similar to: vpn bridging

Hello, I have the need to connect 2 remote site with vpn, the windows pc of the 2 site it can share the HD and printer. This is my configuration : LOCAL NETWORK A : ip from 192.168.10.2 to 192.168.10.99 | | | | eth0: 192.168.10.1 FIREWALL A : ( with debian ; openvpn ver. 2.0.beta15 ; shorewall ver 2.0.11 ) eth1 : xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx ( pubblic ip address ) | | | | INTERNET | | | eth1 :

Hello, I thinking about using PCI passthrough to dedicated a domU as firewall. I understand PCI passthrough concept. When done, my domU will see network card and the dom0 won''t any more. So I''ll be able to filter all trafic from outside, since it will go through network domU. Then, how will I be able to connect other domU (and maybe dom0) to the network domU ? In a normal way,

Hello list, Please don''t shoot me. I know I''m doing something with bonding that bonding wasn''t made for. I just want to give it a try. I want a simple mechanism to have a failover on a 24Mbit line to a 2Mbit line in case the 24Mbit line goes down. Between A and B there are two lines: a 24Mbit and a 2Mbit. I use two OpenVPN tunnels with tap devices: +-- tap0 (A)---

Hi all. I would need to use a single physical interface on a Linux box to manage two different IP addresses (belonging to two separate logical subnets) with two different MAC address. (I need to emulate te presence of two separate physical interfaceses for a PC on the same LAN, at layer 2 and layer 3). Is it possible to use the linux ethernet bridging code and two tap interfaces for this

Good day, I have gone through a couple of the HOWTO''s on how to get this to work, but I am still sitting with a very strange (for me) issue. If two clients connect via OpenVPN (bridged), they can access each other without any problems, but neither of them can access the server, nor any system behind it. I am fairly sure it is a Shorewall issue, but I am very new to Shorewall, having

I'm currently running Openvpn on a multi-homed linux server. The bridge device br0 comprises the tap0 virtual device and the physical eth0 device. Eth0 is wired to the local LAN. Remote clients dial into the server's external interface eth1's udp port 1194. This works but when the number of clients increases (over 12), we see lots of dropped packets and lost connections. We look at

Hi Tinc Mailing-Group, Having set up the kernel correctly, and got tinc running successfully, I am now trying to get two VPNs running at once. Hence I need to have two ethertap devices ( /dev/tap0 and /dev/tap1 ). The first tap0 device was created thus: mknod -m 600 /dev/tap0 c 36 16 chown 0.0 /dev/tap0 The second tap1 device was created too: mknod -m 600 /dev/tap1 c 36 17 chown 0.0 /dev/tap1

Hello. I am trying to get multi paths running, i.e I want to specify 2 paths from a particular node to another. To test this, I am setting up the following scenario: I create 2 tap devices tap0 = 10.1.1.1/32 netmask 255.255.255.0 tap1 = 10.2.2.2/32 netmask 255.255.255.0 I then issue the route command: ip route add 10.3.3.3/32 nexthop via 10.1.1.2 nexthop via 10.2.2.3 The route table

Here is the scenario: I have one server with kernel 2.4.24 with a bridge br0 made of 2 interfaces, eth0 and tap0 (the last is an OpenVPN tunnel), and one remote computer connetting through tap0. If I assign a static IP to the remote computer, the bridge works perfecly (so I think the problem is not OpenVPN-related). If I start a DHCPd on the server and I configure the remote client to get the

Ok. I''m knocking down one problem at a time. I''ve managed to figure out how to bridge my tap0 and my eth1 with br0. This is good stuff. But if I have shorewall running, I can''t ping the local network at all. If I have shorewall not running, I can ping the local network. Here is my setup. Firewall/NAT box: eth0 - DHCP from cable provider eth1 -

inquiry about differences between the tap and the vnet in the virt-manager Greetings! I encounter a problem about the network when using virt-manager to create and run a VM. when I want to establish a network bridge for the guest OS, I generally use two kinds of ways described as fellow : First method : create a bridge with the help of linux commad: brctl, or Second method : using

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> > any delay or blocking

On 03/10/2014 04:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:28:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> > We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs >> > exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation >> > of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since >> > any delay or blocking

No i can start qemu but no network I have a bridge br0 with ta0 on it My start line qemu debian.5-0.x86.20100901.qcow --curses -net nic -net tap,ifname=tap0,script=no

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

Hello, I have been using the bridging facilities provided by Linux (vanilla 2.6.7 SMP with UML skas host patch applied) to bridge a regular physical ethernet network (on interface eth0) with a virtual network (on interface tap0, cf uml_switch, http://user-mode-linux.sourceforge.net/networking.html). A couple of virtual machines (run using user-mode linux, a tool that enables you to run linux

I am trying to make the following connection: WindowsXP(OpenVPN-Client)->shorewall->Internet->LinksysWRTG->OpenVPN-Server ...of course the reverse path too. The OpenVPN server is running in bridge mode. When the openVPN client is launched it looks like a successful connection is made. The openVPN client gets assigned an address from the openVPN server pool. The OpenVPN