I'm trying to setup a network with a bridge on Debian Lenny (too bad most bridging information is for 2.4 kernel, maybe I'll write some if I get this to work). I've seen somewhat similar problems involving bridging for VMs and a couple involving Fedora, but people say that it was either a driver problem or it was fixed magically.I'm using a few Intel Pro 100s, which I'm pretty certain have had driver support in the kernel for years now. Magic doesn't happen.Here's /etc/network/interfacesQuote:
auto loiface lo inet loopbackauto br0 iface br0 inet staticbridge_ports eth0 eth1bridge_maxwait 0address 188.8.131.52netmask 255.255.255.254gateway 184.108.40.206
I try to generate a server client code. What i try to do is sending video streams from eth0 and eth1 to the other server programs' eth0 and eth1. In order to do that, i decided to use SO_BINDTODEVICE. But the code is not working. Am i misunderstood the usage of SO_BINDTODEVICE.
1-Defining two ports 2-Defining two sockets 3-Assigning host ips on them
I have a mail server on which I would like to block port 25 on my eth0 for everyone except our external spam filter. the problem is that I want our users to be able to connect via port 10025 which is forwarded to port 25, which then is blocked...
I have a CentOS box which is Internet Facing. It has 3 LAN's connected to it which are for virtual machines.
I want to port forward port 445 to a machine on one of the LAN interfaces. I have tried various ways to get it done, but still cannot access that port from the interface. I definately know device hosting port 445 is live, as I can ping it from the CentOS box and use lynx to access it! (It's a web server)
I have a server running debian squeeze and kvm to virtualize a Windoze box. It's setup to use NAT. This is because of limits on the network by the admin and unfortunately, there isn't a way to get around this.
I've used iptables since it replace ipchains, and I've never had a problem like this.The problem is, as you can see by the title, that port forwarding simply does not work.
network topology: Slackware Linux Server: eth0 - LAN (192.168.0.0/25) eth1 - DSL Static IP eth2 - cable Static IP
eth1 is our standard office connection; it handles all of our default traffic (web browsing for the staff, email, etc). eth2 is our VPN connection, as well as use for all incoming connections (www, etc). Behind the linux box I have a series of Windows Server 2008 R2 boxes that are used to run our office software, website, etc - I don't care how nice they make their products these days, I simply don't trust any MS box open to the net. Therefore, this leaves me with having to port forward port 80 from eth2 to the internal IP address of the web server.
My ruleset is as follows:
$WWW - ip address of the web server iptables -A FORWARD -d $WWW -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth2 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to $WWW
Running ip route shows that I have routing entries for all 3 networks, and I can ping, ssh, etc to any of the addresses without issue. OpenVPN connects across eth2 as well, and all 15 of my VPN tunnels work fine. However - and here's the kicker - if I delete the default route and replace it with the route for eth2, port forwarding works fine.
I have a linux server I'm intending to use as a firewall. The server has the following adapters
eth0 - Public IP (VLAN2) eth0:1 - Public IP2 (VLAN2) eth1 - 10.241.4.4 (VLAN4)
the Default gateway is my ISPs gateway. Additionally, I have the following route set: route add -net 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 gw 10.241.4.1
I have a server that exists on VLAN 208 at IP 10.241.209.67/21., its GW is 10.241.208.1 (first IP in /21 range)
as it is on the 10.0.0.0/8 network, traffic from the firewall is successfully routed from that server through my router to the FW and out to the Internet. The FW can ping, ssh, etc... the server and vice versa.
I want an iptables rule that will allow me to forward port 4401 on eth0:1 to 10.241.209.67:4401.
Is this possible since the IP is not on the same subnet as eth1, even though it is accessible?
I'm a bit better than a neophyte linux user. I have not made port forwards with it in the past without scripts to assist so I'm looking for not just "it is possible", but also the syntax of how to add it.
iam using arno iptables can give me command to ip forwarding cause my web server behind my router. my ip web server 192.168.0.11 and my ip router on eth 1 192.168.0.1 and eth0 i use to dial up my modem and i use pppoe for that.
