to do this, because this is, in fact, a firewall, to protect access to servers with sensitive data. It will limit access to the servers behind it to a specific network, and nobody else, and allow only certain services through. What I've been trying to find is a script/program that

Working on a script, and to test, I need to shut down ip6tables temporarily. firewalld is running; is there any way to shut down *just* ip6tables? I tried installinf iptables-services, and did a systemctl stop ip6tables, and no joy. mark

Been looking, and haven't found the answer: in c7, is there a firewall-cmd command, or a systemctl cmd, to check whether ip6tables firewall is running mark

On 4/28/2020 3:17 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > - gateway sends a router solicitation and gets a router advertisement > with "stateful config" set, which tells gateway to do DHCPv6 (but > default route comes from RA) I'm not seeing any outbound IPv6 traffic from my CentOS 7 box on the WAN interface. I do see RA's emitting from the LAN interface, from radvd. Is there

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:13, mark <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Gordon Messmer wrote: > > On 1/30/19 10:05 PM, Simon Matter via CentOS wrote: > > > >> Did you look at Shorewall? IMHO that's what is best used in such > >> situations and it works since many years now. > > > > shorewall doesn't support nftables, which is largely the point

dear All, I'm facing this routing problem, the setup is actualy part of ltsp, but I think this problem is Centos-specific. The server is a Dell Poweredge R210. The install is standard 6.4, updated. I have one nic facing the public internet: vi /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-em1 DEVICE=em1 BOOTPROTO=none HWADDR=d4:ae:52:c1:28:2b NM_CONTROLLED=no ONBOOT=yes TYPE=Ethernet

Shorewall 4.5.15 3 Interface setup em1 p3p1 p4p4 ppp0 Hi, Since changing to NetworkManger on Fedora 18 I can no longer connect to the DSL Modem, which is connected to Interface em1. When the NetworkManger brings up the interfaces and ppp0, it no longer assigns an IP to em1. If I have ppp0 disabled and NetworkManger brings up the interfaces, em1 gets an IP of 192.168.1.2. Then when I get

Once upon a time, Lists <lists at benjamindsmith.com> said: > I understand that it's possible to allow the 4 VM guest systems to each have a > "direct" fixed IP address and access the addresses \via the host network > adapter, while the host retains its fixed IP. If you are running NetworkManager (the default), it's not too hard. Here's an example

Hey, I have KVM installed on my Fedora 17 box. I added the network interfaces of the virtual machines to the openvswitch bridge as follows: ____ ____ / VM1\______br0_______/ em1\ \____/ | \____/ | _|_ /VM2\ \____/ virbr0 is the virtual network switch VM1 and VM2 are on the same subnet having tap interfaces vnet0 and vnet1 respectively. em1 is the default

On 10/23/18 11:45 AM, Phil Perry wrote: > > Yes, the same as for any other service: > systemctl status ip6tables.service That will not provide useful information if the system is using firewalld, as is the default configuration.

We just got DELL R920 and installed Centos 6.5 on it.? After installation, network not function.? We manually enter IP address, gateway and netmark on "em1".? we also do following: 1. startup NetworkManager 2. /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-em1? ==> NM_CONTROOLED=yes I tried to startup network and get error message: Bring up interface em1: connection activation failed

I am running NOX controller with a python script that prints out the destination mac and the source mac for each packet arriving at the now controller and then floods it out. So here's what happening: With em1 connected, all the packets that arrive at em1 are coming to the controller and printing out the details. However, without em1 connected to the OVS, when I have the following setup:

hi everyone I'm having a bit of a puzzle on one centos system, I have four interfaces: nm-team1 10.5.6.100 em1 192.168.2.17 em2 192.168.2.18 p3p3 172.25.12.222 I do: ping 10.5.6.17 -I em1 PING 10.5.6.17 (10.5.6.17) from 192.168.2.17 em1: 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.5.6.17: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.367 ms the same for -I em2, for -I em1 and naturally for -I nm-team1 - all good.