similar to: multiple ssh tunnels needing different rules

Hi, I have multiple ppp interfaces that does not correspond to the same network usage. Do you know anything about trying to set definitively the ppp+ name ? or anything to adapt automagically iptables to the real network which is behind each ppp+ interface ? I''ve tooken a look into the IFNAME env var... but it doesn''t seems to work :c/ regards, -- BeTa

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

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

Hello list, I wish to report a problem with openvpn tunnels. Synopsis: Despite adding policies to the shorewall policy file, I have to add extra rules to allow the UDP port 5000 packets to get through. I have used no particular setup guide. I believe this problem goes away with shorewall 2.0.9, as I have implemented openvpn with that version on a different machine, and I see no UDP:5000 packet

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

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, 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,

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

I have a firewall with 2 connections to the internet (eth1 and eth2) and one LAN interface. on the LAN interface, the users can connect via PPTP. those authenticating via pptp shall be masqueraded over eth2, those not authenticating should be ordinary masqueraded over eth1. as from the archives I took the configuration like in FAQ32, but this doesn''t work with the ppp+ interfaces. I

Hi, I am new to VPN an OpenVPN with shorewal. I tryed a lot and read a bounch of howto''s but nothing helped so I came here. I want to tunnel all request to my server 141.48.XXX.XXX from my home network throu port 443. I want to do this because this is the only way I can connect to my server using ssh or ony other tool or port. On Port 80 Apache is running, so I only have the https port

Dear list, I am having a problem with openvpn. I have the following arrangement, running two instances of openvpn on "home fw". I want to protect my WLAN in back of the home fw and that works fine. I can see "Peer connection initiated with 192.168.1.3:5000" in daemon.log on homefw. Nothing gets initiated with officefw, nor can I ping the other end of the tunnel at officefw.

> I've been having troubles getting cross subnet browsing working in > existance with a WinNT domain master (hey, it's not my machine). > Basically what is happening is that I am trying to setup a VPN (which > shouldn't complicate things) that browsing will work across. The idea is > this: > > There is an office in my local city that I'm connecting San

Hello! I use tincd to interconnect 3 LANs: A, B and C. So long, it works fine: everybody reaches everybody. But I want a different behavior: A and B should be allowed to talk, as should B and C. I tried to simply delete the host-files on the nodes that should not be allowed to talk to eachother: A has a hostfile from B B has a hostfile from A and C C has a hostfile from B But this is no