I've been beating myself over the head with iptables and CANNOT get port forwarding to work. Here's my situation: Static LAN IP on eth0 Static internet IP on eth1 ip_forward is turned on by uncommenting in sysctl.conf Here's the output of iptables-save:
Code: # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Tue Mar 8 10:34:12 2011 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [2443:347058]
Edit: by the way, the intended purpose of this machine is to server as a gateway and firewall. MASQUERADE is working, for whatever that is worth. And the host behind the firewall that is serving up http is definitely working too. All that is not working is getting hosts on the internet talking to hosts behind the firewall.
I don't think there is a hidden firewall in the switch but if these commands are correct, then I may need to contact my ISP and see if they are blocking the commands. I just wanted to make sure I was not doing some stupid mistake before I try to contact my ISP.
EDIT: Also, is it possible to forward Port 80 requests to different servers depending on the hostname used to connect, so say [URL] redirects to server xxx.xxx.xxx.15 while hhh.com redirects to xxx.xxx.xxx.16?
I'm trying to write an iptables config file, but got stuck.So I want to define an IP range that allows full access eth0-eth1 forwarding, and another that is allowed to access some special ip-s. The first part works, I could make the range has full access:
iptables -A FORWARD -m iprange --src-range 192.168.80.20-192.168.80.40 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -o eth1 -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
But cant find out, how tom make the second rule. How could I put speicified target ip-s in this? I've tried to make a new chain:
I have a hardware device with two ethernet ports, eth0 and eth1 running Centos 5. Basically my goal is to forward packets from eth0->eth1 and eth1->eth0 as well as get a copy of these packets for analysis. If I set IP routing to do the forwarding then I won't get a copy of the packets for analysis.
I need to setup two ethernets in my Centos box. OK no problem both ethernet and 1 virtual works perfect. eth0, eth1 and eth1:0. I'm trying to set up diferent routes for eth0 and eth1/eth1:0 I need eth0 has a 192.168.1.1 gateway and eth1/eth1:0 192.168.1.100 gateway.I think I've tried almost every thing but always get one gateway for all the eth.These are my config..
/sbin/ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX inet addr:192.168.1.168 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0[code]......
I'm trying to enable port forwarding so I can use my computer as an FTP server to some friends. Here's my setup:
CLEAR wireless modem <--> LAN port 4 on router (not WAN) and LAN port 1 on router <---> eth0 in Ubuntu 9.10
The modem acts as a DHCP server which successfully assigns an IP address to my desktop system. I can also go onto the internet just fine on my desktop, and any other computer that connects to the router.
I have enabled port forwarding on the modem (not the router because it's being used as a switch, and not using its WAN port) to forward ports 21 and 80 to my desktop. What I don't understand, though, is that when I try to FTP to the modem's WAN IP address, the connection is refused. However, when I use websites such as:
5.10 Breezy configured as machine controller. Works great eth0 is a fixed IP to communicate with controller comms board. Not easy at all to alter - the comms board is hard coded to listen on eth0 for commands.
I can use eth1 as the default gateway and ping google.com, etc. But when I now attempt to communicate with the controller with netcat, e.g.
Code: echo !HH | nc 192.168.1.6 80
I obviously never get an answer since the request is passed via eth1. Using the -g option with netcat doesn't work either. I had a look at iptables but it doesn't seem to be able to do what I want. How I can still use eth0 as my communication port to the controller whilst eth1 is the default gateway?
I have two servers on a vlan at my datacentre/colocation and previously both servers had public IPs on their eth0 interfaces. The servers are HP ProLiant DL360s - one is a G4 and one is a G5 The newer G5 is now the LAMP server and the G4 has been retired and I want to repurpose it as an iSCSI target using openfiler freenas or similar.
My G5 has public/static IPs lashed to the eth0 physical interface and the eth1 is not configured to do anything yet. The G4 will have both interfaces available - perhaps one for ssh access from one of my static public IPs and the other to be a private IP on the local vlan. Here is what I am trying to get my head around...
