similar to: UDP broadcasts vs. nat Masquerading issue

Hi Daniel and Laine, [...] >> -A POSTROUTING -o br0 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o enp0s25 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o virbr2_nic -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o vnet0 -j MASQUERADE > > *None* of those rules were added by libvirt (unless your build of [...] > You can verify my "counter-claim" by running "virsh net-destroy" for all

On 6/28/19 10:23 AM, Nikolai Zhubr wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm observing an issue that as soon as libvirt starts, UPD broadcasts > going through physical network (and unrelated to any virtualization) get > broken. Specifically, windows neighbourhood browsing through samba's > nmbd starts suffering badly (Samba is running on this same box). > > At the moment

Hi all. I am interested in connecting my Palm T1 to the internet through Shorewall. I can set up a connection (with Bluetooth) to my Linux machine, and with Shorewall turned off, I could set up my machine to allow the Palm to access the internet with these commands : echo ''1'' >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A

Hello! I've setup tinc almost succesfully, but there is one problem remaining with a routing issue. Short Description of the situation : Workstation A (192.168.1.3) | | Tinc Host "50K" (192.168.1.1) | | <Unknown Firewall> + + + <Masq Firewall (Linux)> and Tinc Host "oeoe" (192.168.2.1) | | Workstation B

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, I have a linux box which balances load between two interfaces ( say WAN1 and WAN2). I have masquerading on for any request coming from LAN to the outside world. The setup is in such a way that WAN1 drops packets with source ip belonging to WAN2''s network and viceversa. For some strange reason, I find that packet coming out from the WAN interface has source address of WAN2 and

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52 ------- Additional Comments From stewart@gammasolutions.com 2003-02-19 04:02 ------- Created an attachment (id=3) routing setup ------- Additional Comments From stewart@gammasolutions.com 2003-02-19 04:03 ------- Created an attachment (id=4) iptables script (for iptables-restore) ------- Additional Comments From

I've got small numbers of connections moving through a load balancer configured in NAT mode. So I've got an iptables table called "nat", which has in it a line "-A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE" (lan connect is eth0, private lan inside the cluster is eth1). The load balancer is working; connections made to the virtual ip on that host do get routed to one of the

Hi, I just migrated my office's server from Slackware64 14.1 to CentOS 7. So far everything's running fine, I just have a few minor details to work out. I removed the firewalld package and replaced it by a simple Iptables script: --8<---------------------------------------------------- #!/bin/sh # # firewall-lan.sh IPT=$(which iptables) MOD=$(which modprobe) SYS=$(which sysctl)

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

Hello, Since I could not figure out my previous problem, let me ask in a different way. I have 3 networks inside my LAN. They are 172.16.55.0/24 , 172.16.56.0/24 and 172.16.57.0/24 respectively. They all use eth0 as an alias. I also have 2 uplinks to different ISPs. One of them is leased line and the other one is ADSL. One of my uplink is 81.8.120.18/30 with gateway 81.8.120.17 on eth1 and the

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:

Hi, I am trying to categorize the network traffic and to send it out across two different providers. For this I mark the packets in the firewall (in the PREROUTING chain of table mangle), and then use another routing table for the marked packets, which has a different gateway from the main routing table. Basicaly I am following the cookbook example in this page:

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

yes, this is a crazy subject. I have 4 ADSL lines to the same provider, which even have the same gateway. Those lines are connected to the same machine (more crazyness: even connected to the same nic. it works fine, I swear). this machine will serve this conenction to a local net. so, I setup the ifaces correctly, everything works. I add balancing using this command: # ip route replace default

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 -

The last two router/firewall servers I had used Slackware and Gentoo. I'm used to writing complete and explicit iptables rules; however, when I set up /etc/sysconfig/iptables in CentOS 7 my usual syntax is unusable. For example, I'm used to stating postrouting masquerade as: /usr/sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s 10.10.10.0/24 -j MASQUERADE But when I use the rule above,

Hi, this might be a dumb question, but I''m not finding much information online. I''m trying to setup a 2.6 linux box to run nat across multiple upstream links as a simple way to aggregate bandwidth. I found the instructions in lartc section 4.2 (http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html) fairly clear and straightforward. I implemented those, and a couple of trivial

Hi. Im now decribeing my problem very clearly to see if anyone could help me. I have 3 (three) nics in my system. 1 is for my internet network - (eth1) 2 are for my 2 adsl lines that i use to connect to the internet (eth2 is my "master" adsl line) and (eth0 is my "slave" adsl line). I know that to make redundance work ill have to setup the ip route and ip rule in my

jserinki7 jserink # netstat -lnptu Active Internet connections (only servers) Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:53 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 3711/dnsmasq tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:631 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 2849/cupsd tcp 0 0 192.168.100.1:445