Search Results

Search found 20 results on 1 pages for 'vyatta'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Software Router: pfSense or Vyatta ?

  - by Kedare

  Hello, I'm rebuilding my home network and I am look to an alternative to the very expensives Cisco. So I take a lookt at the software routers, I've found Vyatta and pfSense. I have tested both and I find both great, but I don't know which one to choose. I need a router software that : Supports IPv6 (both do with pfSense 2 RC1) Allows me to join an OpenVPN Network Is free Configurable by CLI (WebGUI is a plus) After some testing, it looks like both a very featured, but Vyatta looks more CLI-centric where pfSense looks more WebGUI-centric. Which do you recommend me ? Why ? Is there any limitations on the free version of Vyatta ? I would like to run it on a small box like Soekris ones, it that possible ? (pfSense will run it, but I'm not sure with Vyatta) Thank you

  Read the article

• vyatta Server Reboots by itself

  - by Fernando

  I have an issue regarding some hardware, maybe you can help me. First, I set up a Supermicro Superserver SYS-5016I-NTF with a Intel Xeon X3470 and 4 GB of Ram with a Hotlava Card Tambora 64G4 with Intel Chipset 82599EB and 4x10G SPF+ ports. Installed Vyatta community edition 6.3. I used it as router making BGP connections with 2 operators. No load at all, temp ranges normal. But the issue is that it reboots by itself in a ramdom way. Not very often, once every few days. But it is unacceptable for production purposes. So I try to test on different hardware, and installed Vyatta community edition 6.3 on a Dell PowerEdge 2950, with Xeon(R) E5345 @ 2.33GHz and 4 GB of Ram. Same Vyatta configuration as Supermicro Server. With same hotlava Card model ( I bought two of them ) Well I have reboots with this equipment as well. Same frecuency as above. I have checked syslog no strange logs until boot process starts to be logged. So it seems server reboot suddenly. I have installed latest driver for the chipset of the Hotlava card. Servers are placed in a datacenter with UPS So finally two things in common in both servers: Hotlava Card. Someone with issues with this card, or the chipset?? Could be it this card?? Vyatta 6.3 community edition. I don't thing is the problem. Is a regular Debian with packages to glue together different services. Or maybe is something I am missing. Andy ideas, suggestions?? Thank you very much... Fernando

  Read the article

• Why won't vyatta allow SMTP through my firewall?

  - by Solignis

  I am setting up a vyatta router on VMware ESXi, But I see to have hit a major snag, I could not get my firewall and NAT to work correctly. I am not sure what was wrong with NAT but it "seems" to be working now. But the firewall is not allowing traffic from my WAN interface (eth0) to my LAN (eth1). I can confirm its the firewall because I disabled all firewall rules and everything worked with just NAT. If put the firewalls (WAN and LAN) back in place nothing can get through to port 25. I am not really sure what the issue could be I am using pretty basic firewall rules, I wrote the rules while looking at the vyatta docs so unless there is something odd with the documentation they "should" be working. Here is my NAT rules so far; vyatta@gateway# show service nat rule 20 { description "Zimbra SNAT #1" outbound-interface eth0 outside-address { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX } source { address 10.0.0.17 } type source } rule 21 { description "Zimbra SMTP #1" destination { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX port 25 } inbound-interface eth0 inside-address { address 10.0.0.17 } protocol tcp type destination } rule 100 { description "Default LAN -> WAN" outbound-interface eth0 outside-address { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX } source { address 10.0.0.0/24 } type source } Then here is my firewall rules, this is where I believe the problem is. vyatta@gateway# show firewall all-ping enable broadcast-ping disable conntrack-expect-table-size 4096 conntrack-hash-size 4096 conntrack-table-size 32768 conntrack-tcp-loose enable ipv6-receive-redirects disable ipv6-src-route disable ip-src-route disable log-martians enable name LAN_in { rule 100 { action accept description "Default LAN -> any" protocol all source { address 10.0.0.0/24 } } } name LAN_out { } name LOCAL { rule 100 { action accept state { established enable } } } name WAN_in { rule 20 { action accept description "Allow SMTP connections to MX01" destination { address 74.XXX.XXX.XXX port 25 } protocol tcp } rule 100 { action accept description "Allow established connections back through" state { established enable } } } name WAN_out { } receive-redirects disable send-redirects enable source-validation disable syn-cookies enable SIDENOTE To test for open ports I have using this website, http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/, it showed port 25 as open without the firewall rules and closed with the firewall rules. UPDATE Just to see if the firewall was working properly I made a rule to block SSH from the WAN interface. When I checked for port 22 on my primary WAN address it said it was still open even though I outright blocked the port. Here is the rule I used; rule 21 { action reject destination { address 74.219.80.163 port 22 } protocol tcp } So now I am convinced either I am doing something wrong or the firewall is not working like it should.

