Having a little trouble grasping the tos byte in these phone systems I am
working with.
First I will explain what I think this works like. Tos and dscp are
different in that dscp was implemented in favor of the old tos.
The first 6 bits in the Tos header with the last two for ECN.
DSCP is the
Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> Which manual are you reading? The perl-based rules compiler (which is
> the only one included in 4.4) has never supported zone names.
>
Ah -- I see your confusion. The tos manpage still includes both the
Shorewall-shell and Shorewall-perl syntax. You were looking at the
Sh
Jonathan Bayer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm returning to Shorewall after a 4 year absence. In my new job, I'm
> in the process of upgrading our router. It currently has Shorewall 3.*
> running on it.
>
> I've downloaded and install 4.4 on the new system>
>
> Configuring Shorewall 4.4 on an Ubuntu syst
Hi,
I'm returning to Shorewall after a 4 year absence. In my new job, I'm
in the process of upgrading our router. It currently has Shorewall 3.*
running on it.
I've downloaded and install 4.4 on the new system>
Configuring Shorewall 4.4 on an Ubuntu system.
Have a problem with the TOS file.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Tom Eastep wrote:
> > Mikael Kermorgant wrote:
> >
> >> Would anyone have an idea about why this happens ? Is this something
> >> inherent to bridges I have not understood ? Or should I better look at
> >> the switches ?
> >
> > As described in
Tom Eastep wrote:
> Mikael Kermorgant wrote:
>
>> Would anyone have an idea about why this happens ? Is this something
>> inherent to bridges I have not understood ? Or should I better look at
>> the switches ?
>
> As described in Shorewall FAQ 17, you simply need to set the 'routeback'
> option
Def. Quota Tom Eastep :
>
> Is it Dansguardian or Squid that is making the outgoing connections?
> Because Squid has the tcp_outgoing_address option which allows you to
> specify the IP address that squid uses for outgoing connections. If it
> is Dansguardian that is making the connections, does it
Mikael Kermorgant wrote:
>
> Would anyone have an idea about why this happens ? Is this something
> inherent to bridges I have not understood ? Or should I better look at
> the switches ?
As described in Shorewall FAQ 17, you simply need to set the 'routeback'
option on br2 in /etc/shorewall/int
> Where can we read your original post? It apparently was not sent to this
> list.
Here it is (was moderated because of attachment) :
Hello,
I this is not a problem with my shorewall configuration but strange
logs that I'd like to understand, so sorry for being a little
offtopic.
I have setup a
Great, thanks!
Brad C
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
> Brad Clarke wrote:
>> Let's try that again, but a little smaller :)
>>
>
> Add them in post-up commands in your /etc/network/interfaces file.
>
> e.g. post-up ip route add via dev
>
> -Tom
> --
> Tom Eastep \
Mikael Kermorgant wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Mikael Kermorgant
> mailto:mikael.kermorg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Would anyone have an idea about why this happens ? Is this something
> inherent to bridges I have not understood ? Or should I better look at
> th
s...@quipo.it wrote:
> Another additional information:
>
> the tcrules insertion does not work out of the box
> with the normal masq
>
> if you will use the masq avoiding the use of the additional
> iptables line as shown in another mail you can even insert
> into the masq file a line like th
s...@quipo.it wrote:
> Def. Quota Tom Eastep :
>
>> I see no reason why the entry in tcrules should not work just like your
>> manually-added rule. They are exactly the same rule at the iptables
>> level -- in the case of the tcrules entry, the rule is only traversed on
>> the first output packet
> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:16:49 -0700
> From: teas...@shorewall.net
> To: shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] Redirect failing
>
> P H wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Shorewall ver 4.2.9
> > Shorewall.conf perl
> >
> > If I have the line below I get the following e
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Mikael Kermorgant <
mikael.kermorg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Would anyone have an idea about why this happens ? Is this something
> inherent to bridges I have not understood ? Or should I better look at
> the switches ?
>
I just found this in the FAQ which seems
Another additional information:
the tcrules insertion does not work out of the box
with the normal masq
if you will use the masq avoiding the use of the additional
iptables line as shown in another mail you can even insert
into the masq file a line like this
tcrules:
2 $FW - - - - dansguard
Hello Tom!
Very well to see as Shorewall became more and more smarter and convenient
in resolving real and complex tasks of traffic filtering and shaping using
all features of other existing tools and modules.
But one issue in shaping is open still. Of course it is not Shorewall
defect but
Def. Quota Tom Eastep :
> I see no reason why the entry in tcrules should not work just like your
> manually-added rule. They are exactly the same rule at the iptables
> level -- in the case of the tcrules entry, the rule is only traversed on
> the first output packet in a connection while your ru
18 matches
Mail list logo
