On Thu 31 Oct 2024 at 10:06:42 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:48:52AM +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:
> > Timothy M Butterworth writes:
> >
> > > As you can see here pinging google from eth0 fails. If masquerading was
> > > working then ping would be successful.
>
> I'm
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 10:48:52AM +0200, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Timothy M Butterworth writes:
>
> > As you can see here pinging google from eth0 fails. If masquerading was
> > working then ping would be successful.
I'm late to the party, but did you take into account that masquerading
ICMP (ping
Timothy M Butterworth writes:
> As you can see here pinging google from eth0 fails. If masquerading was
> working then ping would be successful.
Well, if it helps, I don't have external accress on my router via the
inside interface either. Works from the LAN hosts though.
> Can ip masquerading
On 10/31/24 07:17, Timothy M Butterworth wrote:
3: virbr0: mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue
state DOWN
mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
link/ether 52:54:00:78:fb:ce brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
4: eth0: mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state DOWN
mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
link/ether 00:00:00:00:11
Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 03:46:06PM +1100, Russell wrote:
Hi all,
I have a PC (PC_1) connected to the ISP via dialup ppp (DHCP assigned
address). PC_1 also has an ethernet card: 192.168.0.1
Another PC (PC_2: 192.168.0.2) connects to PC_1 via ethernet.
Can i access my ISPs DNS
I supposed you could set something up with ssh, so PC1 tunnels a port to
its own DNS port via sshd, but it's going to be significantly harder and
less useful than ipmasq.
ap
--
Andrew J Perrin - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin
Assist
On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 03:46:06PM +1100, Russell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a PC (PC_1) connected to the ISP via dialup ppp (DHCP assigned
> address). PC_1 also has an ethernet card: 192.168.0.1
>
> Another PC (PC_2: 192.168.0.2) connects to PC_1 via ethernet.
>
> Can i access my ISPs DNS serv
OTECTED]>
To: "Richard Beri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: IP Masquerade
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 10:41:41PM -0400, Richard Beri wrote:
> > I would like to set up simple IP Masquerading on my machine for another
> > ma
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Richard Beri wrote:
> I would like to set up simple IP Masquerading on my machine for another
> machine on my network to connect to the internet via cable modem. In the
> past I used a nifty firewall/masquerade setup utility called PM Firewall, but
> it only works on 2.2 kern
hi ya richard...
is your ipmasq gateway to the outside world the same as your firewall ??
- if you know ipchains better than iptables, you can run ipchains
on 2.4 kernels by installing "ipchains" modules in the 2.4 kernels
insmod ipchains
ipchains -L
- several dozen config t
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 10:41:41PM -0400, Richard Beri wrote:
| I would like to set up simple IP Masquerading on my machine for another
| machine on my network to connect to the internet via cable modem. In the
| past I used a nifty firewall/masquerade setup utility called PM Firewall, but
| it
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 10:41:41PM -0400, Richard Beri wrote:
> I would like to set up simple IP Masquerading on my machine for another
> machine on my network to connect to the internet via cable modem. In the
> past I used a nifty firewall/masquerade setup utility called PM Firewall, but
> it
apt-get install ipmasq
-Justin
www.atomichamster.com
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 21:41, Richard Beri wrote:
> I would like to set up simple IP Masquerading on my machine for another
> machine on my network to connect to the internet via cable modem. In the
> past I used a nifty firewall/masquerade s
www.shorewall.net
--
Sincerely,
David Smead
http://www.amplepower.com.
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Richard Beri wrote:
> I would like to set up simple IP Masquerading on my machine for another
> machine on my network to connect to the internet via cable modem. In the
> past I used a nifty firewall/m
> Sounds like your gateway does not know its hosts
No.. since the traffic from the gateway to the hosts is slow it is
there.. and the gateway and the hosts are in the same segment more than
this the traffic from the hosts to the gateway is *very fast* so the ack
packets from the gateway make their
Hello Roberto,
Monday, August 13, 2001, 1:11:28 AM, you wrote:
RD> This is not ip-masquerade specific.. but somebody has some idea?
You might want to try out
http://www.pitpalme.de/debian/netio.tar.gz
It's a protocol independent (except it uses TCP, but independent in case of
HTTP pr FTP or si
On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 08:23:40PM -0400, dude wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Roberto Diaz wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Does any of this work directly from the gateway box without any MASQ
> > > > rules
> > > > loaded?
> >
> > Thank you for your help.. it is some kind of problem with my network
> > cards.
Sounds like your gateway does not know its hosts
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Roberto Diaz wrote:
> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 01:11:28 +0200 (MEST)
> From: Roberto Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: IP masquerade not working!! :( (fwd)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.d
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 02:13:34AM +1000, Kevin Easton wrote:
> ipmasq is the go. ipmasq is cool. ipmasq rocks your world.
