similar to: a solution to pppd random interface name ?

I have a firewall running Shorewall 1.3.13-1 from rpm on a redhat 7.3 box. The box has three nics assigned to zones loc net and dmz. We also have multiple vpn links accomplished via ssh tunnels, These links all come from dynamic IP addresses with known private subnets behind them. There are basically two types of networks these vpns connect, one with access to almost everything and one with

Hí everybody, you have a nice day. I am configuring accounting in shorewall /etc/shorewall/accounting and the traffic between eth0 (local network)1, eth2(local network2) and eth3(local network3) <--> eth1(ip public network), works fine. I make the accounting because y want to control the remote vpn access(pptpd) throught shorewall. Which is the way to control vpn /ip/access in

I am trying shorewall as my previous post With alisias on eth1 loc and 4 pptp client vpns. The odd thing is when I enter one of the vpns in interfaces such as vpn1 it works. But if I enter the vpn in the hosts file shorewall blocks the vpns. shorewall/hosts #ZONE HOST(S) OPTIONS loc eth1:192.168.25.0/24 loctw eth1:192.168.50.0/24 locsa eth1:192.168.75.0/24 vpntw

Hi, Tinc experts Diagram as below, A is trying to access host X behind C: A >> B >> C — “host X" B is the tinc server for A, but also B is the tinc client to connect to C. My question is, if I only use one VPN (/etc/tinc/myvpn), then the host configuration for B will be tricky. As the tinc server to A, B’s host config (/etc/tinc/myvpn/hosts/B) needs have the Subnet = X/32,

Hi all, I am trying to setup a configuration of Tinc to allow multiple tincd daemons for a same network (mixing bonding, etc...). I will post my solution later if I found one. This is to get better speeds in multiple gigabit/sec networks. So my question is not about this directly. I would like to know if the "netname" configured on each node, is used somewhere in communications

Hi all, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20090722/30afa9ee/attachment.htm

Hi, Etienne In addition, is there any option or switch can turn of the automatic direct connection? For the example below, even A has the route to C and can establish UDP connection directly, but I need the traffic to go through B, how can I achieve that easily? (instead of remove something from A’s routing table, or manually block the connection between A and C) > On 1 May 2017, at 6:28 PM,

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

There is no concept of "client" or "server" in tinc. tinc is purely peer-to-peer. "ConnectTo" statements only indicate which node will attempt to establish the initial connection, but once the connection is established, direction does not matter. It is unclear from your message which node is responsible for which subnet. If X/32 truly belongs to C, then simply set

Greetings all, I've setup a new gretap device as per Herbert Xu's new patches and it works as expected for smaller MTU. I'm wondering if gretap tunnels handle fragmentation at all or if this might be a bridge related issue. The same setup works quite well if I use vtun with a tap device however, so while this isn't entirely bridge-related, Maybe someone here might have

I am hoping that someone with more experience and knowledge than I can assist me in finding a solution ;) We have a RedHat AS4 box with 5 interfaces. Two interfaces serve two different networks and two interfaces connect to two different uplinks. The fifth interface is our management interface. Since a picture is worth a thousand words I attempted to come up with a diagram:

We''ve just upgraded to a new firewall machine, and a new version of Shorewall. We''re now on 2.04; previous version was 1.3.9b (!). So I''m pretty sure whatever problems we''re having are related to the big version jump. We''re using config files that exactly match our old (working) configuration (IOW, these are things which _were_ working on the old

Hi, Etienne I took a look for the below host configuration parameter (IndirectData), the default is no. For the below example: A ConnectTo B, B ConnectTo C: If IndirectData = no (default), then A wouldn’t establish direct connection with C, but will be forwarded by B. If IndirectData = yes, then A will try to establish direct connection with C, even though A don’t have the statement of

I see support in shorewall for the KAME-tools, how about strongswan ? I have setup shorewall 3.4.4 and strongswan 4.1.3, making this my vpn-gateway for the subnet behind it. # Shorewall version 3.4 - Zones File #ZONE TYPE OPTIONS IN OUT # OPTIONS OPTIONS fw firewall fil ipsec mode=tunnel mss=1400 net ipv4

Greetings, me again. I''m starting to feel miff now. If I have a few vpn tunnels with different tun interfaces. And all this tunnel traffic is coming in on my eth0 interface, it also leave via eth0 again. I would like to share the available bandwidth evenly with tunnel clients. Would applying the bandwidth rule on eth0 with htb & sfq work for sharing the bandwidth or will

Hello again, >From the point of view of a Red Hat *user*, the standardised way of doing things would be to have an /etc/sysconfig/tinc file containing something like: NETWORKS="vpn1 vpn2 vpn3" (one or more names separated by spaces) At initialization, each name should launch a separate tinc instance (a different VPN) tinc service should not start until the user adds at least

You’re talking about Layer 2 bridging by Tinc? The use case here is layer 3 routing, but anyway, thanks for your feedback. > On 1 May 2017, at 8:09 PM, LowEel <loweel at gmx.de> wrote: > > I cannot understand why you say the configuration for B will be tricky. > > If you select the switch mode, and some machine can initiate a > connection to some other machine, until

Hello Mailinglist, please excuse my bad english - but I am not a native speaker. My Network looks like this: Internet --- dyn. IP --- Firewall (shorewall) --- LAN (192.168.X.X) No I try to connect my iphone (from mobile Internet G3) over VPN (l2tp/ipsec) with the firewall. But I can´t open the necessary Port 1701. /var/log/syslog ... Dec 30 00:24:29 router kernel: [226128.293757]

Hi, i connect to the internet over my eth4 interface using pppoe. The internet always comes on ppp0. I am trying to setup an L2TP/IPSEC VPN and i am reading http://www.shorewall.net/IPSEC-2.6.html#RW-L2TP I notice in the example the interfaces file is given as: #ZONE INTERFACE BROADCAST OPTIONS net eth0 detect routefilter loc eth1

I need to be able to set up several server settings (DNS/Zabbix/etc) based on the network that a server is connected to. Could someone show me a straight forward way of doing this? if generate supported pipes I might be able to swing this but apparently I need some help. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google