similar to: snat packet going out a bridge

Hi, i have a question if linux is able to do the same thing that commercial wan simulators do (which cost 7000 $ or more). Basicly i want to use the following setup. Linux Router Machine 192.168.0.1 192.168.1.1 Eth0 192.168.10.1 Eth5 192.168.2.1 Eth1 192.168.100.1 WEB Server. 192.168.3.1 Eth2

I have a 2.6.12(ubuntu-patchset), kernel recompiled with this routing options: [*] IP: advanced router [*] IP: policy routing [*] IP: equal cost multipath Load balancing is working great, but i have problems whits long term tcp flows (like msn-messenger or vpns or any other type of long term ip based conection). I assume this is because after a period of time, the per-host

I have a setup with two Internet providers. One circuit (net0 == eth1) is used primarily for employees and tunnels to other sites. The other (net1 == eth2) is for the production machines that customers access. Everythung works in teh sense that packets get to where they are sent (mostly) but I recently I had a sniffer on the system and noticed a problem I cannot solve. traffic coming in

Hello newsgroup, I hope somebody with more routing experience then me can help me with the problem I have. The setup is as described below. A dual internet provider routing, multiple local area networks, and a dmz network with one public and one private ip range. I followed the instructions at lartc.org, and so far everything is working. The default route is via

Hi all: I am getting this error message in my syslog after a few hours of running my QoS. First i suposed it was a memory sims problem, but i have changed them and i have the same problem. Here is the error message: Oct 20 16:52:23 pototogorri /usr/bin/sudo: apache : TTY=unknown ; PWD=/var/www/html ; USER=root ; COMMAND=/sbin/iptables -t nat -D PREROUTI Oct 20 16:52:23 pototogorri

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:20:01PM +0300, Gavin Li wrote: > Currently, coalescing parameters are grouped for all transmit and receive > virtqueues. This patch series add support to set or get the parameters for > a specified virtqueue. > > When the traffic between virtqueues is unbalanced, for example, one virtqueue > is busy and another virtqueue is idle, then it will be very

On 01/20/2016 04:21 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 01/20/2016 09:55 AM, Steve Clark wrote: >> Any ideas? > IP forwarding needs to be enabled, and you also need rules in your > FORWARD chain to allow the packets. > Thanks, but forwarding is turned on and my FW rules are empty. Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 359K packets, 136M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out

On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 07:40:12 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:20:01PM +0300, Gavin Li wrote: > > Currently, coalescing parameters are grouped for all transmit and receive > > virtqueues. This patch series add support to set or get the parameters for > > a specified virtqueue. > > > > When the

Hi, I had successfully setup my bridge (br0) but after few minutes the br0 interface seems not working. ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 ifconfig eth5 0.0.0.0 brctl addbr br0 brctl addif br0 eth0 brctl addif br0 eth5 brctl stp br0 on I check on my system's /var/log/syslog file. It shows something strange messages as below: - Jan 2 10:44:22 fw01 kernel: ipt_tcpmss_target: bad length (64 bytes)

Hi, I''ve defined a hash like so in my nodes.pp: net::addr { "eth5": rt => { rt1 => { address => ''192.168.10.0'', netmask => ''255.255.255.0'', gateway => ''192.5.28.19'', src =>

Hello all, I am new to Linux Ethernet bridging. Let me first start with what I am trying to achieve. Well you see - I am attempting to have 2 main firewall running at the same time - one as a master and the other one as a slave. Yes, I would like to make use of Ethernet bridging in this scenario - as I understand it, all I need are two machines and STP enabled. I am running Debian

Hi, Shorewall version -4.0.12-2 (EL5 rpm version) OS : Centos 5.2 I have shorewall successfully running on Linux with multi ISP. Trying to make services such as "rsync, ftp" go through my secondary ISP. For which I did the following eth0 : Internal LAN eth4 : DSL (Second ISP) => x.x eth5 : T1 (First ISP) => y.y Created the following entries in

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I''ve a problem on the broadcast it is adding some additional route to the router which caused me some problem... Below is my /etc/shorewall/interface swtmng1 eth0.1 202.73.10.127 norfc1918 apmng1 eth0.10 202.73.8.7 norfc1918 dist1 eth0.1000 202.73.11.255 norfc1918,nobogons idc1 eth2.50

I have been studying Tom''s configuration at: http://www.shorewall.net/myfiles.htm -and- http://www.shorewall.net/NAT.htm I am using SBC as an ISP and also have 5 "real" IP addresses and because of other issues, have to re-do my set-up. If I have a block at .120/29 assigned to me, what SBC does is give you 5 usable addresses, in my case .121 is the SBC modem/router and

I am clearly doing something ridiculously wrong. Running Asterisk 0.7.2 on FreeBSD 5.1, I have SIP soft phones which are unable to register. They keep trying and then time out. With the sip debug on in Asterisk nothing is logged. Here is the trace from one of the phones (kphone): (192.168.100.13 is kphone, 192.168.100.3 is Asterisk) sipclient: sending: 21:47:45.454

Hi all, I''m trying to set up a computer with 2 routes to the internet, much as described at http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html .One of my interfaces (eth5, 192.168.2.2) is only used for traffic originating inside the network. The other (eth1, 192.168.1.2) is only used for a VPN, where all (udp) traffic originates from outside our network. I have created a second

Believe me, I have tried everytbing I can think of to solve this problem. I will work my tail off to resolve this but I am fresh out of ideas. Any suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated. Here are the details... problem: server can see machines/shares on clients but clients cannot see machines/shares on server workgroup/domain: golgerth no router server: rpms: kernel 2.4.18.19.8.0

Hi, I met a problem when using bridge with netfilter. The kernel version 2.4.20, and the patch is bridge-nf-0.0.10-against-2.4.20.diff. Our firewall configuration is as follows, eth3,eth4,eth5,eth6 configured as a bridge with an IP address 10.0.0.1. The local net connect to the internet via the gateway 10.0.0.1 and SNAT is applied on the firewall. It worked but sometimes there are some

I have two multi-port bridges connected together with a lot of cables. Current setup is as follows: --------eth0------- | | [Bridge A] <-eth1-> [Bridge B] | | --------eth5------- Bridge A is root-bridge, and eth0 is set to lowest path-cost. Consequently on Bridge B interfaces eth1 and eth5 are in blocking state. However, when looking