  Read the article

• Vyatta internet connection + hosted site on same IP

  - by boburob

  Having a small issue setting up a vyatta. The company internet and two different websites are both on the same IP. Server 1 - Has websites hosted on ports 1000 and 3000 and also has a proxy server installed to provide internet connection to the domain Server 2 - Has a website hosted on ports 80 and 433 The vyatta is correctly natting the appropriate traffic to each server, and allowing the proxy to get internet traffic, however I have a problem getting to the websites hosted on these two servers inside the domain. I believe the problem is that the HTTP request is being sent with an IP, eg: 12.34.56.78. The request will reach the website and the server will attempt to send the request back to the IP, however this is the IP of the Vyatta, so it has nowhere else to go. I thought the solution would be something like this: rule 50 { destination { address 12.34.56.78 port 1000 } inbound-interface eth1 inside-address { address 10.19.2.3 } protocol tcp type destination } But this doesnt seem to do it! UPDATE I changed the rules to the following: rule 50 { destination { address 12.34.56.78 port 443 } outbound-interface eth1 protocol tcp source { address 10.19.2.3 } type masquerade } rule 51 { destination { address 12.34.56.78 port 443 } inbound-interface eth1 inside-address { address 10.19.2.2 } protocol tcp type destination } I am now seeing traffic going between the two with Wireshark, but the website will still fail to load.

  Read the article

• Bridge Intrusion Prevention Vyatta

  - by Steve

  I am trying to create a bridge with ThreatStop, IPS and block a few ports. This bridge will sit in front of my servers. All is working apart from the IPS. I have read the documentation on configuring IPS, I have something configured that it hasn't complained about and nothing is logged so I believe that it isn't working. Is it possible to set-up IPS on a vyatta bridge? Also is it possible to read the logs/events with Snorby? I have also posted this on the Vyatta forums

  Read the article

• Address (url) forwarding with Vyatta

  - by Trikks

  Hi Got this kind of noob question i suppose. I got this very basic network setup and need help to set up some address forwarding. As seen in my illustration below all traffic enters via the eth0 interface (85.123.32.23). The external dns is setup to direct all hosts to this ip as well. Now, how on earth do I filter the incoming requests to each box? The Ip's are static! Se the network layout here: http://vyatta.org/files/u11160/setup.png I do not wish to solve this by assigning tons of ports etc. In my wishful thinking something like this would be nice :) set service nat rule 10 type destination set service nat rule 10 inbound-interface eth0 set service nat rule 10 destination address ftp.myhost.com set service nat rule 10 inside-address address 192.168.100.20 This way ALL traffic to the address ftp.myhost.com (at eth0) should be routed to the internal ip, 192.168.100.20. Right, is there anyone who could point in some direction? Maybe it's wrong to use nat? Please help me! :)