>
> Just setup your internet access on the gateway machine, then when it's all
> working, apt-get install ipmasq - and you'll have ipmasquerading for all
> your local networ
Hi,
As a few respondents have said, ipmasq is a package of scripts that uses
whatever kernel firewalling support utility you have (2.0.x ipfwadm, 2.2.x
ipchains, 2.4.x iptables) to configure your firewall rules, according to a
set of rule scripts (in /etc/ipmasq/rules/).
ipmasq is the go. i
On Monday 16 April 2001 18:07, D-Man wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 12:38:30AM +0200, Willi Dyck wrote:
> This doesn't quite answer my question, but it might be heading in the
> right direction. I want to know the difference between ipchains and
> ipmasq. Would I be correct if I said :
> F
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:50:32PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> Now hold on there just a darn minute--
>
> In one sentence, you say that he doesn't want to have both, but in
That's right.
> another you acknowledge that ipmasq depends on ipfwadm or ipchains or
> iptables.
That's right, too. And wh
I got confused and made wrong comment under you.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:50:32PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> The ipmasq package is not *REQUIRED* to set up MASQ rules, but is a
> tool which simplifies the process.
Yes. Correct. (Sorry, it's one of those day)
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~
Nope! IPMASQ is not required. I bet serious admin will not use it.
It's for ppl like me at home with cable modem and university student on
Ethernet.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:50:32PM -0700, Bob Nielsen wrote:
> The ipmasq package is not *REQUIRED* to set up MASQ rules, but is a
> tool which simp
Now hold on there just a darn minute--
In one sentence, you say that he doesn't want to have both, but in
another you acknowledge that ipmasq depends on ipfwadm or ipchains or
iptables. Thus if he wants to use ipmasq he needs one of these.
ipfwadm is for 2.0 (and earlier) kernels, ipchains is fo
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 06:38:10PM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote:
|
| ipmasq is a convienience package which automatically configures kernel
| using either ipchains or iptables.
Ahh, that's the difference between 'ipchains' and 'ipmasq'. Thanks!
Thanks all for the info and explanations re firewalling
iptable is kernel 2.4 specific tool.
ipchain is 2.2 specific tool but I hear it works with 2.4 kernel since
kernel 2.4 has compatibility mode or something.
So, iptables and ipchains are similar tool and you need to decide which
one to use.
ipmasq is a convienience package which automatically co
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 07:07:40PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
> This doesn't quite answer my question, but it might be heading in the
> right direction. I want to know the difference between ipchains and
> ipmasq. Would I be correct if I said :
> Firewalling and Masquerading are 2 different things,
Hi
Yes, both ipchain and ipmasq about roughly the same things but I
think ipchain is a newer with more features and mainly for 2.2 kernel. (I
think ipmasq for 2.0 kernel, but I am not sure). For 2.4 kernel, iptable is
the recommended one. All these tools do packet filtering AFAIK. This
pa
Hi
Actually, you can use ipmasq and ipchain in 2.4 kernel if you
compile the corresponding module. On the other hand you can use iptable for
2.4 kernel. (it is the recommended way since it is native to 2.4 kernel.
Edwin Lau
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:35:26 D-Man wrote:
>
> I see there are 2
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 12:38:30AM +0200, Willi Dyck wrote:
| On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 04:35:26PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
| >
| > I see there are 2 HOWTOS for IP Masquerading and (correspondingly) 2
| > packages. Should I be looking at "ipmasq" or "ipchains"? How much
|
| If you're using kernel vers
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 04:35:26PM -0400, D-Man wrote:
>
> I see there are 2 HOWTOS for IP Masquerading and (correspondingly) 2
> packages. Should I be looking at "ipmasq" or "ipchains"? How much
If you're using kernel versions older than 2.4.0 you're about to use
ipchains. The IPCHAINS HOWTO e
> Has anyone experienced configuring IP Masquerade with pptp and VMware ?
>
> My situation is :
>
> - Debian box running unstable and kernel 2.4.2
> - VMware + Windows 98 host system configured host-only
> - ADSL internet connexion using pptp protocol
>
> I would like my Windows virtual machine to
Not knowing the particulars of your statement the problem could one of
two things:
1) your kernel was not compiled with ipmasq options (assuming the
enabling you are doing is modifiny /etc/network/options); or
2) you don't have the kernel module for ipmasq... (you can get that
stuff in the ipmasq d
"Robert" wrote:
>Hi
>
>
>I have a problem with IP Masquerade on Debian 2.2 kernel 2.2.14
>
>When Debian boot i have message
>
>IP Masquerade has not been enabled in the kernel.
>
>but i enable it.
Well, the kernel doesn't seem to agree with you.
