On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 05:47:39PM -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
> I should also have prefaced my comments that I could be completely wrong
> about firewalld not querying iptables. I don't know. I don't do a lot of
> mucking about with firewalld. I'm an old hack and generally do my own
> iptables stuf
On 09/28/2017 05:15 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 12:15 PM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
>> On 09/24/17 16:44, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Is this still broken? I'd like to trade some debugging attention for a
>>> primer on setting up IPSec, which i've never gotten around to.
>>
On 09/28/2017 12:15 PM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
> On 09/24/17 16:44, Cameron Simpson wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> Is this still broken? I'd like to trade some debugging attention for a
>> primer on setting up IPSec, which i've never gotten around to.
>>
>> On 11Aug2017 14:12, David A. De Graaf wrote:
>
On 09/24/17 16:44, Cameron Simpson wrote:
David,
Is this still broken? I'd like to trade some debugging attention for a
primer on setting up IPSec, which i've never gotten around to.
On 11Aug2017 14:12, David A. De Graaf wrote:
I use an ipsec tunnel to connect my LAN (192.168.2.h) in North
Allegedly, on or about 11 August 2017, David A. De Graaf sent:
> Why is ping more clever in finding the route?
It's a much more basic part of networking.
When you try to connect to a service (mail, HTTP, FTP, telnet, SSH,
etc), it has to be there and running, and have nothing in the way (such
as
On 09/24/2017 01:44 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> David,
>
> Is this still broken? I'd like to trade some debugging attention for a
> primer on setting up IPSec, which i've never gotten around to.
>
> On 11Aug2017 14:12, David A. De Graaf wrote:
>> I use an ipsec tunnel to connect my LAN (192.168
David,
Is this still broken? I'd like to trade some debugging attention for a primer
on setting up IPSec, which i've never gotten around to.
On 11Aug2017 14:12, David A. De Graaf wrote:
I use an ipsec tunnel to connect my LAN (192.168.2.h) in North
Carolina to my son's LAN (192.168.1.h) in M
On 08/11/2017 01:32 PM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
(The other common suspect, selinux, is disabled.)
That's terrible. Stop turning off SELinux. You don't "find / -exec
chmod 777 {} +" do you?
On the remote gateway. octopus, 'ipsec -L' output was dominated by
DROP lines from 'fail2ban', but
On 08/11/17 14:28, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 08/11/2017 11:12 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
What's the problem here? Why is ping more clever in finding the
route?
One problem you might have is that your ipsec gateway may have
firewall rules that allow ICMP but not other traffic to be forward
On 08/11/2017 11:12 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
What's the problem here? Why is ping more clever in finding the
route?
One problem you might have is that your ipsec gateway may have firewall
rules that allow ICMP but not other traffic to be forwarded. Can you
post the full set of firewal
I use an ipsec tunnel to connect my LAN (192.168.2.h) in North
Carolina to my son's LAN (192.168.1.h) in Maryland. We each have a
primary machine that manages the ipsec tunnel and several secondary
machines. Static routing tables direct traffic for the remote LAN to
the local primary machine and
11 matches
Mail list logo
