Elio Tondo wrote:
> From: "Tom Eastep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>> It used to work with no problems with Shorewall 3.0 and also with earlier
>>> 3.2 releases
>> I need to know which earlier 3.2 release(s).
>
> I am not sure to be able to track this down, because the two firewalls are
> managed by o
From: "Tom Eastep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > It used to work with no problems with Shorewall 3.0 and also with earlier
> > 3.2 releases
>
> I need to know which earlier 3.2 release(s).
I am not sure to be able to track this down, because the two firewalls are
managed by other people (I only did th
Tom Eastep wrote:
> Tom Eastep wrote:
>> Elio Tondo wrote:
>>
>>> and in the masq file:
>>>
>>> #INTERFACE SUBNET ADDRESS PROTO PORT(S)
>>> IPSEC
>>> eth0 eth1!192.158.10.5,192.158.10.60
>>>
>>> (masquerading for all machines in loc except for the
Tom Eastep wrote:
> Elio Tondo wrote:
>
>> and in the masq file:
>>
>> #INTERFACE SUBNET ADDRESS PROTO PORT(S) IPSEC
>> eth0 eth1!192.158.10.5,192.158.10.60
>>
>> (masquerading for all machines in loc except for the two with static NAT).
>>
>> It u
Elio Tondo wrote:
>
> I have two machines in the loc zone with a static NAT:
>
> #EXTERNAL INTERFACE INTERNALALL LOCAL
> # INTERFACES
> xxx.xxx.xxx.254 eth0192.168.10.5 No No
> xxx.
Elio Tondo wrote:
>
> and in the masq file:
>
> #INTERFACE SUBNET ADDRESS PROTO PORT(S) IPSEC
> eth0 eth1!192.158.10.5,192.158.10.60
>
> (masquerading for all machines in loc except for the two with static NAT).
>
> It used to work with no prob
On two firewalls I have errors after a Shorewall update; no changes
have been done on the configuration files.
Current situation on one of the two installations (the other one is similar):
- Fedora Core 4
- shorewall-3.2.4-1.fc4
- iptables-1.3.0-2
I have two machines in the loc zone with a stati
