Re: [Shorewall-users] Possible bug in shorewall masq?

[Tom E. <te...@sh...>]

On Saturday 31 August 2002 03:15 pm, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On Thursday 29 August 2002 09:36 pm, Matthew Wlazlo wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are trying to get masquerading working with both a dsl connection (on
> > eth0) and dialup (ppp0) if dsl happens to go down. I noticed that only
> > the eth0_masq table is being inserted into the POSTROUTING table when i
> > reload shorewall in this configuration.
> >
> > I can fix it with iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j ppp0_masq and it
> > works, but I think shorewall should do this already? Please let me know
> > what I'm doing wrong...
> >
> > below is my masq file... FYI eth1 is the lan interface
> >
> > # INTERFACE	SUBNET		ADDRESS
> > ppp0		eth1
> > eth0		eth1
>
> Works fine here -- please send a debugging trace (instructions at
> http://www.shorewall.net/troubleshoot.htm).

I suspect that "ppp0" isn't defined in /etc/shorewall/interfaces -- looks like 
the masq file processing isn't checking that.

-Tom
-- 
Tom Eastep    \ Shorewall - iptables made easy
AIM: tmeastep  \ http://www.shorewall.net
ICQ: #60745924  \ te...@sh...