  Read the article

• Vyatta masquerade out bridge interface

  - by miquella

  We have set up a Vyatta Core 6.1 gateway on our network with three interfaces: eth0 - 1.1.1.1 - public gateway/router IP (to public upstream router) eth1 - 2.2.2.1/24 - public subnet (connected to a second firewall 2.2.2.2) eth2 - 10.10.0.1/24 - private subnet Our ISP provided the 1.1.1.1 address for us to use as our gateway. The 2.2.2.1 address is so the other firewall (2.2.2.2) can communicate to this gateway which then routes the traffic out through the eth0 interface. Here is our current configuration: interfaces { bridge br100 { address 2.2.2.1/24 } ethernet eth0 { address 1.1.1.1/30 vif 100 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } } ethernet eth1 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } ethernet eth2 { address 10.10.0.1/24 } loopback lo { } } service { nat { rule 100 { outbound-interface eth0 source { address 10.10.0.1/24 } type masquerade } } } With this configuration, it routes everything, but the source address after masquerading is 1.1.1.1, which is correct, because that's the interface it's bound to. But because of some of our requirements here, we need it to source from the 2.2.2.1 address instead (what's the point of paying for a class C public subnet if the only address we can send from is our gateway!?). I've tried binding to br100 instead of eth0, but it doesn't seem to route anything if I do that. I imagine I'm just missing something simple. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Vyatta masquerade out bridge interface

  - by miquella

  We have set up a Vyatta Core 6.1 gateway on our network with three interfaces: eth0 - 1.1.1.1 - public gateway/router IP (to public upstream router) eth1 - 2.2.2.1/24 - public subnet (connected to a second firewall 2.2.2.2) eth2 - 10.10.0.1/24 - private subnet Our ISP provided the 1.1.1.1 address for us to use as our gateway. The 2.2.2.1 address is so the other firewall (2.2.2.2) can communicate to this gateway which then routes the traffic out through the eth0 interface. Here is our current configuration: interfaces { bridge br100 { address 2.2.2.1/24 } ethernet eth0 { address 1.1.1.1/30 vif 100 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } } ethernet eth1 { bridge-group { bridge br100 } } ethernet eth2 { address 10.10.0.1/24 } loopback lo { } } service { nat { rule 100 { outbound-interface eth0 source { address 10.10.0.1/24 } type masquerade } } } With this configuration, it routes everything, but the source address after masquerading is 1.1.1.1, which is correct, because that's the interface it's bound to. But because of some of our requirements here, we need it to source from the 2.2.2.1 address instead (what's the point of paying for a class C public subnet if the only address we can send from is our gateway!?). I've tried binding to br100 instead of eth0, but it doesn't seem to route anything if I do that. I imagine I'm just missing something simple. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Address (url) forwarding with Vyatta

  - by Trikks

  Got this kind of noob question i suppose. I got this very basic network setup and need help to set up some address forwarding. As seen in my illustration below all traffic enters via the eth0 interface (85.123.32.23). The external dns is setup to direct all hosts to this ip as well. Now, how on earth do I filter the incoming requests to each box? The Ip's are static! My network layout: I do not wish to solve this by assigning tons of ports etc. In my wishful thinking something like this would be nice :) set service nat rule 10 type destination set service nat rule 10 inbound-interface eth0 set service nat rule 10 destination address ftp.myhost.com set service nat rule 10 inside-address address 192.168.100.20 This way ALL traffic to the address ftp.myhost.com (at eth0) should be routed to the internal ip, 192.168.100.20. Right, is there anyone who could point in some direction? Maybe it's wrong to use nat? Please help me! :)

  Read the article

• Access All VLANS over XenServer Interface

  - by Garrett

  For my current setup, I have a physical NIC on a XenServer machine that receives traffic tagged with various VLAN IDs. I have a virtual machine that is running Vyatta that needs to be able to access both tagged and untagged traffic in order to route traffic. Here's the problem: 1) If I bind the NIC in XenCenter to the VM (which has no VLAN ID associated with it), the VM cannot see any tagged traffic. I have verified this using tcpdump. However, the tagged traffic is flowing into the XenServer machine perfectly fine. 2) I have more than 7 VLANs, so adding each VLAN as an interface within XenCenter isn't an option. 3) Even though tcpdump shows no tagged traffic coming in the VMs NIC, I have tried adding VLAN interfaces within Vyatta. This also doesn't work. I have tried using both Linux bridge and openvswitch setups and neither seem to work. I am running XenServer 6.0.3 free and Vyatta VC6.3. Please help! I've run out of ideas. I've googled for hours and can't seem to find anything.

