similar to: memory leaks resolved?

Hi Rahul, If you're certain that your problem isn't as Stephen suggested, you might want to have a look at this: --- (From http://ebtables.sourceforge.net/brnf-faq.html <http://ebtables.sourceforge.net/brnf-faq.html> ) How do I let vlan-tagged traffic go through a vlan bridge port and the other traffic through a non-vlan bridge port? Suppose eth0 and eth0.15 are ports of br0.

OK, thanks again for all your help. I have resolved this, finally. The problem was that I configured VLAN 48 as the native VLAN on the trunk port.That was a mistake as apparently the native VLAN is the one where Cisco does not bother to tag packets. For now I set the native VLAN to VLAN 1 and that works. Cheers, Boris. On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Boris Epstein <borepstein at

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1316 Bug ID: 1316 Summary: ebtables-nft support for broute Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables over nftable Assignee: pablo at

Hello all. I know this does not directly relay to Ethernet bridging but I need some advise... anyone want to give me some info/help on the subject. In the interest of multipath routing I need to know if it is possible to do a one-way arp spoof. Lets start with the machines layout... br1------ADSL br2------cisco router-----serial line. br0-----Internal network. I already have

Hi, I tried sending this earlier, but it didn't come through. Apologies if this appers twice on the list. I'm running bridging using the brouter setup described on this page: http://ebtables.sourceforge.net/examples.html "Making a brouter". The setup described there is like this: ifconfig br0 0.0.0.0 ifconfig eth0 172.16.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig eth1 172.16.2.1

And additionally here are the detailed port configs on the switch end: hq>show interface Gi1/0/3 switchport Name: Gi1/0/3 Switchport: Enabled Administrative Mode: trunk Operational Mode: trunk Administrative Trunking Encapsulation: dot1q Operational Trunking Encapsulation: dot1q Negotiation of Trunking: On Access Mode VLAN: 48 (VLAN0048) Trunking Native Mode VLAN: 48 (VLAN0048) Administrative

Hi, Sorry to bother you all. I have a typical problem sharing DSL upstream bandwidth with users. I have 3 types of traffic high-priority, medium-priority and low priority. My upstream rate is 960kbits. Traffic (any priority) can vary in bandwidth from 0 to 960kbits. I have a test setup where I can pump 600kbit of high priority sustained and I have 400kbit of low priority traffic sustained. I

Hi, [sorry for the crosspost, I don''t know whether this is a routing or ebtables problem] I want to redirect all HTTP traffic passing through my bridge to a squid proxy on another machine. However, setting up brouting as suggested in the ebtables examples doesn''t work and the packets get dropped on the floor completely. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ +----------------------+

Still learning Xen, and would like to know if it''s possible to run Squid in D0 when running in bridging mode. I have iptables and ebtables going, and am able to log packets with those, but can''t seem to get any traffic out of the bridge into Squid in D0 (or through iptables in D0, for that matter). Information I''ve gathered so far is that I need

Hi all, I have been troubled with the traffic flow on the XCP 1.6 and XCP 0.5. - I have 4 servers in VLAN2 on port b12,b13,b14,b15 (these servers work on a XCP 0.5) - on port a3 have have mirrort al ports from a1,a2,a4-b24 - have a other HP server with XCP1.6 with (Debian 6.0.6 as host) and install snort. this has 2 eth carts in it. Eth0 is plugt in the VLAN2 network and

I have the following problem, and I would l like to know if Samba can help. (I suspect that it cannot, but feel free to prove me wrong.) My scenario is this: My site is just one of many, with the `Domain Master Browser` being off-site. My site has 10 VLANS, and in the current, purely Windows environment I have assorted problems with the browser list being maintained across all 10 VLANS. I would

Hello all, I am having some trouble getting a firewall filter to work with TC. I am actually setting the mark via EBTables (which is working as far as I can tell, I am also logging the packet and my syslog reports lots of marks): ebtables -t broute -A BROUTING -p ipv4 -i eth1 -s 08:00:46:60:B3:57 -j mark --set-mark 7 --mark-target CONTINUE --log --log-level debug --log-prefix "EBFW Mark

Trying to use the policy drop rule with the bridged firewall, when I removed the first line the transparent proxy works great? It seems a bit strange as from reading several articles on it I thought the following occurs. 1st line - if it doest match it gets dropped on the local filter input. 2nd line - redirects the traffic off the link layer into the network layer ready for line 3. 3rd line -

Hi installed Debian with bridging enabled then I install squid. Squid work if I manually enter proxy setting in firefox. Then I ran the following to make it transparent: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward ebtables -t broute -A BROUTING -p IPv4 --ip-protocol 6 --ip-destination-port 80 -j redirect --redirect-target ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i br0 -p tcp --dport 80

Hey guys, I have a question regarding shorewall and vrf functionality. I have shorewall 3.4.8 and kernel 2.6.24-gentoo-r8 I have tried to use iproute2 (ip route and ip rule) to establish multiple routing tables. The biggest problem seems to be, that I cannot add interfaces such as vlan interfaces to the routing table. My target is that linux takes attention of on which vlan interface

Thank you everyone. OK, the mystery deepens, I guess. The machine does need to support several VLAN's, it is currently on a trunkport (8021q encapsulated), it made it into the ARP table - which I specifically tested for by physically unplugging the table, clearing the ARP table and plugging it back in. The ARP table currently looks like this: hq#show arp Protocol Address Age (min)

Hello all, I need a virtual firewall/router solution. I''m thinking of a netscreen 1000 but I want to know if it can be done in Linux. Here is my idea: 1 Linux box 2 GigE interfaces 1 interface setup with a public IP address ($PUBIP) 1 interface setup with 802.1q VLAN trunking with 100 vlans assigned ($VLAN1-$VLAN100) a /25 subnet routed to $PUBIP from my core routers All $VLAN

I''m playing around with VLAN''s and I have a VLAN capable (layer 2) smart switch. I see a steady stream of martians in the logfile if I have the routefilter option set on the loc zone interfaces in /etc/shorewall/interfaces. I have two interfaces in the loc zone, eth1 and vlan2 respectively. vlan2 is an 802.1q trunk going towards the switch. Is this the expected behavior in

Hi all, I''m tring to isolate P2P traffic, specifically BitTorrent, for my QoS scripts. I can''t seem to completely isolate ALL BitTorrent traffic. I identify & mark packets and then use tc filters to put them into appropriate classes. My firewall rules (below) do the markings. My VoIP boxes'' and ICMP traffic get highest priority (mark 1). Then comes DNS, SSH,

I'm looking for some information regarding the interaction of KVM, VLANs, firewalld, and the kernel's forwarding configuration. I would appreciate input especially from anyone already running a similar configuration in production. In short, I'm trying to figure out if a current configuration is inadvertently opening up traffic across network segments. On earlier versions of CentOS