similar to: routing with 2 public ips

This is half true. Depends on the application or the way that the network traffic is flowing you could use some iptables rules to mark a connection for example by the source MAC address per new connections which would be a specific router and by that mark the connection, then in the routing level decide which default gateway to use for this specific connection. You can take a look at an

Hello everybody! Spse I have the following X <- seq(1:100) #(a dim(100) sequence of integers 1:100 representing the possible actions of player 1 and player2 in a game) BR2X<- br2(X) #(a dim(100) sequence of points on range (1,100) representing the best response function of player 2 to player 1:s actions) BR1X<- br1(X) #(a dim(100) sequence of points on range (1,100)

Hi all, I have one bridge system (used for controlling bandwidth) connected to three different DSL ISP provider. I have the following setup below: - +-------------+ | br0 | | -> eth1 | -> DSL_1 | -> eth2 | +-------------+ | br1 | | -> eth3 | -> DSL_2 | -> eth4 | +-------------+ | br2 | | -> eth5

On 12/25/2015 12:44 PM, Joey wrote: > > i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices. > > I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default > gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the > incoming device > > Could i realize this with firewalld? Or directly iptables? No you can not do that via firewalld or iptables. The problem is

A CentOS 6.3 box ("host") runs several KVM virtual machines, each of which has two interfaces attached to the two bridges br1 and br2 (and each thus has two IP's; one on 192.168.0.0/22 and one on 192.168.4.0/22); net.ipv4.ip_forward on the host is 1. Simplified diagram: host +---------------+ |

Hi, this is my Linux Box ---------------------------- LAN 1 -----|--eth1 <---br1--->eth0.1 | | \ | | eth0--|----- 802.1q tagged 1 Mbps link | / | LAN 2 -----|--eth2 <---br2--->eth0.2 | ---------------------------- I have to bridge the 2 lans

Hi, Question on setting up networking in xen. I want to do the following on my laptop: dom0 is attached to eth0 and ath0. dom1 is going to by my virtual firewall for all my virtual machines. So I assume 3 interfaces, a bridge to eth0, ath0 and a virtual interface? dom2 and so on will route all their traffic through dom1 (through the virtual interface) I''ve read the documentation a

On 30/12/2015 10:22, Paul R. Ganci wrote: > > On 12/30/2015 12:44 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: >> "I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default >> gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the >> incoming device " > > I'm sorry but I have been following this thread for a while and > everything that Gordon (and

Hi I''m testing around with xen 3.0 snapshot from last week. And i''m now having a problem with a xenbr which is based on a vlan if (dot1q). this is all in dom0 os: debian testing network: tg3 I can start the bridge based on my normal physical eth0 which is working without any problems. My clan without bridge is also working. I can start the bridge based on a vlan if with help

Hi, i am testing two bridges by sending to it random packets using hping2. First i create a random-length file, then i send it a lot of time on the wire using this command: for ($i=0; $i<50000; $i++) { hping2 -q -c 1 -d $data_len -E random.file 10.0.0.10 } My problem is that some packets are lost. Here is my setup: PC1 (10.0.0.1) ===== BR1 --------- BR2 ===== PC2 (10.0.0.10)

I may not understood\interpreted the scenario pretty well. I will try again: "i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices." He has two servers or two gateways or both?? "I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the incoming device " How to interpret this sentence??? The scenario I can

I'm looking for some information regarding the interaction of KVM, VLANs, firewalld, and the kernel's forwarding configuration. I would appreciate input especially from anyone already running a similar configuration in production. In short, I'm trying to figure out if a current configuration is inadvertently opening up traffic across network segments. On earlier versions of CentOS

I had turned off firewalld and was using iptables when I originally installed CentOS 7.0. Two days ago I upgraded my CentOS 7.0 to 7.1. Everything seemed to be fine. Today I discovered that my iptables configuration was removed with the update. Has anyone else experienced this on doing upgrade? Literally the /etc/sysconfig/iptables is gone and the /etc/sysconfig/iptables-config is the blank

I have just noticed this message in my kernel logs, reporting the possibility of an error with my memory. This would go a long way towards explaining the problems i''ve been having. This particular error is occuring when i''m not running xen so is obviously not something brought on by xen itself. The strange thing is that the NMI error is always followed by the TLAN: eth0: Adaptor

took a couple months off due to road blocks, hoping a fresh look would allow me to use my server as desired. I have three ports, eth0-2 over two nics. I want to bond them, and then use a bridge to connect to virtual machines on the virtual host computer. Never having done this, I am confused on some parts. Here is where I am at now and any pointers helpful. Single server, centos 6.x My issue

Ugh, I was upgrading the AD server running on a CentOS 6.8 which uses named as its back-end. I have been running it for years with no problems. Today after upgrading bind named will not start. I get this error: Sep 28 23:32:25 nikita named[6369]: ---------------------------------------------------- Sep 28 23:32:25 nikita named[6369]: BIND 9 is maintained by Internet Systems Consortium, Sep 28

On 10/03/2016 07:00 PM, TE Dukes wrote: > /etc/sysconfig/ifcfg-eth1 > GATEWAY=192.168.1.1 ... > /etc/sysconfig/ifcfg-lo > GATEWAY=192.168.1.1 Don't specify GATEWAY in interface files where it isn't used. This should be set on eth0 only. > # brctl show > > bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces OK, so you don't have a bridge interface. If you want to

Running CentOS 5.4 x64. Have successfully bridged eth2 with br2 by following the instructions here: http://wiki.libvirt.org/page/Networking (under the RHEL section) Have been running several KVM VMs successfully via this bridge. I am now trying to bridge additional interfaces by using the same routine. Each bridge is named to correspond with the ethX device its bridged with. Example of

Hi Laine What you have suggested sounds eminently reasonable. Thanks for your advice. I'm going to give it a shot and report back. Richard On 11/27/19 1:38 PM, Laine Stump wrote: > On 11/26/19 11:07 PM, Richard Achmatowicz wrote: >> Hello >> >> I have a problem with attaching VMs to a VLAN interface. >> >> Here is my setup: I have several physical hosts

Even more puzzling, I reverted back to the old configuration to confirm what I had seen and found that it works in one direction but not the other: i.e. from 192.168.0.110 to 192.168.0.120, but not the other way around. Must be something with my configuration....which I can follow up on. So, thanks again for your help. Richard On 12/3/19 11:36 AM, Richard Achmatowicz wrote: > Laine >