The G5 eth0 - Public IP - full LAMP services on two or three virtual interfaces eth1 - Private IP 192.168.0.1 The G4 eth0 - Public IP for ssh eth1 - Private IP 192.168.0.2
Because my traffic between eth1 on these boxes is via private IPs on the local private vlan it doesn't add to my quota for bandwidth. How do I go about configuring the routing and gateways and other aspects of this so that I can run a private IP space network between the eth1s and still serve the outside world from the eth0s...
I am afraid that if I assign the private IPs to the eth1 interfaces the routing may either not work or interfere with the access to the production internet facing interfaces (eth0s).
how to set an external static IP address to forward to an internal static IP address. Here is an example:
Linux box (slackware) IP address = eth0: 10.xxx.xxx.xxx (internal) eth1: xxx.xxx.xxx.170 eth1.0: xxx.xxx.xxx.171 eth1.1: xxx.xxx.xxx.172
DVR system that I need to forward to: IP address = xxx.xxx.xxx.251 xxx.xxx.xxx.252
This was all setup by someone else whom I have never spoken with. The IP tables seems to be set up but I cannot provide a screen shot at this time. What I need to do is this. When a user connects to the external static IP address of xxx.xxx.xxx.171 with their DVR software, IP tables will forward to the DVR system at xxx.xxx.xxx.251. The ports desired are 554,555,556, and 557. I know some about Linux but not about IPtables.
I have just set up shorewall on my router running Arch Linux. The external network is on eth0 and the internal network on eth1.I have set it up for masquerading and that works fine and I can open ports to the firewall. But I'm having trouble with port forwarding to my internal machines.The problem I have is that when port 22350 is forwarded to 192.168.1.3 on my local network, checking the port with nmap from a remote computer gives me:
I am using ubuntu 8.40 as a router wit 2 nic.eth0 is for local and eth1 is for external network.i have a internal webserver in my lan and want to forward some ports to the net and i executed te following commands.
I'm new to linux, but enjoy using it very much, especially without a GUI, console is fun! I need to set up port forwarding. We have 3 servers, 1x running Ubuntu server 8.04 (used as transparent proxy), 1x server 2003, 1x windows xp.
The linux box has the following ips: eth0 (internal) 192.168.1.5 eth1 (external) 192.168.0.7
Windows server 2003: 192.168.1.6
Windows XP: 192.168.1.9
The router automatically forwards specific ports to 220.127.116.11 (Linux eth0). From there I want to forward port 8585 to 192.168.1.6 and 3000 to 192.168.1.9. Is there a way that I can do this using iptables?
The commands that I think I'm gonna use look like this: iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.0.0/24 -p tcp --dport 8585 -d 192.168.1.6 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.0.0/24 -p tcp --dport 3000 -d 192.168.1.9 -j ACCEPT
Would this be a correct way of doing it? My biggest problem is that I can't test it without going live, and if I go live and something doesn't work, the entire building will be left without internet, people will hate me. Also, The proxy captures all data on port 80 and forwards it to 3128 so that the proxy can monitor the usage, and a few systems runs fine with it, others however can ping websites, and internet explorer says "website found, waiting for reply" but the webpages cannot be displayed.
I would like to allow incoming and outgoing connections when I'm connected to a wired connection, but drop it otherwise. I noticed that ufw can't block outgoing traffic because of will I give iptables a try. I'm unsure if dropping packages that are outgoing will work, the rule after the block rule will allow all outgoing connections.
This what the rules are intended to do, unsure if that is actually the case. Allow all loopback traffic. Allow ping replys Allow incoming on port 12345 if eth0, deny otherwise. Allow outgoing on port 12346 if eth0, deny otherwise.
Code: iptables -A FORWARD -j DROP iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 0 -s -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
I've noticed that when Linux boots on different machines or with different versions, the network card is assigned to eth0 or to eth1, when there is only one network card. What is the difference and is there any way to tell which one it will be for any machine or version?