Greetings:
I have been having this problem while working on an OBSD box I want to
implement as a firewall.
In short this is what I need:
OBSD Box
10.0.0.100/24 ---> 10.0.0.1/24 <>
192.168.0.49/24--> 192.168.0
OBSD Box
10.0.0.100/24 ---> 10.0.0.1/24 <>
192.168.0.49/24--> 192.168.0.50
Host if=xl0if=fxp0
Gateway
So far everything is ok and I can ping from host to fxp
hi,
is there any routing on Gateway for 10.0.0.0/24 block?
or you can nat outgoing packets from fxp0..
On 6/7/06, Didier Caamaqo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings:
I have been having this problem while working on an OBSD box I want to
implement as a firewall.
In short this is what I ne
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telifono: 02 - 584 - 7039
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Bryan Irvine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enviado el: miircoles, 07 de junio de 2006 16:01
> Para: Didier Caamaqo
> CC: misc@openbsd.org
> Asunto: Re: routing problems
>
>
>
- 584 - 7039
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Huzeyfe Onal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enviado el: miircoles, 07 de junio de 2006 16:00
> Para: Didier Caamaqo
> CC: misc@openbsd.org
> Asunto: Re: routing problems
>
> hi,
>
> is there any routing on Gateway for
reo Electrsnico: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telifono: 02 - 584 - 7039
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Huzeyfe Onal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enviado el: miircoles, 07 de junio de 2006 16:12
> Para: Didier Caamaqo
> Asunto: Re: routing problems
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
Director Departamento Informatica
Sociedad Comercial Electrocenter Ltda.
Correo Electrsnico: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Telifono: 02 - 584 - 7039
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Huzeyfe Onal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Enviado el: miircoles, 07 de junio de 2006 16:12
> Para: Didier
Yes, I do have 'net.inet.ip.forwarding=1'.
In that case can you post everything?
/etc/mygate
/etc/pf.conf
/etc/hostname.xl0
/etc/hostname.fxp0
run 'sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding'
post your changes to /etc/sysctl.conf
run tcpdump
add the 'log' keyword to your pf rules, and run 'tcpdump -n
Hi !
thanks to everyone who helped me with getting the sk0 interface
working. It only works on 4.0, on 3.9 the interface does appear
but attempting to move traffic through it fails, with kernel
saying "sk0 timeout" or something.
After upgrading to 4.0, I decided to switch the internal
interface
hi,
i have some routing problems after starting a pptp connection via wlan,
here is what i did:
# pfctl
-d
pf disabled
# dhclient wi0
DHCPDISCOVER on wi0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 7
DHCPDISCOVER on wi0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 18
DHCPOFFER from 172.16.3.254
DHCPREQUEST on
Prior to the official 3.8 release I had been running a modified version
of GENERIC that simply had MROUTING turned on. Everything worked fine
-- the firewall would route multicast packets between interfaces. There
were the occassional errors that I chalked up to the fact that perhaps
MROUTING had
Greetings,
I'm running into issues with IPv6 networking using vmm with an openbsd guest,
both running OpenBSD 7.5. Setup and diagnostic info here:
https://paste.ircnow.org/05ejwpmf4hi74xuz0h2n
I am setting up an openbsd virtual machine inside vmm using this
configuration:
https://wiki.ircnow.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 07:23:35PM -0500, Jon Hart wrote:
> Prior to the official 3.8 release I had been running a modified version
There is no net.inet.ip.mforwarding in 3.8-release, only in -current.
If you are running stock 3.8 you will still need to build a kernel
with option MROUTING. If by
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:38:21PM -0500, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 07:23:35PM -0500, Jon Hart wrote:
> > Prior to the official 3.8 release I had been running a modified version
>
> There is no net.inet.ip.mforwarding in 3.8-release, only in -current.
> If you are run
Hi
On 21/05/2024 04:01, jrmu wrote:
> Here is my configuration:
> Inside hypervisor:
> hypervisor$ cat /etc/hostname.em1
> inet 104.167.241.211 0xffc0
> inet6 2602:fccf:400:41:: 48
Why are you using 48 as mask here and not 64?
Here is a suggestion in term of routing.
From your configura
Greetings,
> > Here is my configuration:
>
> > Inside hypervisor:
>
> > hypervisor$ cat /etc/hostname.em1
> > inet 104.167.241.211 0xffc0
> > inet6 2602:fccf:400:41:: 48
>
> Why are you using 48 as mask here and not 64?
I don't have control over the hypervisor's gateway, that is provided b
On 2024-05-21, jrmu wrote:
>
> --qhuug7BO2jqFJSbi
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Greetings,
>
>> > Here is my configuration:
>>=20
>> > Inside hypervisor:
>>=20
>> > hypervisor$ cat /etc/hostname.em1
>> >
.
On 21/05/2024 22:04, jrmu wrote:
Greetings,
Here is my configuration:
Inside hypervisor:
hypervisor$ cat /etc/hostname.em1
inet 104.167.241.211 0xffc0
inet6 2602:fccf:400:41:: 48
Why are you using 48 as mask here and not 64?
I don't have control over the hypervisor's gateway, th
Greetings,
> > I also don't control the entire /48.
> >
> > Here is the information I was given:
> >
> > My IPv6 Address Subnet: 2602:fccf:400:41::/64
> > Hypervisor' IPv6 Gateway: 2602:fccf:400::1
> >
> > I was only given a /64.
>
> So you should use a /64 prefix length not the /48 which you hav
On 2024/05/21 20:30, jrmu wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> > > I also don't control the entire /48.
> > >
> > > Here is the information I was given:
> > >
> > > My IPv6 Address Subnet: 2602:fccf:400:41::/64
> > > Hypervisor' IPv6 Gateway: 2602:fccf:400::1
> > >
> > > I was only given a /64.
> >
> > So you
> When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's just
> not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
> request at least 1x/56.
Thanks. I spoke with the ISP and he gave me a larger subnet,
2602:fccf:4::/48, I've been experimenting it by manually ad
On 04/06/2024 08:50, jrmu wrote:
>> When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's just
>> not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
>> request at least 1x/56.
> Thanks. I spoke with the ISP and he gave me a larger subnet,
>
> 2602:fccf:4::/48, I
On 2024-06-04, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
> On 04/06/2024 08:50, jrmu wrote:
>>> When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's just
>>> not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
>>> request at least 1x/56.
>> Thanks. I spoke with the ISP and he
Hi,
On 04/06/2024 09:50, jrmu wrote:
When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's just
not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
request at least 1x/56.
Thanks. I spoke with the ISP and he gave me a larger subnet,
2602:fccf:4::/48, I've be
On 04/06/2024 11:59, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2024-06-04, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
>> On 04/06/2024 08:50, jrmu wrote:
When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's
just
not enough because you can have more than 1 'type of usage'. I always
req
On 2024 Jun 04 (Tue) at 12:46:11 +0300 (+0300), Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
:
:On 04/06/2024 11:59, Stuart Henderson wrote:
:> On 2024-06-04, Kapetanakis Giannis wrote:
:>> On 04/06/2024 08:50, jrmu wrote:
: When you manage a hypervisor, using only 1x/64 is less than ideal. It's
just
: not
26 matches
Mail list logo
