similar to: RoutesKeeper

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

Hello, I have finished setting up the load balancer with IPROUTE ... also patch the kernel to support DGD and now it''s working fine with the valuable guide at LARTC website, Julian Anastasov, and the kind people in this mailing list. Now I would like to launch a web server and a ftp server to the public but I''m stuck into a problem and really need your help. Currently internal

Hello, You will find in attachment the layout of my current physical configuration. For now, the Cable ISP is not used. Since it is a dynamic ISP, my mailserver is rejected and my domain name registers on blacklists like ORDB and al. I want it to be used as a default gateway except for my mail server that would be seen as coming from my "honest" ADSL ISP. Here is

Hi, as per the shorewall MultiISP documentation ( http://www1.shorewall.net/MultiISP.html ), it says "Use of this feature requires that your kernel and iptables include CONNMARK target and connmark match support (Warning: Standard Debian™ and Ubuntu™ kernels are lacking that support!)." it means MultiISP wont work properly if i am using Ubuntu server. if yes whats the

Hello, I installed my linux server for 3 months now. It does almost everything (dns, web & mail server, firewall ...). I just encounterd two problems with the firewall: behind this server there are 2 computers: i got emule on one and msn on the other. The problem is that I can''t configure well the firewall fore these 2 rules. I''ve added DNAT rules but it

Hello all, I have been putting together a shorewall firewall together for a couple of days, but have hit a bit of a dead end. I am using Shorewall 3.0.5 Shorewall has detected the following iptables/netfilter capabilities: NAT: Available Packet Mangling: Available Multi-port Match: Available Extended Multi-port Match: Available Connection Tracking Match: Available Packet Type

Hello, I tried to find the answer to my problem already but it is a specialised one I think because nothing was found. I previously have a ISP who was very fast ("extreme speed" service from Cable Modem) but that blocked SMTP port and some other for poor non-commercial users... And it gives dynamic addresses so no DNS at home without tricks... So I went to another

As suggested here: http://lists.shorewall.net/pipermail/shorewall-users/2004-October/015097.html I''ve run: adam@shrike:~$ /sbin/iptables -m policy --help iptables v1.2.11 Usage: iptables -[AD] chain rule-specification [options] iptables -[RI] chain rulenum rule-specification [options] iptables -D chain rulenum [options] --snip-- And: adam@shrike:~$ sudo

I''m having a problem where transferring files accross our IPsec gateway to another host on a remote network is failing. I see no packets being rejected in the logs. Attached is a packet trace, showing the problem. In this case, 10.100.0.0/24 is the local network and 10.100.14.0/24 is the remote network. The trace was taken on the local gateway. In the trace, there is a set of TCP

Hi! I''m wondering whether anyone has successfully set up a bandwidth control system using ipp2p and shorewall. I have been able to drop connecions altogether, but I don''t seem to be able to get CONNMARK working with ipp2p. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated :) ______________________________ Mario R. Pizzolanti

Hi Here is a short description of my network: ppp0 (adsl) ppp1 (adsl) | | | | --------------------- | Router | | Firewall | | MASQUERAD | | DNAT | | | | eth0 | --------------------- | | | ---------------------- |

I''ve just discovered that I do not have access to the remote gateways for a set of IPsec tunnels to remote networks. This prevents me from changing the routing table on those gateways. I need "roadwarrior" systems connecting to me local network using OpenVPN (tun) to be able to access those systems. Since the remote gateways don''t know about 10.100.1.0/24, where my

I''m getting my zones confused. Help. I need to have a bunch of systems using OpenVPN to gain an IP in the virtual subnet 10.100.1.0/24, on interface tun0. I will then route whole subnets to those IPs, like 10.100.2.0/24 via 10.100.1.12, etc. I want to have a policy for: - all hosts behind tun0 - all hosts in 10.100.1.0/24 - individual subnets being routed through IPs in

I have had to replace an existing setup which has a bunch of IPs Proxy-NAT''ed onto the loc segment. While I do eventually want to move them to their own segment, I have to deal with this for the next few weeks. My problem is that from a loc system I can ping the public IP of a system being proxy-ARP''d but I can''t hit it via HTTP. Nothing is being blocked according

Hi, I'm using IPSEC in a multi-ISP configuration, lsm 0.131, Kernel 2.6.32, ipsec-tools 0.8.0 This worked fine with Shorewall/Shorewall-Lite 4.5.7. After updating Shorewall to 4.5.8 the routing of ESP packets doesn't work. If I change the Providers.pm file and add connmark => "! --mark 0/$mask" like before in Shorewall 4.5.7 than everything works fine. add_ijump

Hello Shorewall list, I''m a happy Shorewall user since a few years now and everything works fine for me except one thing that I try to implement since a week, the multi-isp. I''ve downloaded the 2.4.0 Stable release yesterday and tried the RC2 since a week. My config is a Debian running a kernel 2.4.27 home made with the CONNMARK.diff patch applied I''m using 2 ISP,

From reading the documentation, I understand that it is recommended to put servers that may be at risk in a DMZ served via proxy-arp. In this case, the local clients that are behind a NAT would have their connections to the DMZ masqueraded, yes? Is there any way around this that would still be considered secure? Just looking for advice. Thanks, A.

Hi all! After that good thread "DGD patch not detecting dead gateway" I was able to set up a Load Balancing with ping based DGD (without Julian Anastasov patch). But now I''m facing a new problem and tried some options, with only partial solutions. I made a script based on http://www.mail-archive.com/lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl/msg16257.html (Thank you Manish Kathuria),

Hi to all. I recently upgraded to shorewall ver 2.3 from 2.0 after fixin some minor config problems, I also upgraded iptables from 1.2 to 1.3 (rpm-based install) but when I tried to start shorewall it terminates and I noticed it''s giving me this error iptables: No chain/target/match by that name ERROR: Command "/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m connmark ! --mark 0 -j