1. Did you compile the kerne
> > The HOWTO suggested I should try something like
> >
> > ipfwadm -F -p deny (setting 'deny' as the default rule)
> > ipfwadm -F -a masquerade -P tcp 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 -D 0.0.0.0/0
> ^^^
> is there a typo here or you're using the entire
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Guilherme Soares Zahn wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> today I was trying to set our computers to do IP-Masquerading (we'll
> be changing our external provider, and while the old one did the
> masquerading for us, the now one doesn't)... I tried to do everything as
> explained i
Guilherme Soares Zahn wrote:
>
> The HOWTO suggested I should try something like
>
> ipfwadm -F -p deny (setting 'deny' as the default rule)
> ipfwadm -F -a masquerade -P tcp 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 -D 0.0.0.0/0
> (and the same for udp)
>
The problem here is that packets are given permission to
Hi,
It sounds to me as if when you did the first set-up for some reason the packets
were getting through the rule and hitting the default deny. In the second
instance you have a default allow so it should match any traffic.
The first example is better as it is more specific. Hopefully the 192
At 18:17 25/05/1998 +1000, John Boggon wrote:
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Bruce Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: debian
>Date: Sunday, 24 May 1998 04:09:pm
>Subject: IP Masquerade and PPP
>
>
>>Has anyone got IP Masquerade to work with PPP. I have followed the
>>how-to`s and looked all o
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian
Date: Sunday, 24 May 1998 04:09:pm
Subject: IP Masquerade and PPP
>Has anyone got IP Masquerade to work with PPP. I have followed the
>how-to`s and looked all over the `net, but I still can`t get it to
>work. I have
On Sat, 23 May 1998, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> You mean to tell me that with a simple firewall I will not be able to
> ping and traceroute. This does not seem logical to me that a firewall
> should prevent this. Anyways, I can`t surf the net, even using ip
> addresses.
It sounds like you don't hav
On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 09:50:46PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 09:21:08 +0530, Bruce Jackson wrote:
> >Has anyone got IP Masquerade to work with PPP.
> Yup, I've got a Linux and a WinNT/Win95 box behind another Linux
> IPMasqing system, works fine.
>
> >the Internet using PP
>> ipfwadm -F -p deny
>> ipfwadm -F -a m -S 192.168.0.0/24 -D 0.0.0.0/0
>>
>> I copied them almost verbatium out of the IPMasqing HOWTO.
>
>I have used these exact same rules as well as using info I found on the
>Internet using Dejanews and I have tried the dotfile maker. All with
>now succes
> "BJ" == Bruce Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BJ> blocking everything. I have not seen any modules for ping, or
BJ> traceroute. I have seen modules for quake, raudio, etc. Maybe I am
BJ> missing something, but basic services like ping and traceroute should
BJ> not be denied. These a
On Sat, 23 May 1998 16:25:17 +0530, Bruce Jackson wrote:
>Steve Lamb wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 May 1998 12:44:16 +0530, Bruce Jackson wrote:
>> As I said, ping, FTP, ICQ chat/file requests, DCC all require
Jeezus, talk about open mouth insert foot. :(
ping and traceroute should work,
Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 12:44:16 +0530, Bruce Jackson wrote:
>
> >You mean to tell me that with a simple firewall I will not be able to
> >ping and traceroute. This does not seem logical to me that a firewall
> >should prevent this.
>
> Why doesn't it seem logical? Withou
On Sat, 23 May 1998 12:44:16 +0530, Bruce Jackson wrote:
>You mean to tell me that with a simple firewall I will not be able to
>ping and traceroute. This does not seem logical to me that a firewall
>should prevent this.
Why doesn't it seem logical? Withouth the proper Masquerading modules
You mean to tell me that with a simple firewall I will not be able to
ping and traceroute. This does not seem logical to me that a firewall
should prevent this. Anyways, I can`t surf the net, even using ip
addresses.
Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 09:21:08 +0530, Bruce Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 1998 09:21:08 +0530, Bruce Jackson wrote:
>Has anyone got IP Masquerade to work with PPP.
Yup, I've got a Linux and a WinNT/Win95 box behind another Linux
IPMasqing system, works fine.
>the Internet using PPP I can`t ping, traceroute, etc the Internet. Says
Of course not
Lazar Fleysher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I can not do (and what the question is about) is run an X-Windows
> application off remote host on my second computer. I mean the following.
> If I telnet from my second computer to, say, my university account and run
> xclock off my university it
> I know that the question I am asking most probably have "It is impossible"
> as an answer. But still
I won't be impossible... just might not be coded yet :-)
> What I can not do (and what the question is about) is run an X-Windows
> application off remote host on my second computer. I mean
At 15:25 20-1-97 +, Mario Olimpio de Menezes wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
> I'm planning to set a linux box as a IP-Masquerade and I was
>wondering if the PC's under Linux will be able to connect to Netware
>servers, that is, will the Netware packets be forwarded by Linux?
> The design of the ne
53 matches
Mail list logo
