Akin Nomad wrote:
> Which of these IP addresses you will not find allocated to PC, which
> can work in internet through IP protocol? (you can choose only one
> variant)
> a: 192.168.0.3
> b: 230.30.3.3
> c: 2001:16c8:ffd7::b:33.255.3.2
> d: 2001:16d8:ffd7::405
> e: 10.40.20.0
> f: fe80::2c0:26ff:20
>> Would this be acceptable for filing a crash report, or is this out of
>> your scope?
>
> If you can type in the text, that should be fine. Don't expect multiple
> developers to try and make head or tail of a .jpg though...
>
> As mentioned here recently, if the machine is rebooted rather than
> In the passive modes session, i counted 4 pf rules being added, as
> also in the active modes. But reading ftp-proxy(8) i can see the
> following reference:
>
> I.e., two rules for active mode and three for passive mode. I could
> not understand what happened to the others listed in the source
> I'm stuck on some obvious pf table error but I can't see it.
> ## Tables (File content shown in brackets)
> table file "/etc/tAdmins" ( 192.168.0.3 )
> table file "/etc/tManagers" (192.168.0.2)
> table file "/etc/tOperators" (192.168.0.128)
> table file "/etc/tHttp-managers" (google
The painless way to do this is with webservers on non-routable
addresses, NAT and two interfaces. Is that out of the question?
In any case man pf.conf says:
"Redirections cannot reflect packets back through the interface they
arrive on, they can only be redirected to hosts connected to different
>> Get tcpdumps on both router interfaces with and without the "reassemble
>> tcp" option. Do this for a similar file on both a working website and
>> broken (ebay) website.
>
> On both router interfaces? Wouldn't the external if be enough?
You're probably right. But my theory is that if you're g
> ns.foo.bar is a dns slave that makes AXFR zone transfer from my server
> (mybox). Why is the traffic
> blocked on the first lines? What kind of traffic is that? Perhaps I
> don't understand DNS fully,
> but I thought zone transfers were made using TCP only, and ordinary
> queries UDP.
Zone trans
> Unfortunately I cannot determine why only some sites have troubles
> and that's why I seeking advice here on howto further diagnose
> the problem.
>
> Any hints are appreciated!
It's a stab in the dark but I would start with the assumption that some
sites are using server load balancing and tha
> so, the ping is ok when its not going trough the tunnel...but via the
> tunnel, the MTU size
> sinks to 1330 max.
>
> How to get that not to sink ?
You probably can't - your VPN tunnel is adding IP and IPsec headers
which cause packets to grow beyond the DSL provider's MTU. (BTW some DSL
servi
> My goal with the bridge is to filter all traffic coming in from the
> outside world, while allowing servers my servers behind the bridge
> to connect freely even if their traffic has to travel out to the
> router and back(keep state?).
>
> My point of confusion is whether or not to tur
> # tcpdump -n -i sis2 'icmp'
> 19:21:05.848459 wan_if.ip > external.host: icmp: echo request
> 19:21:05.868202 external.host > wan_if.ip: icmp: echo reply
> 19:21:05.868499 wan_if.ip > external.host: icmp: host wan_if.ip unreachable
>
> I was obviously expecting the first two lines but I assumed
> I have never setup STP but if you were to use a hub you are only
> moving the convegence problem to the devices on the end, be it a
> router or clients. Instead of a few next hop mac updates between a
> switch and the STP bridges , all the devices would need to update thus
> increasing total conv
> I tried to connect the cable for the internet directly to one
> of the client machines behind the firewall (Debian GNU/Linux
> 3.1) and the site loads perfectly, so I came to the
> conclusion that my PF rules are blocking the packets. So, I
> left a minimal PF setup (pass all keep state + NAT
Some hard disks have a write protect jumper. I've got an old Seagate
Barracuda (ST3217N) that has this - although it's not something I've
ever tried to use.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Matt Garman
Sent: 01 July 2005 16:06
To:
14 matches
Mail list logo