  Read the article

• Easiest way to do host name resolution with IPA?

  - by Luke

  We are currently using static LAN IP addresses for our internal non-public facing servers. We don't have DHCP configured. We're using Vyatta for our router and firewall. The firewall is configured to be zone based. We want to setup IPA for centralized authentication (LDAP+Kerberos). IPA is requiring resolvable host names. I want to avoid having to enter DNS records by hand. What is the most painless way to make host names resolvable that works with IPA in a Linux only environment? We arn't using anything to resolve host names now. Up until now we've been using static ip addresses and local users on each server. We've looked at BIND, DHCP (does that even solve the problem?), and multicast DNS. At this point we're not sure which solution would work best. Is there another option we haven't considered? Security is very important. We have multiple zones where each zone has very specific or no access to another zone. DNS for public domains is forwarded from Vyatta to our ISP's DNS server.

  Read the article

• Inexpensive and Open replacement for Cisco Tunnel-based EasyVPN with Cisco VPN 3000 Series

  - by Shoaibi

  I have a scenario when i have to establish peer-to-peer preshared key based VPN to a vendor. This vendor uses Cisco EasyVPN with Cisco VPN 3000 as access concentrator. I check the compatibility of the type of VPN from http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6586/ps6635/ps7180/prod_brochure0900aecd80582078.pdf and it appears that it would only work on cisco hardware. I am looking for a less inexpensive and possibly and open replacement to this to save my cost and also recommend to them. I have tried OpenVPN and thinking about vyatta.

  Read the article

• Configuring Wireless Network

  - by Vinod K

  I have vyataa router on VMware with 2 interfaces eth0 and eth1 eth0 is facing the internet eth0 is in Nat mode with dhcp on eth1 is in bridged mode with my ethernet with ip 10.0.2.34/24 The ethernet card is at ip 10.0.2.95/24 i have defined the nat rule. Hence internet is available at eth1 too. Now i am connecting a wireless router at "eth1" iball router, I have connected the router using a cable to the ethernet interface of my laptop. I have configured the WAN connection type as "Static IP" and given "10.0.2.34/24" All the clients that connect using wireless router cannot connect to the internet though. Could anyone provide me a solution for this.. Thank You!!

