similar to: Just Curios

Firstly I don''t think this is a shorewall problem, but I suspect shorewall might be able to solve it for me. I''ve posted this so far at http://mandrakeusers.org/index.php?showtopic=18942 I''ve stumble upon a problem that has me stumped I have a multipath router using 2.6.8.1 with patches from here http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes basic setup: ___ ISP1

I’ve got a problem that I have ignored for a month or 3 J I’m almost certain this is not a Shorewall problem, but I’ll share it anyway ;) I have 2 ISP connection, with load balancing. here’s some routing stuff: rama-kandra root # ip route show 202.37.230.64/26 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 202.37.230.93 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.1

Hi, after migrating to shorewall firewall from my own iptables rule set (to utilise freeswan vpn tunnels) I have successfully configured a 3 interface firewall with net2net vpn tunnels, with the help of the shorewall documentation. However I cannot seem to configure my final step which is to masq another subnet attached to my LAN (LANB, via Cisco 1603 router) to get internet access via the

Hi, I have a problem with my script. I have a debian with a kernel 2.6.8 patched with patch-2.6.8-ja1.diff of nano.txt site. I have 3 internet connections : - eth1 : - ip : 192.168.8.75 - gw : 192.168.8.73 - eth2 : - ip : 192.168.1.200 - gw : 192.168.1.2 - eth3 : - ip : 192.168.2.200 - gw : 192.168.2.1 and my eth0 for

> Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 10:10:35 +1300 > From: Paul <lists@loudas.com> > Subject: [Shorewall-users] another network to add > To: Shorewall List <shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net> > Message-ID: <41AF84CB.5080304@loudas.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi Tom (and others) > encase you

Hi Tom (and others) encase you don''t know my network already ;) here''s a quick run down eth0 lan 192.168.1.1/255.255.255.0 eth1 wan1 172.30.7.4/255.255.240.0 eth2 wan2 202.37.230.93/255.255.255.192 eth3 wan3 203.96.213.73/255.255.254.0 I''ve got routes and rules for all the above interfaces :) I want to add another one, however I fear this might cause some issues I have

I''ve got a problem that I have ignored for a month or 3 :-) I''m almost certain this is not a Shorewall problem, but I''ll share it anyway ;) I have 2 ISP connection, with load balancing. here''s some routing stuff: rama-kandra root # ip route show 202.37.230.64/26 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 202.37.230.93 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel

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,

Hello, I''m trying to achieve the following. 2 ISP''s and 1 LAN with failover. So, when 1 internet connection fails the other need to take over. I''m aware of the restrictions. The current sessions are lost. I did this before, one and a half year ago or something. But at that router wasn''t failover. Now i''ve read the nano howto and followed it.

Hello, I have 2 ISP uplinks (zones: inet1 and inet2), each with a fixed IP on the outside and a routed subnet (/25 and /26) on the inside. So, behind the firewall i have 2 networksegments (lan1 and lan2) with public IP-addresses. The segments are completely isolated from eachother: hosts in zone "lan1" connect only to "inet1" and hosts in zone "lan2" only connect

I''ve been digging around the documentation and seem to have just confused myself. Here is what I have on a fedora core 3 machine with 4 network cards (the built in is dead) eth2 - connects to the web via dsl-line-1 eth4 - connects to the web via dsl-line-2 eth2 is the route the local network addresses 10.1.x.x connected via eth0 go out on eth4 is the route the dmz network addresses

I have a setup with two Internet providers. One circuit (net0 == eth1) is used primarily for employees and tunnels to other sites. The other (net1 == eth2) is for the production machines that customers access. Everythung works in teh sense that packets get to where they are sent (mostly) but I recently I had a sniffer on the system and noticed a problem I cannot solve. traffic coming in

We have a router with two external and one internal interfaces and it doesn''t work as we''d like to. We need it to route all the trafic through one of the external interfaces and to access a few networks through the other. Currently it seems that all the packets with source address from the inernal network are routed correctly. The problem is with the packets that originate from

When I attempt to start shorewall (version 4.0.15) I get an RTNETLINK error (see below). /var/log/shorewall-init.log [...] 21:02:18 Creating Interface Chains... 21:02:19 Adding Providers... RTNETLINK answers: File exists ERROR: Command "ip route add table 1 129.116.XXX.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel s cope link src 129.116.XXX.30" Failed 21:02:25 Shorewall-generated routing tables and

Beta 1 is now available at: http://www.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta ftp://ftp.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta Features include: 1) An OLD_PING_HANDLING option has been added to shorewall.conf. When set to Yes, Shorewall ping handling is as it has always been (see http://www.shorewall.net/ping.html). When OLD_PING_HANDLING=No, icmp echo (ping) is handled via rules and

Shorewall 1.3.14 is now available. Thanks go to Francesca Smith for helping with updating the sample configurations. New in 1.3.14: 1) An OLD_PING_HANDLING option has been added to shorewall.conf. When set to Yes, Shorewall ping handling is as it has always been (see http://www.shorewall.net/ping.html). When OLD_PING_HANDLING=No, icmp echo (ping) is handled via rules and

Hi folks, sorry for my bad english, but I am not a native speaker. I want to setup a virtual firewall-host in a UML-Session. I''m using Kernel 2.4.27-um1 and shorewall 2.2.2-2 from Debian sarge. I have 4 nic''s in my System: eth0 -> localnet 0 eth1 -> localnet 1 eth2 -> wlan eth3 -> DSL/ppp0 I''m using four bridges br0,br1,br2,br3. The UML firewall host is

Hi, I use shorewall-4.5.4 + lsm-0.143 and it does not seem to work as expected... When all providers are up, everything seems fine. When one goes down, lsm says "link <provider> down event"... and it seems ok but we then experience some problems such as a few unreachable sites, DNS problems... If I remove the downed provider from all confs and restart, everything works again.

I''m using a 2.6.20-15-ubuntu (shipped with feisty) kernel with Julian''s patches applied and it''s my 3rd day with tc, ip, ifconfig and the rest ;). Got 2 ADSL uplinks. What I need is an ability to manually configure uplink usage, so nothing like bonding by default. Failover is meant to be provided via a shell script at the next step. Here is my config: == # no need for

Hello all, I''ve recently upgraded a Suse 9.1 box to Suse 9.2 (reinstall actually). This is mainly a test server that I use for testing our device with nat/snat etc. I just got around to reinstalling Shorewall 2.2.4, and I''m having an odd problem at startup I was hoping someone could perhaps shed some light on. I''ve created a very basic setup just to get Shorewall