similar to: Masquerading and UDP replies to local network doesn''t work.

Hi Daniel and Laine, [...] >> -A POSTROUTING -o br0 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o enp0s25 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o virbr2_nic -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o vnet0 -j MASQUERADE > > *None* of those rules were added by libvirt (unless your build of [...] > You can verify my "counter-claim" by running "virsh net-destroy" for all

Dear all, I''ve the following problem with routing + NAT: If I''ve two ISP and I''m using two nexthop in default route with MASQUERADE on both ISP links, I see routing cache regenerated, but sometimes packets sent to a new link (after cache regeneration) uses wrong source address for masquerading. Here is the config. I''ve two links to outside via two

On 6/28/19 10:23 AM, Nikolai Zhubr wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm observing an issue that as soon as libvirt starts, UPD broadcasts > going through physical network (and unrelated to any virtualization) get > broken. Specifically, windows neighbourhood browsing through samba's > nmbd starts suffering badly (Samba is running on this same box). > > At the moment

Hi all, I'm observing an issue that as soon as libvirt starts, UPD broadcasts going through physical network (and unrelated to any virtualization) get broken. Specifically, windows neighbourhood browsing through samba's nmbd starts suffering badly (Samba is running on this same box). At the moment I'm running a quite outdated version 1.2.9 of libvirt, but other than this issue,

I sent the message below to this list over a week ago, and I haven''t seen any response. If this is not the correct forum for my question, can anyone suggest a better person or place to which I should direct it? Thank you, Jonathan Kamens ------- Start of forwarded message ------- From: Jonathan Kamens <jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us> To: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl Subject: [LARTC] MSS

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi, I have a server with 2 ip address 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,10000> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100 link/ether 00:20:ed:32:81:76 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 61.164.49.39/26 brd 61.164.49.63 scope global eth0 inet 60.12.230.167/26 brd 60.12.230.191 scope global eth0:0 and default gateway is default via 61.164.49.1 dev eth0 It

Hello all, I have a problem with external access to a postfix mailserver running on my firewall as a mail-gateway. My setup with shorewall 2.2.0 rc4 is as follows: eth0 is zone isf - this is an intranet to other companies eth1 is zone loc - local network eth2 is zone net - internet, fix ip adress eth0 and eth1 are bridged shorewall version 2.2.0-RC4 ip addr show 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu

Hi!, I have Fedora 2 installed (Kernel 2.6), 3 interfaces (eth0,eth1,eth2), in the eth1 i have my local network and eth0 the Internet conection, when i do masquerading (eth1 out by eth0) only works for a few minutes. I dont know what i?m doing wrong, or only is an incompability or error between the OS Fedora 2 and the shorewall 2.0.7...i restart the shorewall service ones works anothers doesnt.

Clients: Some sites just show the top area not the full page. Some sites cant be reached at all. I think it 90% may be the MTU/MSS problem. But I already have set the shorewall.conf CLAMPMSS=1400 or CLAMPMSS=Yes, but it doest make things good. I would be mad. Anybody helps me would so appreciated! If you want know more info. to diag my problem, I would be please to.

Can you please drop a rough diagram here? I think you are routing through this VM and must have shared the host interface. - ajey On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Phill Edwards <philledwards at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm pretty new to KVM and have a KVM CentOS 7.1 hypervisor running a few > VMs. I'm moving all my VMs from an ESXi host as I want to use KVM in > future. Most

Hi everybody I have a Problem with Masquerading from my local net (loc) to my VPN (loc2). I can reach every Service from loc2 in loc, but I can''t get reach any service from loc in loc2. Has somebody an Idea where my mistake is ? Without shorewall, it was working. Thanks for helping Lars Technical Information : Shorewall 2.0.13 Suse 9.0 *177.177.77.X The first 3 Counts are changed

first thing: I''m not on the mailing list so please reply to eyall@fitracks.com now i have a linux workstation inside the office''s LAN, from some reason i cannot establish connections from the machine to the internet with those settings. i''ve been trying to change prefs and read almost all the docs but still don''t know what''s the problem so i have

Here is my config: dubenda:~ # shorewall version 3.2.1 dubenda:~ # ip addr show 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 link/ether

Hi !, I have this problem. On a Mandrake 10.0 server with all the updates (Kernel 2.6.3-15mdk, iptables-1.2.9-7mdk and shorewall-2.0.3a-1mdk), one of our internal users have to FTP some files to our external web server. I think we have the correct configuration and rules in shorewall, and have read the http://www.shorewall.net/FTP.html document. Still, our users can''t FTP to the

does you cable modem give you automatically the IP address? if thats the case then you need to do bridge configuration between nic3 and macvtap dhcp ip and then you will be able to get dhcp attached IP to sophos vm - ajey On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Phill Edwards <philledwards@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I'm not sure what sort of diagram you mean, but I'll have a try. Does

Sorry this is the right message. Hi all, in my school I have: - two Netopia router for ADSL (perform NAT), - one linux box with 3 ethernet card I want to make a load balancing on the two ADSL line. I have configured the system as follow: The LAN interface, of the two ADSL router, have address (A) 192.168.0.254 (B) 192.168.2.254 The 3 ethernet card, on the linux box, have address: -eth2

Hi all, I finally got my IPSec tunnel from my Fedora firewall system (running Shorewall 4.0.6) to a remote Draytek Router up-and-running, but I''m having difficulties directing traffic through the tunnel. From the output of "racoon -F -f racoon.conf" and the connection status page of the Draytek I can tell the tunnel is UP, but ping and traceroute requests to several hosts

I'm pretty new to KVM and have a KVM CentOS 7.1 hypervisor running a few VMs. I'm moving all my VMs from an ESXi host as I want to use KVM in future. Most of my VMs are working except for one which is running a Sophos UTM router (Sophos UTM is similar to products like pfSense <https://www.pfsense.org/>, Smoothwall <http://www.smoothwall.org/> etc). The host has 3 physical NICs

Hi, I'm not sure what sort of diagram you mean, but I'll have a try. Does this help? It sounds like I need to do something to enable routing on what I've labelled "NIC3" on the diagram - can you please explain what I need to do? [image: Inline image 1] Regards, Phill On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Ajey Gore <ajeygore@gmail.com> wrote: > Can you please drop a

Hi Phil, But you said you disabled firewalld which makes me wonder if you have the necessary forwarding rules active. Dan On 1 September 2015 at 13:48, Phill Edwards <philledwards@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ajey, I thought I already was doing bridge mode. Below are the network > interface definitions from the XML config file for the Sophos VM. (Note > that it's actually the