similar to: nat ,dnat or proxyarp with heartbeat

Hi All, We have a single Centos 5.11 server running a xen hypervisor that went down hard after an extended power outage this weekend. I'm mostly familiar for KVM as that is the majority of what our guests run under and have tried getting up to speed on xen bridging to no avail. The problem is that after the xen server spun back up, the previously defined xen bridges were lost. I've

I did some looking on the mailing list archives and can''t seem to find exactly what I need, I''m also having troubles figuring this out on my own, so if anyone has any advice, tips, whatever, that would be great. I''ve got a machine with 3 network cards in it, one for a DMZ (with 3 machines on a switch each with a real IP address), one for the local network on a

Hi all! I posted earlier about the proxy arp configuration = http://shorewall.sourceforge.net/shorewall_setup_guide.htm#NonRouted, = and was probably not sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject. I''ve = gone through a bunch of documents on proxy arp, subnetting with proxy = arp and the documentation at shorewall, and have come up with a setup = that would be perfect for the job at hand

On 11/01/2017 07:55 AM, Scott Gennari wrote: > /etc/xen/scripts/network-bridge-pcl > > #/bin/sh > > dir=$(dirname "$0") > "$dir/network-bridge" "$@" vifnum=1 netdev=eth2 bridge=xen-dmz2 > "$dir/network-bridge" "$@" vifnum=3 netdev=eth0 bridge=xen-dmz1 Do you get any error output when you run: /etc/xen/scripts/network-bridge

Tom, I use shorewall 2.2.3 with four network interfaces comprising of three zones. I am able to ping some servers from the internet(net-zone) and not others. I do not want to allow ping by default from internet. I have not copied the files action.drop and action.reject into /etc/shorewall. Nor I have a AllowPing rule in rules file. The policy file is pasted below. #SOURCE DEST POLICY

Hi I am using verion 2.0.10 of Shorewall. My configuration is as follows: Eth1 dmz1 ------------| __________ | | | Eth2 dmz2 | FIREWALL |------| INTERNET | ----------| | _______ | |__________| | |---------| |

Hi, in my lan I have two firewall, fw1 is the first and manage inte-vlan routing. Fw2 manage internet and dmz. fw1 and fw2 have an interface (eth4 for both fw2 and fw1) on the same subnet that permit to the host behind fw1 to reach internet, my problem is on fw2: eth4 is the NIC that connect fw2 and fw1, I would''t like masquerading hosts behind fw1, so to eth4 of fw2 arrive all

I have some hosts in a DMZ zone with proxyarp. In my local zone I have a host to which I DNAT. I have discovered that I can reach the host in the local zone by attempting to connect to the fw (As expected) or ANY proxyarped host in my dmz zone (as not expected). Is this normal ? (I''ve just discovered that actually the dnated host answers to requests sent to any IP routed to my host!)

I have been trying to get DNAT to work and I actually have succeeded too, however, not how I thought it would work when reading through the documentation. 1. No matter what I do I cannot get DNAT to work unless I have an entry in eiter the nat or the proxyarp file. Is that really how it''s supposed to be? I can''t find anything about it in the documentation. 2. Also, in the

Hello list, I am in the process of switching from IPCOP to Shorewall s the firewall for our small office. I very much like the fact that Shorewall runs on top of the same OS (openSuSE 11.4) that I run on the server and my desktop. Our setup is fairly straightforward. We have 8 static ip addresses from our ISP, which provides a cable modem and a Cisco 800 series router. The ip addresses are

Hello Shorewall gurus, I have a dilemma with a public server. I want to migrate the current public server over to a new machine behind the current server''s firewall (shorewall 1.4). I have included a diagram below to help explain the target network I am working toward. I have read the shorewall online documentation and though I have used Shorewall the past 4 years in the current

I am considering replacing my old checkpoint and watchguard firewalls witha single Linux box using iptables and shorewall. I have two ISP''s (with separate routing tables), two DMZ''s, at least one VPN to a remote office, and a local trusted network. The configuration will look like: +----------------+ | | net0 ----------+ eth1

Hello All, I seem to have run into a bug with the new --bridgeslaves=<INTERFACE> option. It would seem that if I tell the bridge device to use a virtual interface (like bond0) rather than a physical interface (em1/em2) that kickstart completely barfs on it. I have provided my network section below which works fine as long as i don't enable all the bridge content. When the

Hi, In a routed network environment, without the router , we want to use the shorewall as the firewall/router. The ISP has assigned the following set of IP addresses. WAN IP for subnet 1 (DATA) 220.227.202.X/30 ( to be assigned to eth0 of the shorewall) WAN IP for subnet 2 (Voice) 220.227.202.Y/30 ( to be assigned to eth1 of the shorewall) Addresses assigned for Subnet 1 by

Hey gang, I was wondering if all that documentation could or has been put into PDF format. I usually like to download documentation and read it while I''m sitting comfortably at home and I don''t want to tie up the phone line all night. Thanks, Nino p.s. If so, please feel free to attach the PDF formatted document to my e-mail ;-)

My ISP has DHCP-assigned IP-addresses. I wonder if someone has tried using proxyarp for a DMZ with DHCP-assigned public IP?

Would it be considered normal that a system behind a shorewall box that was setup for proxyarp and able to be reached from the trusted side of the net just fine on the proxyapr ip address would if it were to talk out to the world show as traffic not from the proxyarp address but the firewall''s own address or the masquerading ip used by other zones? We had not really noticed this as an

Our VPN runs for 3 months very well with a minimum of traffic <100 kbit/s. Only DNS Zones and nagios passive checks were transferred. Everything seems to work. Left side is x.x.x.14 (host 1) Subnet 10.0.0.0/24 openswan 2.4.4 shorewall 2.4.2 & iptables 1.3.4 gentoo 2.6.12-r9 with policy match It´s reachable through a proxyarp entry on x.x.x.11 (host 2) which is another gentoo 2.6.12-r9

Tom, Is not this query worth answering? -Siva -----Original Message----- From: Sivamurugu K. Pillai Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 3:14 PM To: ''Mailing List for Shorewall Users'' Subject: ProxyARP in a Routed environment Hi, In a routed network setup , is it possible to use ProxyARP given the condition that the shorewall external interface and the DMZ interface are in a

Does anyone know what a good maximum number of machines I should place in the ProxyArp list? Thanks Jamie