similar to: Setting MSS

Hello, I''ve "emerged" Shorewall 2.0.7 onto my Gentoo pc. Going through the 2 interface quickstart guide I download the 2.0.1 interface sample and untar it. "tar -zxvf two-interfaces.tgz" Maybe a dumb question but I can''t find anything on Google or the Shorewall mail archives that say anything about this. So I''m assuming its me. :P But the

Hello, This is not really a shorewall problem. But just wanted to check if this problem rang a bell with any of you. I have a linux router with slackware 9.1, and kernel 2.4.27 Everyting works ok except for access to web sites that use akamai from behind the router. >From the router machine itself I can access those sites without problems. But machines behind nat, take forever to access

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.

Hi! Shorewall Users May I know ..what does it means ? Nov 5 12:43:34 netgw kernel: Shorewall:newnotsyn:DROP:IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:05:5d:4e:fc:62:00:d0:95:7a:d5:f1:08:00 SRC=210.59.230.239 DST=211.24.146.50 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=48 ID=36787 PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=20291 WINDOW=65160 RES=0x00 ACK FIN URGP=0 Best Regards, Support

Hello, Since the ipmasq package has been dropped from debian I decided to migrate to shorewall. My setup is pretty simple: [DSL Modem] -eth0- [shorwall/gateway] -eth1- [local network] ipmasq required that I set the MTU on eth0 to 1492. Migrating to shorewall went well, but a small number of web sites would load slow or not at all. Setting the MTU on eth0 to 1492 and setting CLAMPMSS=Yes

> Currently, i have nodes with PMTUDiscovery =yes and ClampMSS = yes. Hello, these features were introduced in 1.0.13 correct ?? I also understand that the two settings are by default "yes" if not explictly set to "no" in the config file. what may happen if I have a network with mixed versions from 1.0.11 and 1.0.13, where the older daemons do not implement that feature

I have allowed ALL of the local users to ping the internet but they currently get the following error and cannot access the internet ! I know it is something I have done wrong (I think it is a routing problem but just cannot find out what) The error is:- Reply from 212.219.13.74: destination host unreachable. My eth1 is 10.0.0.1 and the users can ping that OK My eth0 is 212.219.13.74 (connected

Aloha! I am new to tinc and I like to figure out my own issues before asking but I am not sure of my next step here. I am not sure if the problem is the VPN configuration or in my network. I will try to be as through as possible. I have two computers that are CentOS with the latest tinc from their respective repositories. Server A is behind a Sophos XG and Server B is behind a Ubiquiti Edge

This is a bug-fix roll-up. Problems corrected since 1.4.6: 1) Corrected problem in 1.4.6 where the MANGLE_ENABLED variable was being tested before it was set. 2) Corrected handling of MAC addresses in the SOURCE column of the tcrules file. Previously, these addresses resulted in an invalid iptables command. 3) The "shorewall stop" command is now disabled when

Hi, I´m using Tinc for several years, but I didn´t fix a performance problem. There a about 20 nodes in this network. Master: 10.0.0.12 (dedicated host in a datacenter, debian, 100mBit port) tinc.conf: Name = TincKnoten12 AddressFamily = ipv4 Interface = tun ProcessPriority=high mode = router #DirectOnly = no Compression=0 PMTUDiscovery = yes #IndirectData = yes #ReplayWindow = 64 #ConnectTo

Currently, i have nodes with PMTUDiscovery =yes and ClampMSS = yes. When the server does not receive a PMTU request back from one of the clients even when the packet size is very small (say 164), then it reverts to TCP. Should i turn off PMTUDiscovery or should it be ok to leave on? It takes a very long time to do simple pings (1 second or so), so i wonder what else i can do?

Hi, I have a setup that consist of 2 firewalls connected over dialup and PPP. Each side of the ppp are protected by shorewall. One side of the PPP masquerades everything not addressed to the local network to its eth0 (the net). fw1 <---- ppp (dialup) -----> fw0 <----- NET When making an http request to a site on the Internet from the machine not directly connected to the net (fw1), the

Am 23.06.2020 08:43, schrieb Luca Bertoncello: And another thing, I discovered right now... > Could you suggest me something to restrict the problem? > Currently, I think the problem can be: > > 1) on Asterisk > 2) on my Gateway/Firewall A couple of years ago I added this entry in my firewall: /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS

Am 23.06.2020 09:28, schrieb Marek Greško: Hi > if you need clampmss then it is highly probable there is a PMTU > discovery problem. The clampmss does not work for UDP. Is there a way to check if I have this problem? > I probably counted the size incorrectly. So you are able to ping with > size 1464 and not with 1466. How about trying same ping sizes from the > internet towards

I have problems connecting IPSEC VPN clients on the masqueraded network to outside VPN servers. It looks like this: ipsec-user | 192.168.1.10 (DHCP assigned) | | 192.168.1.1 fw-1 (shorewall, Linux 2.6) | 20.20.20.20 (internet) | 30.30.30.30 fw-2 (IPSEC VPN endpoint) | 192.168.100.1 | | 192.168.100.2 server ipsec-user (a road warrior) is supposed to create an IPSEC tunnel to his home

I am running red hat 9 with shorewall 1.4.6b-1, Have noticed http and smtp connections time out to some hosts I have tried to change tcp_ecn value but without results - the problem persist. I am now forced to use ISP smtp server, and ISP http proxy server to reach some sites. The problem does not exist when I was running win200k with winroute. Thanks to Help L.Djebran

Hello every one, first time poster, four month shorewaller ;) As the subject states, I''ve been experienced the infamous trouble described in the next excerpt from shorewall.conf # MSS CLAMPING # # Set this variable to "Yes" or "yes" if you want the TCP "Clamp MSS to PMTU" # option. This option is most commonly required when your internet # interface is some

Hi folks, I took the plunge recently to move NAT from my router to my shorewall config, and mostly things are ok. Most traffic moves around without problems but sometimes I am having trouble accessing external webservers from non-gateway internal computers. I have stared at the traffic in wireshark (even 2 wiresharks on different interfaces) but can''t see the problem. Nevertheless

Hello. I'm living in the country side where the communications are very very poor. My only choice is Satellite connection throw the French company Eurona which uses the network deployed by Skylogicnet. In general the latency is very bad (~800ms) and the network is very unstable. I have been investigating in the ISP routers which are in my path and there are many hops which are done in a

What shorewall rules would be required to allow the OSPF routing protocol to pass fw<->loc? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Ben