On 07/27/2017 11:57 AM, Adam Cécile wrote: > On 07/27/2017 08:51 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: >> On 07/27/2017 10:12 AM, Adam Cécile wrote: >>> On 07/27/2017 06:39 PM, Tom Eastep wrote: >>>>> From the routing rules you posted above, the 'main' table is >>>>> traversed >>>>> before BPR is used, and the 'main' table will route packets to >>>>> 192.168.195.0 out of eth1. >>> Sounds like the root of the issue to me ! >> But do you really think that it is a problem? >> >> -Tom > Yes because any machine from 192.168.195.0/24 network cannot use the new > 10.13 address, and that the one that will stay, 192.168.195.227 must go > asap. >
Please ignore my last post. Replies to 192.168.195.0/24 from the 10.13 address are being sent out of the 192.168.195.227 interface. Are they getting their source IP address rewritten by SNAT/MASQ? Is that the problem? Otherwise, I don't understand why communication is breaking. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Q: What do you get when you cross a mobster with Shoreline, \ an international standard? Washington, USA \ A: Someone who makes you an offer you can't http://shorewall.org \ understand \_______________________________________________
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
