Re: [Shorewall-users] variable default/fallback syntax with dynamic AddressVariables?

2020-06-08 Thread Tom Eastep
On 6/8/20 1:04 PM, PGNet Dev wrote: > i've set > > /init > DYN_IP=$( dig A dyn.example.com @1.1.1.1 +short 2>/dev/null ) > > then use > > %{DYN_IP} > > in my SW configs, e.g. in /rules. > > if I want to add a fallback value, what's the correct syntax/usage? > > in

[Shorewall-users] variable default/fallback syntax with dynamic AddressVariables?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
i've set /init DYN_IP=$( dig A dyn.example.com @1.1.1.1 +short 2>/dev/null ) then use %{DYN_IP} in my SW configs, e.g. in /rules. if I want to add a fallback value, what's the correct syntax/usage? in fool_sm config, e.g., I use the form

Re: [Shorewall-users] clarification on AddressVariable usage scope?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/8/20 10:32 AM, Tom Eastep wrote: > Why not assign this host a static IP address via DHCP? That's what I do > with my local systems. hm... not sure I follow. the 'local' box does get its external IPv4 address from the ISP. ( technically, it's actually getting it from the modem, configured

Re: [Shorewall-users] clarification on AddressVariable usage scope?

2020-06-08 Thread Tom Eastep
On 6/7/20 3:21 PM, PGNet Dev wrote: > On 6/7/20 1:47 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: >> Yes. As a general rule, address variables can be used anywhere that a >> host IP address can be used, unless documented otherwise. > > great, thx. > > that takes care of the 'local' shorewall instance's tracking etc of

Re: [Shorewall-users] testing IPv6, error: "ICMP6, packet too big, mtu 1280". SW config/setting needed?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/8/20 10:16 AM, Tom Eastep wrote: > As shipped, shorewall6.conf includes 'AllowICMPs' in the > BLACKLIST_DEFAULT, DROP_DEFAULT, and REJECT_DEFAULT settings. The > AllowICMPs action accepts all ICMP6 packet types required by RFC 4890. it that's sufficient, then I'm good. atm, my

Re: [Shorewall-users] testing IPv6, error: "ICMP6, packet too big, mtu 1280". SW config/setting needed?

2020-06-08 Thread Tom Eastep
On 6/8/20 8:58 AM, PGNet Dev wrote: > On 6/8/20 8:13 AM, Simon Hobson wrote: >> I am really not an expert in IPv6 :-( > > heh. is _anyone_? much voudou req'd! ;-) > >> will drop it AND send back an ICMP6 PTB (Packet Too Big) message to the >> source - thus explicitly telling the source to use

Re: [Shorewall-users] testing IPv6, error: "ICMP6, packet too big, mtu 1280". SW config/setting needed?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
On 6/8/20 8:13 AM, Simon Hobson wrote: > I am really not an expert in IPv6 :-( heh. is _anyone_? much voudou req'd! ;-) > will drop it AND send back an ICMP6 PTB (Packet Too Big) message to the > source - thus explicitly telling the source to use smaller packets for that > flow. If the PTB

Re: [Shorewall-users] testing IPv6, error: "ICMP6, packet too big, mtu 1280". SW config/setting needed?

2020-06-08 Thread Simon Hobson
PGNet Dev wrote: > checking link mtus on my > > local, > > ifconfig | grep mtu > enp2s0: flags=4163 mtu 1500 > enp3s0: flags=4163 mtu 1500 > lo: flags=73 mtu 65536 > wg0: flags=209 mtu 1420 > > & remote boxes > >

[Shorewall-users] testing IPv6, error: "ICMP6, packet too big, mtu 1280". SW config/setting needed?

2020-06-08 Thread PGNet Dev
 i've setup dualstack IPv4 & IPv6 across my lan. IPv4 via my local ISP's gateway; IPv6 over a wireguard VPN link through a cloud VM, using native IPv6. shorewall(6)-lite is is place on all boxes. afaict so far, all IPv6 traffic flows -- at least, I've had no widespread issues browsing ...