similar to: Re: masquerading and apt-get problem

On 6/28/19 10:23 AM, Nikolai Zhubr wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm observing an issue that as soon as libvirt starts, UPD broadcasts > going through physical network (and unrelated to any virtualization) get > broken. Specifically, windows neighbourhood browsing through samba's > nmbd starts suffering badly (Samba is running on this same box). > > At the moment

Hi Daniel and Laine, [...] >> -A POSTROUTING -o br0 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o enp0s25 -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o virbr2_nic -j MASQUERADE >> -A POSTROUTING -o vnet0 -j MASQUERADE > > *None* of those rules were added by libvirt (unless your build of [...] > You can verify my "counter-claim" by running "virsh net-destroy" for all

Hi all, I'm observing an issue that as soon as libvirt starts, UPD broadcasts going through physical network (and unrelated to any virtualization) get broken. Specifically, windows neighbourhood browsing through samba's nmbd starts suffering badly (Samba is running on this same box). At the moment I'm running a quite outdated version 1.2.9 of libvirt, but other than this issue,

Hi all, I have a problem to get my Linux machine to masquerade for other computers on the network. My main machine is connect to the ADSL modem on eth0. The machine also has another network card, eth1 which connects directly to the other computer. Both machines can ping each other fine, but I can''t access the net from the other (Windows) system. IP Configuration on the linux

I've got small numbers of connections moving through a load balancer configured in NAT mode. So I've got an iptables table called "nat", which has in it a line "-A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE" (lan connect is eth0, private lan inside the cluster is eth1). The load balancer is working; connections made to the virtual ip on that host do get routed to one of the

Howdy, I tried tackling this on irc with Ivo, but I suspect that irc may really not be the best medium for technical discussions, so I'll reprise it here. I am trying to duplicate the "tinc from behind a masquerading firewall" example from the tinc web site: (home) <--> (masquerading firewall) <--> (office) 192.168.1.21 192.168.1.1/1.2.3.4

Hi all. I am interested in connecting my Palm T1 to the internet through Shorewall. I can set up a connection (with Bluetooth) to my Linux machine, and with Shorewall turned off, I could set up my machine to allow the Palm to access the internet with these commands : echo ''1'' >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A

HI guys: I have a DSL @ 1mb, and another one @ 256kbps I''ve been reading countless hours regarding the split access / load balancing issue, but for some strange reason, things don''t work the way they should. Sometimes the split access works, other times a DSL begins an ARP flood pointing all the ARP replies to the other DSL, and sometimes they just wont work at all. While

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1448 Bug ID: 1448 Summary: SNAT/DNAT/Masquerading not working for UDPLite protocol Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: NAT

Hi, I am wondering if it is possible to do the following with shorewall. I operate a network with some additional IP''s that are SNAT''d to various server machines on my network. One of my machines is a Terminal server. I need to be able to RDP to various servers for clients, that are IP locked for RDP on my PtP address, not the SNAT address of my Terminal server. Can I

Hello all, I''m somewhat new to networking, and I''m having trouble masquerading connections that are coming over a bridge. The bridge only has a single port for now, but I''m going to add more ports later. I''m basing my configuration on the two-interface quick start guide. I''m using Shorewall 3.0.4 on Ubuntu Dapper. My network looks like this: * The

On 19.02.2015 11:58, Niki Kovacs wrote: > Hi, > > I just migrated my office's server from Slackware64 14.1 to CentOS 7. So > far everything's running fine, I just have a few minor details to work out. > > I removed the firewalld package and replaced it by a simple Iptables > script: > > > --8<---------------------------------------------------- >

Hello! I've setup tinc almost succesfully, but there is one problem remaining with a routing issue. Short Description of the situation : Workstation A (192.168.1.3) | | Tinc Host "50K" (192.168.1.1) | | <Unknown Firewall> + + + <Masq Firewall (Linux)> and Tinc Host "oeoe" (192.168.2.1) | | Workstation B

Okay here is my setup: Gentoo Box running 2.6.4 w/ 4 NICs 1 NIC is for internal network 3 NICs are for external network The machine has a static address assigned to the internal network nic. This nic runs dhcp and dns forwarding. The other 3 nics have external dynamic IP addresses. All will have the same gateway. There are 3 NICs because this is a very large pipe, that will only allocate a

Dear list members, Masquerading does''not work for me. This is a Mandrake Linux 10 system, but I use another kernel, that included in the original distribution (original: 2.6.3, now used 2.6.8 because of a lot of suck with OpenSwan with kernels prior 2.6.4). The problem seems to be similar or identical mentioned here:

Hi, I just migrated my office's server from Slackware64 14.1 to CentOS 7. So far everything's running fine, I just have a few minor details to work out. I removed the firewalld package and replaced it by a simple Iptables script: --8<---------------------------------------------------- #!/bin/sh # # firewall-lan.sh IPT=$(which iptables) MOD=$(which modprobe) SYS=$(which sysctl)

Hello guys I don''t know if this thing has been posted before (if it was , please forgive me). I have 7 computers at home and I want all of them to have access to the internet. In order to do that , I set up a linux router (2 network cards) as a usual router (eth0 : 82.77.69.75 - internet connection ; eth1 : 192.168.10.1 - local network) . The other computers have ips ranging from

Dear all, I''ve the following problem with routing + NAT: If I''ve two ISP and I''m using two nexthop in default route with MASQUERADE on both ISP links, I see routing cache regenerated, but sometimes packets sent to a new link (after cache regeneration) uses wrong source address for masquerading. Here is the config. I''ve two links to outside via two

Package: xen-utils-common Version: 3.0.3-0-2 Severity: normal I'm not an expert in networking but I think that the current setup when using network-nat for domains is insecure. I've configured : (network-script 'network-nat netdev=eth1') (vif-script vif-nat) So when only domain 0 is started, I get the following : # iptables -L -n Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64 Summary: Conntrack-Table is not cleared on inferface down using target MASQUERADE Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: i386 OS/Version: other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: NAT