Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-04 at 17:34 +0200, hans lux wrote: >> i've read that article but can't find the problem i have in there. > > That's probably because this is not a shorewall problem. > >> at the moment i have the following situation >> >> eth0 = inet >> eth2 = local (192.168.0.0/24)------ tunnel ----- 192.168.33.0/24 >> eth2:0 = local (10.106.121.0)----- tunnel ------ 10.106.99.0/24 >> >> now i need to access the 10.106.99.0/24 from the 192.168.0.0/24. > > This is a routing problem and nothing to do with shorewall I think. > > Have you tried this configuration without activating your shorewall > rules first to prove that it's a shorewall problem? There is nothing > about filtering or natting that should be needed to make this work. > It's all in the routing.
The log message in Hans's post indicates that the Shorewall zone definition is incorrect. See Shorewall FAQ 17. I suspect that eth2 needs an ipsec zone defined on it in addition to an ipv4 zone. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
