similar to: RTNETLINK answers: File exists

I know this is a FAQ and that it''s been discussed much before, I''m just looking for a few key things. I need to setup our gateway so that traffic FROM a range of IPs is sent out, masqueraded, via a new cable connection. I''m running 2.6.9. Am I going to require any of the CONNMARK patches or other patches from http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes? I''m really not sure

Hi all, I''ve been trying to set up a shorewall box with 2 ISPs. After a shorewall start/restart, shorewall correctly configures and balances the default main route via both ISPs: [...] default nexthop via 200.173.215.94 dev eth0 weight 10 nexthop via 200.157.40.129 dev eth2 weight 20 but after a boot, that route is not configured. Inspecting the code, I solved

I have a server whit 2 interfaces of network, where eth0 is the interfaces connetc to internet and eth1 to the internal network. This server hace a Squid only, but i setting the iptables for protection to the server. Iptables run from script and in this script i setting the redirection for the other server in my internal network to port 80 and 443. I follow the diferent how to and many manual, but

Hello Julien, Am Mon, 14 Jan 2019 22:15:47 +0100 schrieb Julien dupont <marcelvierzon at gmail.com>: > ** Test 1 ** > On VPN_office I use 'tcpdump -npi any icmp and host 192.168.1.3' > When pinging 192.168.1.1 from client 1, with no success, I see no packet > passing. Sorry - the tcpdump command should end with "192.168.1.1" instead of

Dear All, I have one centos box ( centos 4.0 ) which is connected to MSI wireless router....... And which is connected to my ISP MODEM. I incorporated wireless router so that I can use my laptop from any of my rooms. Now this Centos 4.0 box is my home server machine. The MSI Wireless Router has DHCP server enabled. Wireless router has provided each address to my machines basically internal IP

I am a Linux novice. I have set up a Linux Router that is running the 2.6.15-1.2054_FC5 kernel. I boot to an initial router state and then I experiment with various "tc" commands by executing them at the command prompt. I reboot often to restore the initial state. When I booted up the router today I got the following messages during the boot process: Bringing up interface eth0:

Hi, On this Fedora Core Devel (Raw Hide) system, if I boot on a distribution kernel (based on 2.6.12rc1-bk2) the network is fine. If I build a custom 2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.43-06 or 2.6.12-rc1-mm4 kernel the network interface fails to initialise on boot with RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument. What can possibly cause this ? My kernel config should be mostly fine - I used it extensively at a time and

Hi All, We are running a 2.4.20 kernel, with the htb modules loaded, and are receiving the RTNETLINK error when trying to filter on handles. We also have the latest tc downloaded from htb site, and verified it is the executable being executed. We have tracked it to the {handle 1 fw} portion. Hardware is 4501 Soekris and WISP-Dist latest, patched with latest tc. Any ideas on what would cause

how can i get rid of that ?? i do del roots before scripting. -- *Dariusz ''tdi'' Dwornikowski | Gentoo | admin at pozman.pl | *[JID]:tdi@gentoo.pl|[gg]:2266034|[IRC]:#gentoo-pl@freenode | *[MAIL]:tdi@pozman.pl|[WWW]:www.tdi.pozman.pl | *Serwery,administracja,webapps - www.ProAdmin.com.pl | *Fingerprint:43E21CC46DAFD2F754E91547D59B39F56AAA4B5F

Hi everybody, I''m not so glad because of the error I describe in the subject. I have two internet lines and I want to do equal cost loadbalancing on the two uplinks to the internet. This is what I do: ip route add 200.200.200.0/24 dev eth2 table 200 ip route add default via 200.200.200.254 dev eth2 table 200 ip route add 100.100.100.0/24 dev eth1 table 100 ip route add default via

When I attempt to start shorewall (version 4.0.15) I get an RTNETLINK error (see below). /var/log/shorewall-init.log [...] 21:02:18 Creating Interface Chains... 21:02:19 Adding Providers... RTNETLINK answers: File exists ERROR: Command "ip route add table 1 129.116.XXX.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel s cope link src 129.116.XXX.30" Failed 21:02:25 Shorewall-generated routing tables and

I am running Xen on Debian wheezy. I switched from routed networking to bridged networking. Now I can''t seem to get eth0 to come up. When the network script tries to bring it up, it gets an error: RTNETLINK answers: File exists Any tips? details below brian root@trout:/etc/xen# egrep -v ''#|^ *$'' xend-config.sxp (network-script network-bridge) (vif-script vif-bridge)

Hi, I''ve been trying out the wondershaper script, but on several of the examples I keep getting the error message:- RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument On the following line:- tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 50 u32 match ip src \ 0.0.0.0/0 police rate 512kbit burst 10k drop flowid :1 Based on other posts to this mail list, I gather it is an issue with kernel

Hi All, concerning the problem when running the "ip ru ls" command. I faced with the same problem, and I solved it by making sure to include the following settings into the kernel configuration (2.4.18): CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER=y <=== CONFIG_IP_MULTIPLE_TABLES=y <=== CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_NAT=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_TOS=y

I''m using shorewall 3.0.4 and had started using the internal tc option recently. I noticed that the tc rules for the classes I created don''t have the burst parameter (although the ingress qdisc does). I think it would be nice if there was a burst by default (and of course it would even be better if it were configurable). Here''s a patch to the firewall script, adding

I''m using htb classes on my firewall to queue traffic and implement different restrictions on different protocols. tc qdisc del dev eth0 root tc qdisc add dev eth0 root handle 1: htb default 190 tc class add dev eth0 parent 1: classid 1:3 htb rate 2mbit burst 30k tc class add dev eth0 parent 1:1 classid 1:90 htb rate 50kbit ceil 384kbit burst 5k tc qdisc add dev eth0 parent 1:90 handle

Hi all, I have installed 2.4.5 kernel, Debian Potato. my tc script: #!/bin/bash tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 20: cbq bandwidth 10Mbit avpkt 1000 echo root tc class add dev eth1 parent 20:0 classid 20:1 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit rate \ 10Mbit allot 1514 weight 1Mbit prio 8 maxburst 20 avpkt 1000 echo class tc class add dev eth1 parent 20:1 classid 20:100 cbq bandwidth 10Mbit rate \ 5Mbit allot

When I run this: tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle 1 fw I get: RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument The traditional interpretation of that gnarly error message is that cls_fw is missing, but lsmod | grep cls_fw gets me: cls_fw 2336 4 (autoclean) I can''t remove it because it''s in use, but all 4 statements that use it failed, so

Can someone tell me what concept I''m missing here. The setup is simple. I have two default routes after ifup operations. I use "ip route del" to remove one, but then decide to add it back. The attempt is refused. Why? # ip route ls 66.95.83.208/28 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 66.95.83.210 65.84.205.96/27 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 65.84.205.104

SYSLINUX 3.11-pre5 is hereby a bug fix release candidate. If I don't receive any problem reports, I will release it as-is on Tuesday, August 30. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/Testing/ -hpa