similar to: Do i need a proxy??

hi everyone, so,first it seemed a trivial question to me, but since I could not find anybody being neither able to answer this question nor giving a short config example. after a few sleepless nights and exhausting all the reading and research. here I am sharing my problem with all of you, in the hope of some possible solution/sugestion. or is it that this is impossible?? below my

On 9/6/20 12:02 PM, daggs wrote: > Greetings LAine, > >> When you say "the vm", you mean the one running libreelec, that is >> trying to get and IP address, correct? > > yes, you are correct. > >> I guess Broadcom.home is the IP of the VM that's running the dhcp >> server? (I should have suggested using "tcpdump -n -e -v" :-/)

Shorewall version 2.2.1 2 Interface setup. eth1: 10.10.1.3 eth0: 192.168.1.2 modem is 192.168.1.1 I need to be able to connect to my adsl modem, but when shorewall is up I get connection rejected. I have added "192.168.1.1 RETURN" above the line "192.168.0.0/16 logdrop # RFC 1918" in "/etc/shorewall/rfc1918" but still getting connection rejected Is there

This is my system info: Debian Release: 10.5 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.4.60-1-pve (SMP w/16 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh

Lables: Gateway = 209.5.171.65 Netmask = 255.255.255.192 Eth0 = net = 209.5.171.66 Eth1 = loc = 192.168.0.1 There is no NAT clients, in essence loc is dmz. I can rename loc to dmz if that helps. Proxy/ARP is used for IP addresses 209.5.171.67-126 Problem: Using the Shorewall Action AllowFTP does not result in desired behavior when connecting from Internet to machines behind firewall in DMZ. From

Hi, this is propably bridge related and not really a xen problem, but it might help someone: Some of our domUs are not able to arp. Arp -n show (incomplete), and doing a tcpdump shows, that on the dom0''s eth0 the arp request goes out, the response comes in, but on the vifX.0 interface the arp response is gone. dom0# tcpdump -ni eth0 arp who-has 10.32.2.51 tell 10.32.7.70 arp reply

Dear CentOS-Community, we are facing the following issue: A secondary ip address seems to be automatically added to a nic which causes several issues in our setup. This server is equipped with four nics which are currently in use: # nmcli con show NAME????? UUID????????????????????????????????? TYPE????? DEVICE eno2????? cb6fcb54-be52-4ab6-8324-88091a0ea1a0? ethernet? eno2 eno4?????

someone recommended that i should give br0 the same hardware address as eno2. I did that, and restarted the vm, and it still does not work. Here is my current host interface config: ip a 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000 link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo valid_lft

Hi, see the log below root at AsteriskSlave:~# ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: p3p1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu

Hi, I would like to run a network firewall as a VM on a KVM host. There are ~ 25 VLANs delivered to the KVM host on three dedicated links, no LACP or other things. I have the VLANs 100-180 on the host's enp1s0, the VLANs 200-280 on the host's enp2s0 and the VLANs 300-380 on the host's enp3s0. To save myself from configuring all VLANs on the KVM host, I'd like to hand the entire

Laine wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: sendmail [mailto:justsendmailnothingelse@gmail.com] On Behalf > Of Laine Stump > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:12 PM > To: libvirt-users@redhat.com > Cc: Lentes, Bernd > Subject: Re: [libvirt-users] still possible to use traditional bridge network > setup ? > > On 03/16/2015 10:08 AM, Lentes, Bernd wrote: > >

Hi I am using Shorewall with a bridged Firewall using the "bridging utils" from Debian. eth0 is connected to the router and eth1 is connected to the local lan. eth0 and eth1 are both assigned zero addresses and br0 is assigned the Firewall server address of 192.168.0.1 I should point out that Shorewall is working fine in Bridge mode, but I have hit some problems while evaluating

Hello, I''m trying to configure my desktop as a bluetooth network access point for my ipaq (as explained in http://www.stolk.org/debian/bluetooth.html). I''m running shorewall version 2.2.1 on debian testing with a local network via eth0 and internet access via eth1. I''ve created a bridge br0 for eth0 and bnep0 and activated bridging in shorewall. dhcpd is listening

I just see warning? 2016-08-29 11:30 GMT-03:00, Telium Technical Support <support at telium.ca>: > This shows that asterisk's IAX is already bound to all adapters - so that's > good. Symptomatically does your IAX stop working? Or do you just see a > warning? > > -----Original Message----- > From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com >

Hi all, I have done some tests for the new attributes "check" and "type", could you please help to have a check? And I have some questions about the patch, please help to have a look, Thank you! The questions: 1. in step 4 below, the error message should be updated: Actual results: XML error: invalid mac address **check** value: 'next'. Valid values are

Hi folks, I read quite some posts about "Destination host unreachable" problems before, but none could help me to solve my issue. So here we go: This is what I am using: SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 SP1 - Current with all updates Network configuration of my dom0: foobar:~ # ip a 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd

18. Juli 2017 16:45, "Michal Privoznik" <mprivozn@redhat.com> schrieb: > On 07/18/2017 04:31 PM, c.monty@web.de wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> I have upgraded all libvirt packages to version 3.5.0-655.1 and restarted host. > > That wasn't necessary. It's not Windows ;-) > >> This is the current default network config: >> ld4004:~

Oh! In that case ignore it. Asterisk won't rebind the adapter if you've only changed parameters. The message is misleading -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Vitor Mazuco Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 10:41 AM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: Re:

Hello everybody. I could not find an answer to my problem in the archive. (But that may just be me :-) ) I have a problem with proxy arp and connection from loc (localnet) and from the firewall. Works fine from internet to dmz / proxy arp and vise versa. I have a feeling the solution is simple, but I''m no guru in Linux routing etc. The problem seems to be the routing setup. loc -

Dear Samba-List, i'm new to the list and new to samba. Right now I'm trying setup a samba ADDC serving around 50 Windows 10 clients and a couple of linux clients. My ADDC Host has two NICs, eth0 should be connected to the wan - network, eth1 should be connect to a 10.* network, serving the windows and linux clients. The ADDC is up and running, serving only the 10.* network. I