similar to: Correctly establishing for two ethernet connections plus a lan

I don't see why the display engine would need write access to the entirety of vram, when read-only access is enough. Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nv50_display.c | 18 +++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nv50_display.c

List, I have a server Co-Located, it has multiple ip''s "6" and I was wondering if there was something I should look for before emplementing Shorewall. I have been using Shorewall on my lan/wan for some time now, just never with Virtual ip''s to the Intrernet! System is: WhiteBox 3.0 As I said in body 6 ips eth0,eth0:0 and so on . Any help is appreciated! Brian

Hi. I have a Linux box with two network interfaces. The local interface has an alias so it can listen to two (completely) different subnets. I need to configure a Firewall and a DHCP server in the same machine. I have: eth0 > net eth1 > loc1 eth1:1 > loc2 If my DHCP server will use eth1 IP address (main IP address for that interface), How do I specify the ''dhcp'' option

Hello I''m new to the list. I installed a vserver (http://www.linux-vserver.org/) on my gentoo server As network interface is used an alias (eth1:0) eth1 is the card of my "loc" zone. eth1:0 has an address from the same subnet from the vserver I can connect to eth0 but not to the internet. From my local net everything works fine. I have an entry in "mask" for eth1

i''ll need to have a virtal server, but why i can do this?

breakdown of what iam doing ok i have access to 6 ips and i want to run all of them through my firewall ifconfig eth0 209.159.32.162 netmask 255.255.255.0 up ifconfig eth0:1 209.159.32.163 netmask 255.255.255.0 up that sets up the network card to have 2 address well in shorewall i tried to add eth0:1 to my interfaces well it says that Determining Zones... Zones: inet inet2 loc cust vpn1

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

So I am trying to get a firewall up at work using Shorewall 2.2 / Mandrake RC 1, where we have multi-ips assigned to a single machine.... Now at one point I had Shorewall and Mandrake configured and it was working... this was our setup essentially (I''ll use 192.0.0.x as out external IP addresses) In ifconfig: eth0 192.0.0.202 nmask 255.255.255.248 eth0:1 192.0.0.203 nmask

I been running shorewall with out any problems for several months. But I''ve now run into a problem. Hopefully this will be enough information. I''m running shorewall version 1.4.8. On Fedora core 1. Coming into my location I have a T1. I have 5 internet routable IP''s. I''m currently using one as my default internet connection. My ISP''s router is

Hi there, I''ve read Routing on One Interface, and Shorewall and Aliased Interfaces docs but I''m a little confused, and all my test attempts have mostly failed. Here is my setup: CentOS 4.2 ShoreWall 3.0.2 My server has a subnet 192.168.50.0/29 routed to it via 192.168.1.2. Currently 192.168.1.2 is setup on eth0. With no ShoreWall involved routing seems to work if I just setup

>What does that mean? In the Mandrake control center, the options for DNS Servers get wiped out... I think this is just a Mandrake issues. Was just the one issue that got me convincedto switch to Fedora >Groan Yes, I''ve groaned much since =( >Exact error messages are helpful -- vague references to "...or >something..." are not helpful. Sorry about that..

Hi, I am having problem in getting my fw to connect to the net, I had set allow fw net in the policy. I suspect maybe shorewall having problem because I have 5 public IP alias to my fw, which is eth0, eth0:1-eth0:4. Because before I add more ip to this interface my fw able to connect to the net. How can I set one IP to be bind to this fw, or I had to change the rules from fw to fw:w.x.y.z? One

I forgot to include my masq file. It''s pretty straightforward: eth2 eth0 eth2 eth1 Cheers, Brian

Good Morning. Last week I posted a question about how to set up Shorewall Firewall to coexist with a DHCP server. I set up three zones and assigned two of them to the interfaces: net Zone is assigned to eth0 and loc Zone is to eth1. You said that I shouldn''t type any entries for loc2 Zone (assigned to eth1:1) since Shorewall can''t recognize an interface named eth1:1, but then

Hello Tom, I seem to be missing the big picture here.. can you shed some light? I have a three interface setup loc,dmz, net I have 4 global addresses that I want to attach to eth0 (net) address 1 - fw address address 2- I want to forward to a (loc)router that uses dynamic dns vpn (gre) (Yamaha router) address 3 - web server/Bind9 (dmz)forward port 80,443,53 address 4 - mail server (dmz)pop3,

Hello, My server is on Mandrake 10.1 off. eth0 is WAN with static IP connected 512 DSL eth1 is LAN. I have NAT working on 192.168.0.0. I want to feed a second subnet 192.168.21.0. What is the best way to implement it ? Thanks Varun

I have a senario I hope one can help me out with... I have a range of Public IP Address 203,xxx.59.106-114 I have 4 internet servers that need to communicate to internal servers/clients 172.16.x.x/24 using port 80. These are Windows2000 servers (no software firewall solution) I have a 2nic shorewall device at present and ,as you know, I can only NAT 80 to one internal server. My immiediate

Hi all, I haven't found anything in Google about this. I'm creating a firewall router with Centos with few virtual IP using iptables. May I ask for your experience? Is there any pitfall or bad side of using virtual IP for this purpose? I'm using few virtual IP to accommodate few subnets that go through this firewall/router. Thank you. Fajar.

I''ll take this one next. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net

On Sunday 20/06/2010 at 10:52 pm, L. A. Walsh wrote: >> I assigned the "TakeOwnerShip" right ['Domain Admins']. >> I placed myself in that group. >> >> when I try taking ownership of [a] directory [owned >> by someone else, it] fails with a permission denied. >> >> [Why doesn't this work?] >> >> If domain rights DON't