similar to: [Bug 958] New: MASQUERADE does not work on recent kernels

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1343 Bug ID: 1343 Summary: With iPv6 masquerade, ICMPv6 time-exceeded pkts are forwarded with bad checksum Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1105 Bug ID: 1105 Summary: masquerade fully broken when no prerouting chain is created Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: other Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5 Component: kernel

Hello guys I don''t know if this thing has been posted before (if it was , please forgive me). I have 7 computers at home and I want all of them to have access to the internet. In order to do that , I set up a linux router (2 network cards) as a usual router (eth0 : 82.77.69.75 - internet connection ; eth1 : 192.168.10.1 - local network) . The other computers have ips ranging from

Hi everyone! I have a little problem here. First let explain my network topology I have a 192.168.0.0/24 network, with win98 workstations, a NT serving domain and another NT as a WINS server. 192.168.0.3 - NT / WINS 192.168.0.6 - NT / DOMAIN 192.168.0.1 - Internet gateway 192.168.0.2 - Wireless AP 200 that connects to a linux gw ==--==-=-=-==-= AIR :) -- --- == --==--=-- =-=- 192.168.0.4 -

Dear all, I''ve the following problem with routing + NAT: If I''ve two ISP and I''m using two nexthop in default route with MASQUERADE on both ISP links, I see routing cache regenerated, but sometimes packets sent to a new link (after cache regeneration) uses wrong source address for masquerading. Here is the config. I''ve two links to outside via two

Package: xen-utils-common Version: 3.0.3-0-2 Severity: normal I'm not an expert in networking but I think that the current setup when using network-nat for domains is insecure. I've configured : (network-script 'network-nat netdev=eth1') (vif-script vif-nat) So when only domain 0 is started, I get the following : # iptables -L -n Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64 Summary: Conntrack-Table is not cleared on inferface down using target MASQUERADE Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: i386 OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: NAT

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27828 Summary: Changing mode repeatedly locks up card Product: xorg Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Driver/nouveau AssignedTo: nouveau at lists.freedesktop.org

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1115 Bug ID: 1115 Summary: Not all packets leaving the system get masqueraded Product: iptables Version: 1.4.x Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: iptables Assignee: netfilter-buglog

Dear list members, Masquerading does''not work for me. This is a Mandrake Linux 10 system, but I use another kernel, that included in the original distribution (original: 2.6.3, now used 2.6.8 because of a lot of suck with OpenSwan with kernels prior 2.6.4). The problem seems to be similar or identical mentioned here:

Okay here is my setup: Gentoo Box running 2.6.4 w/ 4 NICs 1 NIC is for internal network 3 NICs are for external network The machine has a static address assigned to the internal network nic. This nic runs dhcp and dns forwarding. The other 3 nics have external dynamic IP addresses. All will have the same gateway. There are 3 NICs because this is a very large pipe, that will only allocate a

Hello, I''ve successfully gotten Shorewall 2.0.7 configured and working. However, I am confused about how I can setup the interface "ppp1" in the file masq to allow the masquerading of my local LAN over a L2TP tunnel. It works without a hitch if the ppp interface is up, but if I reboot my machine without the interface being, shorewall refuses to load because the interface is

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=486 bruno@bruno.inf.br changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|laforge@netfilter.org |bruno@bruno.inf.br Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From

----- Message d'origine ---- > De : Dr.Drej <wineforum-user at winehq.org> > ? : wine-users at winehq.org > Envoy? le : Dimanche, 9 Mars 2008, 12h05mn 50s > Objet : [Wine] Vampire The Masquerade - Bloodlines > > Hi, > > I installed Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines under Wine on Ubuntu Gutsy and > so far it was working fine. But now I ran across a

Hi, I have a linux-box with 3 eth, 2 of us go into 2 ISP. My localnet is masquerade with this rule: Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination SNAT all -- 10.0.0.0/16 anywhere to:211.56.233.186 SNAT all --

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=486 Summary: Invalid Argument in MASQUERADE Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: i386 OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: NAT AssignedTo: laforge@netfilter.org ReportedBy:

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-03-16 09:36 ------- you seem to be running a

Hi all, I'm currently in the process of building a 2-Node libvirt/KVM Cluster and ran into some issues regarding the network connectivity of our virtual machines. Our setup seemed to work fine, we were able to browse to Google and our own company website and some others from within the VM. Then we tried microsoft.com to download some Windows iso images from MS Partner Network. The page

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64 ------- Additional Comments From tobias@portfolio16.de 2003-04-21 23:51 ------- Hi, I think I just found a problem with the patch... It was my fault to use a automatic build system and not check it... In the end the patch didn't apply in its whole and I didn't discover it, because the build system just went on.

Sorry I wasn''t paying attention to this thread, but am about to try it myself and think I might know what is the problem if you haven''t fixed it yet... > try replacing eth0 with ''xenintbr'', shouldn''t need forwarding enabled > though? Is this a situation where you have eth0 configured non-bridged, > and forwarding to a dummy bridge which in