  Read the article

• Cannot run a VM with more than three network interfaces with KVM

  - by Bostonvaulter

  I'm running KVM on top of Ubuntu 10.10 Server I can create VM's (Virtual Machine) and network interfaces fine but I cannot seem to add more than three network interfaces. As soon as I have a VM with four network interfaces it gets stuck on startup at the starting SeaBIOS page with this message: Starting SeaBIOS (version pre-0.6.1-20100702_143500-palmer) So far I've verified this with two VM's, a Ubuntu 10.10 desktop and a Vyatta router. The specific network hardware I assign to the VM's doesn't seem to matter. I'm trying to have one bridged interface and three private networks using Vyatta to route between them. Does anyone know why I can't run a VM with more than three network interfaces? Edit: Additionally the KVM thread responsible for the specific VM hangs using ~100% CPU (i.e. one core). Here's the command for the process that is hanging: /usr/bin/kvm -S -M pc-0.12 -enable-kvm -m 512 -smp 1,sockets=1,cores=1,threads=1 -name vyatta -uuid 6dff7c94-6810-423e-5fea-fec10da0e9b7 -nodefaults -chardev socket,id=monitor,path=/var/lib/libvirt/qemu/vyatta.monitor,server,nowait -mon chardev=monitor,mode=readline -rtc base=utc -boot c -drive file=/home/rams/virtual-machines/vyatta.img,if=none,id=drive-ide0-0-0,boot=on,format=raw -device ide-drive,bus=ide.0,unit=0,drive=drive-ide0-0-0,id=ide0-0-0 -drive if=none,media=cdrom,id=drive-ide0-1-0,readonly=on,format=raw -device ide-drive,bus=ide.1,unit=0,drive=drive-ide0-1-0,id=ide0-1-0 -device rtl8139,vlan=0,id=net0,mac=00:54:00:be:cc:4b,bus=pci.0,addr=0x3 -net tap,fd=97,vlan=0,name=hostnet0 -device rtl8139,vlan=1,id=net1,mac=52:54:00:da:59:ed,bus=pci.0,addr=0x5 -net tap,fd=98,vlan=1,name=hostnet1 -device rtl8139,vlan=2,id=net2,mac=52:54:00:ce:22:b6,bus=pci.0,addr=0x6 -net tap,fd=99,vlan=2,name=hostnet2 -device rtl8139,vlan=3,id=net3,mac=52:54:00:1e:bc:46,bus=pci.0,addr=0x7 -net tap,fd=101,vlan=3,name=hostnet3 -chardev pty,id=serial0 -device isa-serial,chardev=serial0 -usb -vnc 127.0.0.1:0 -k en-us -vga cirrus -device virtio-balloon-pci,id=balloon0,bus=pci.0,addr=0x4 Edit: I've also found an error in dmesg that might be related (it also shows up when running virtd in verbose mode): 14:47:24.399: warning : qemudParsePCIDeviceStrs:1422 : Unexpected exit status '1', qemu probably failed I've also tried disabling app armor but that doesn't seem to make a difference.

  Read the article

• Is there any viable alternative to using a linux/unix/BSD firewall/router/vpn?

  - by ObligatoryMoniker

  I am trying to purchase something to replace our Vyatta router that is running in a virtual machine on Hyper V (having the whole network go down when the host has to reboot is not convenient and I am getting the sense that this configuration may not be stable). Most posts on this topic suggest using Linux/OpenBSD/FreeBSD/etc with some recommendations to use appliances from vendors for specific purposes like firewall and VPN. We are a windows shop and it has been a stretch for us to make use of Vyatta but since it was free and straightforward to use we decided to use it. Now we need something that is easier for our team to (re)deploy and manage. I would rather purchase something windows based or an appliance that can do all of the following things: DHCP server (reservations, specified gateway, dns, etc) Static Routes that route traffic across three interfaces Easily Reproducible (Powershell script, Puppet, Chef, etc) Intuitive interface (Decent web interface would be fine but I don't want them to have to go to CLI) Does any one have any recommendations on what I should be looking at that might meet our needs?

  Read the article

• Easier way to create floppy disk images?

  - by Bryan

  I'm using Vyatta routers with KVM and want to attach a floppy drive with a config file for Vyatta when I boot the image. I'll be doing this over and over again, and as such am looking for an automated way of creating the floppy images. Right now, I'm doing the following: Create floppy image with qemu-img create Format floppy image with mkdosfs Mount floppy image with mount -t fat /tmp/floppy.img /media/floppy Populate floppy image with cp -r /tmp/configs/ /media/floppy/ Unmount floppy image with umount /media/floppy Save floppy image with mv /tmp/floppy.img ~/floppies/ Any chance there's an easier way to do this?! Perhaps a shortcut application that I can give a directory to and it will do all this for me w/out having to mount the image?

