RE: FC6 and Network

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



SE Linux is disabled and I am not running IPTables.

This one really has me stumped. Without the network connection I will have to retype the outputs so I am now figuring how to get it to a froppy - family joke/word for floppy disk - and then post it on the list. I will work on it tonight and post it in the morning.

Thanks for y'all's help and feedback. 

-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Rivers
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 4:22 PM
To: For users of Fedora
Subject: Re: FC6 and Network

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 16:02 -0500, Jeffrey Ross wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> he's using a supernet/CIDR block/classless (or whatever you want to 
> call
> it) addressing, his valid range would be from 192.168.128.1 through
> 192.168.135.254 so yes his gateway exists on his network.
> 

Hi Jeffrey,

Oops!  You're right.  I thought I saw 255.255.255.248 instead of 255.255.248.0 like he has.  Thanks for the correction.  :)

This problem reminds me of one I had when I upgraded from FC3 to FC5 on one of my linux systems that functions as a VPN router.  I preserved all of the settings, but after the upgrade I was getting the same kind of "Destination unreachable" when I tried to configure the VPN.  To make a long story short, there were two things wrong.  First, I needed to tweak the SELinux settings to allow traffic across the VPN.  Second, and this is the one that really threw me for a loop, I needed to adjust the following line in my iptables firewall script from:

$IPTABLES -A POSTROUTING -t nat -o $EXTIF -j MASQUERADE

to:

$IPTABLES -A POSTROUTING -t nat -o $EXTIF -s $INTLAN -d \!
192.168.0.0/16 -j MASQUERADE

The "-d \! 192.168.0.0/16" was required to keep the VPN packets from being masqueraded to all of the other class C networks with which I have VPN's established.  Why it changed from FC3 to FC5 is beyond me, but it took me a while to find out what was really causing the problem.

By the way, I noticed you asked him to execute "arp -a" and post the output.  For the record, I saw I was getting a lot of "who has..."
messages from arp requests that were never being answered when I turned on tcpdump and watched for a while.  I'm wondering if Michael is having a similar problem to what I had.  If so, he may want to take a look at his SELinux log (if he has it enabled) as well as his iptables rules.


Tom

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux