On 20/01/2016 19:55, Steve Clark wrote:
So I want traffic coming in eth5 with 10.10.0.x addresses to be source
natted to 192.168.100.3.
But my iptables nat statement never gets hit.
Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 172 packets, 31384 bytes)
pkts bytes target prot opt in out source
des
On 01/21/2016 03:49 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Thanks, but forwarding is turned on and my FW rules are empty.
Try specifying the physical device the packets are going out, rather
than the bridge, in your postrouting rule.
Apparently you also need an ebtables rule to prevent the return packets
On 01/20/2016 04:21 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 01/20/2016 09:55 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Any ideas?
IP forwarding needs to be enabled, and you also need rules in your
FORWARD chain to allow the packets.
Thanks, but forwarding is turned on and my FW rules are empty.
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEP
On 01/20/2016 09:55 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Any ideas?
IP forwarding needs to be enabled, and you also need rules in your
FORWARD chain to allow the packets.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi List,
I am running into a problem where I have 2 interfaces bridged with and ip
address assigned.
I have another interface in which traffic has ingress traffic that needs to go
out the bridged interface.
I am trying unsuccessfully to SNAT the traffic leaving the bridge interface to
its ass
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:45:01 -0300 (BRT)
Antonio da Silva Martins Junior wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>I'm running our network with an 10/8 IPv4 subnets, with an SNAT catch all
> rule on the iptables firewall to the world.
>
>Is there a pratical way to log each connection? Maybe an "automatic
>
Hi All,
I'm running our network with an 10/8 IPv4 subnets, with an SNAT catch all
rule on the iptables firewall to the world.
Is there a pratical way to log each connection? Maybe an "automatic hotspot"
wich will assign an "external" IP to each "internal" one, and log it.
What are you u
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 6:33 AM, David Hláčik wrote:
> Hello I will briefly draw the situation
>
> Router with one interface eth0 , to local network 10.123.0.0/16
>
> on a local network ADSL modem with IP 10.123.10.11
>
> I want to use 10.123.10.11 as a connection to internet .
>
> Because of tha
Hello,
CentOS 5.4, but I believe there will be no difference.
Best,
David
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 10.01.2010 15:33, schrieb David Hláčik:
>
>> Hello I will briefly draw the situation
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> Please help,
>>
>> Thank you in advance.
>>
>> David
>
Am 10.01.2010 15:33, schrieb David Hláčik:
> Hello I will briefly draw the situation
[ ... ]
> Please help,
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> David
The router runs CentOS or Fedora? Because you are sending your mails to
both mailing lists.
Alexander
_
*** Sorry for mistake
I have configured static route on ADSL modem "10.123.0.0/16 via
> 10.123.10.1" which ensures traffic comming from internet will ge to
> my router
10.123.10.1 is address of eth0 on my router.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 3:33 PM, David Hláčik wrote:
> Hello I will briefly draw t
Hello I will briefly draw the situation
Router with one interface eth0 , to local network 10.123.0.0/16
on a local network ADSL modem with IP 10.123.10.11
I want to use 10.123.10.11 as a connection to internet .
Because of that I have created default route "ip route add default via
10.123.10.1
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Tait Clarridge wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I am unable to get my LAN masqueraded using SNAT with CentOS 5.3 and
>> >>> iptables.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have the following setup:
>> >>>
>> >>> eth0: connects to internet with static public IP 1.2.3.1
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 00:58 +0200, Peter Peltonen wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Peter Peltonen
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Peter Peltonen
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I am unable to get
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Peter Peltonen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Peter Peltonen
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am unable to get my LAN masqueraded using SNAT with CentOS 5.3 and
>>> iptables.
>>>
>>> I ha
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Peter Peltonen
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am unable to get my LAN masqueraded using SNAT with CentOS 5.3 and
>> iptables.
>>
>> I have the following setup:
>>
>> eth0: connects to internet with static
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Peter Peltonen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am unable to get my LAN masqueraded using SNAT with CentOS 5.3 and iptables.
>
> I have the following setup:
>
> eth0: connects to internet with static public IP 1.2.3.1 (obscured
> here for privacy)
> eth1: connects to DMZ with s
Hi,
I am unable to get my LAN masqueraded using SNAT with CentOS 5.3 and iptables.
I have the following setup:
eth0: connects to internet with static public IP 1.2.3.1 (obscured
here for privacy)
eth1: connects to DMZ with static public IP 1.2.3.2 (obscured here for privacy)
eth2: connects to LA
18 matches
Mail list logo
