similar to: Getting past "net unreachable" message(s)

Hello I have DSL 2000 (2048 kbit/s download and 256 kbit/s upload) I have ping to fast sites very high: 64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=2185 ms 64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=1983 ms 64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=5 ttl=50 time=1826 ms and I know why. I have 2 interfaces:

Hi all, How do I put a rule in to allow all ports on a single IP.. I''m not masq my network as the firewall is on the router. I have another firewall internally that I will be removing sometime soon, but just wish to forward all ports to this firewall (until I can decommission it). 3: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 link/ether

Hello everybody. I could not find an answer to my problem in the archive. (But that may just be me :-) ) I have a problem with proxy arp and connection from loc (localnet) and from the firewall. Works fine from internet to dmz / proxy arp and vise versa. I have a feeling the solution is simple, but I''m no guru in Linux routing etc. The problem seems to be the routing setup. loc -

Hi, this is propably bridge related and not really a xen problem, but it might help someone: Some of our domUs are not able to arp. Arp -n show (incomplete), and doing a tcpdump shows, that on the dom0''s eth0 the arp request goes out, the response comes in, but on the vifX.0 interface the arp response is gone. dom0# tcpdump -ni eth0 arp who-has 10.32.2.51 tell 10.32.7.70 arp reply

Hi, I''m having problems with new Shorewall installation on Fedora Core 3 (had same problem with Core 2 and upgrade did not help even iptables was upgraded from 1.2.9 to 1.2.11). I''ve followed two nic example, but starting Shorewall drops all connections and don''t permit any outgoing requests, even with "all allowed" policy. Policy file is below. Current setup

Hi folks, I read quite some posts about "Destination host unreachable" problems before, but none could help me to solve my issue. So here we go: This is what I am using: SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 SP1 - Current with all updates Network configuration of my dom0: foobar:~ # ip a 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd

I''m very new to shorewall. My setup is IP Gateway (CentOS 4 + Shorewall) with 3 NIC cards. Shorewall works great on the firewall machine. Bind also works (local net machines get IPs fine). Under firestarter, all works great. With shorewall, the loc machines can not route past the firewall. They can connect to the firewall, but not past it. Exactly what information should I post to get

This is my system info: Debian Release: 10.5 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.4.60-1-pve (SMP w/16 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh

We switched over from a bordermanager firewall to a shorewall firewall. Some stuff is not working now. I realized that I had not created the route for the network that is not working however once I created it, it still didn''t work. Most of our network is fine however some pieces are not working. [Net] - [Shorewall] - [LAN] - [Cisco] - [Clients and servers not working] The firewall

Hello Tom, I am not sure if you can help with this but I am at my wits end. If you hit this site and do a force refresh (ctrl + F5) the site will time out and lose connections. Do the same on port 443 and it does not time out??? The web site I am reffering to is www.tituswill.com I think the only problem is port 80. Do you have any idea how to diagnose this I have sent a dump of just

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

I am trying to setup GRE between two CentOS 4.5 boxes. I have tried several variations of what''s listed below, but none of them work. box1: modprobe ip_gre ip link set gre0 up ip tunnel add gretun mode gre local 66.1.1.161 remote 66.1.2.161 ttl 20 dev eth0 ip addr add dev gretun 10.253.253.1 peer 10.253.253.2/24 ip link set dev gretun up ip route add 10.2.0.0/16 via 10.253.253.2 box2:

Hello, You may recall some of My Dmz question around Thanksgiving. While I have configured a Proxy arp Dmz. I would like to practice with the routed setup you suggested Tom as your network was simular. Here is one of your quotes "The configuration of eth2 is largely irrelevant but you certainly don''t want to confuse things by assigning any default gateway out of that

Shorewall 4.5.1.1 I have 5 interfaces on a centos box, the first two are internal on two different subnets, the next two are two different ISP''s and the last one is a private network for testing and administration. The second internal subnet (eth1) is rejecting all the arp requests to it and I get the following in the log files ever second or two - May 16 05:28:54 services kernel:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The original post was over 300,000kb so I didn''t spam the list with it -TE. | | | Thank you for your quick and helpful response. | | I didn''t understand that the virtual interface eth0:1 doesn''t count as a separate instance from eth0. | I am sorry to ask for further assistance and would appreciate any help. The error

Lables: Gateway = 209.5.171.65 Netmask = 255.255.255.192 Eth0 = net = 209.5.171.66 Eth1 = loc = 192.168.0.1 There is no NAT clients, in essence loc is dmz. I can rename loc to dmz if that helps. Proxy/ARP is used for IP addresses 209.5.171.67-126 Problem: Using the Shorewall Action AllowFTP does not result in desired behavior when connecting from Internet to machines behind firewall in DMZ. From

Hi, I would like to run a network firewall as a VM on a KVM host. There are ~ 25 VLANs delivered to the KVM host on three dedicated links, no LACP or other things. I have the VLANs 100-180 on the host's enp1s0, the VLANs 200-280 on the host's enp2s0 and the VLANs 300-380 on the host's enp3s0. To save myself from configuring all VLANs on the KVM host, I'd like to hand the entire

Goodday, First my network layout: dsl router (10.0.0.99) | server (eth0 10.0.0.1, eth1 10.0.1.10) | 3 times windows machine (10.0.1.2, 10.0.1.3, 10.0.1.4) (all with proxy settings 10.0.1.10:8080) Now on the server is mandrake 10 installed with shorewall as firewall. And a apache webserver (and no ftp server). When i turned internet sharing on it started squid which added a line in the

Hello, I am running Shorewall 2.0.2f, on SuSE 9.2 distro, kernel 2.6.8-24.11-default My ip addr show output is as follows: 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 brd 127.255.255.255 scope host lo inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth0:

Hello Lartc Mailing List: Been working on something the last week and a half and ALMOST have it working.., just need a few pointers from the wizards on this mailing list to nail it. Ok, my setup is a hub and spoke arrangement, hub is Cisco 2821 with IOS 12.4. Spokes are ruggencom RX1000 routers, Debian based with the following versions installed: rx1000test:~# uname -a Linux rx1000test