  Read the article

• Public-to-Public IPSec tunnel: NAT confusion

  - by WuckaChucka

  I know this is possible -- and apparently fairly common with larger companies that don't/can't route private addresses for overlap reasons -- but I can't wrap my head around how to get this to work. I'm playing around with pfSense, Vyatta and a Cisco 5505 right now, hardware-wise. So here's my setup: WEST: Vyatta outside: 10.0.0.254/24 inside: 172.16.0.1/24 machine a: 172.16.0.200/24 EAST: Cisco 5505 outside: 10.0.0.210/24 inside: 192.168.10.1 machine b (webserver): 192.168.10.2 So what we're trying to do is this: route traffic across the tunnel from machine A to machine B without using private addresses. i.e. 172.16.0.200 makes a TCP request to 10.0.0.210:80, and as far as EAST is concerned, it sees a src IP of 10.0.0.254. On WEST, I have your typical many-to-one Source NAT to translate 172.16.0.0/24 to 10.0.0.254 and that's confirmed to be working. Also on WEST, I have the following IPSec config: Local IP: 10.0.0.254 Peer IP: 10.0.0.210 local subnet: 10.0.0.254/32 remote subnet: 10.0.0.210/32 I have the reversed configuration on EAST. What happens when I make a request from machine A to 10.0.0.210:80 is that the SNAT translates the private address of machine A to 10.0.0.254 and it's routed out (and discarded at the other end) without establishing the tunnel. What I'm assuming is happening is that the inside interface on WEST receives a packet from 172.16.0.200 and since this doesn't match the local subnet defined in the tunnel configuration, it's not processed by the IPSec engine and the tunnel is not established. How do you make this work? Seems like a chicken and egg thing with the NAT and IPSec and I just can't wrap my head around how this can be done: can I say, "if a packet is received on the inside interface with a destination of 10.0.0.210, translate it to 10.0.0.254 before the IPSec engine inspects it"?

  Read the article

• Cisco ASA 5505: Force NAT before IPsec?

  - by WuckaChucka

  I'm trying to route public-to-public IPs over an IPSec tunnel. However, the src IP is not "interesting" to the Cisco's IPSec engine because it doesn't appear to be getting translated to the outside IP before being evaluated by the Cisco's IPSec engine. From WEST to EAST, my public-to-public IPSec works fine: I can make a request from 192.168.0.5:any to 200.200.200.200:80 because the Vyatta does the NAT translation before the IPSec tunnel inspects the traffic, so the remote-subnet and local-subnet matches (see below). However from EAST to WEST, I see a deny in my Cisco logging buffer for Deny tcp src inside:192.168.1.5/59195 dst outside:100.100.100.100/80 which leads me to believe that the IPSec engine is not matching the encrypt_acl because the address has not been translated yet. Any ideas? WEST (Vyatta): inside: 192.168.0.0/24 inside host: 192.168.0.5/24 outside: 100.100.100.100 IPSec local-subnet: 100.100.100.100/32 IPSec remote-subnet: 200.200.200.200/32 EAST (Cisco): inside: 192.168.1.0/24 inside host: 192.168.1.5/24 (DNAT'ed on port 80 to outside) outside: 200.200.200.200 IPSec local-subnet: 200.200.200.200/32 IPSec remote-subnet: 100.100.100.100/32

  Read the article

• H/w suggestions for 24 port PoE switch.

  - by sunny

  Hi, I am looking for a 24 port PoE(IEEE 802.3af) switch to power some Snom phones that I have. Please suggest some appliances. I just need basic L2 functions and wouldn't want to go for a expensive Cisco switch. Here are my requirements: 1) IEEE 802.3af PoE 2) 802.1q VLAN 3) Full-Duplex I'd like a CLI also if possible, I've looked at Vyatta, but buying their 24 port appliance is way more expensive than a d-link or a netgear one. Thanks for your suggestions

  Read the article

• x86 Router Benchmarks?

  - by Kevin

  I have grow to prefer x86 based router OS's like Vyatta and pfSense over their competitors Cisco and Juniper (Well, I never really used Juniper, but still.). However, they feel "fake" to me, like "Frankenstein" routers. I think my greatest worry is that I am missing out on something by not using the main contenders. Are there any benchmarks out there that compare the main metrics (throuput, etc.) of x86 router operating systems to their proprietary counterparts?

  Read the article

1