Search Results

Search found 7875 results on 315 pages for 'wired networking'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 117/315 | < Previous Page | 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124  | Next Page >

  • Can I get ethernet out of my Verizon FIOS set-top box?

    - by Tom Hughes
    Setup: my home network is long & skinny, and the FIOS-connected router is all the way at one of the apartment. At the other end, far away (and a floor higher) is my HD TV, which gets a cable-TV signal from a Verizon set-top box that is coax-connected back to the FIOS on-premises equipment. Wi-Fi won't work, the apartment is too stretched out, with old, thick walls and floors. Goal: I think there are three ways to get ethernet back to where the HD TV is: 1) run a cable! this isn't crazy but isn't cheap either (my building won't let me do it, it involves hiring an electrician because the cable would run partly through the public hallway ceiling) 2) split the coax near the TV and put in... a MoCA device? 3) somehow tease the set-top box, which has an RJ-11 (ethernet) port on the back, to give me network access. Question: any other choices? and, is one choice better than the others? #3 is by far the most desirable because it would involve the least wiring -- but I can't find any resources to help make it happen. #2 is a bit scary, I don't want to degrade service to the TV or anywhere else for that matter.

    Read the article

  • Cannot resolve Hostname to IP, but IP to hostname works

    - by dotnetdev
    I have deployed a bunch of windows server VMs on a cloud hosting service. These machines are all joined to a domain controller on the same service, which also hosts DNS. All of the domain-joined machines have dynamic IP (along with the DC). If I try to resolve any of the hostnames remotely, it fails. For example, I am in SQL Server Reporting Services and I need to connect to a remote server. I provide the hostname of the desired target server and this fails, but then if I provide the IP, this works. How can I pass the hostname and have this resolve to IP? Is there anything I need to look for in the DNS server? It has records of the hostnames (in forward lookup I think), but reverse is empty. Isn't it the case that forward lookup resolves ip to hostname and reverse resolves hostname to ip? Also, I don't know what he subnet mask because this is not in my control, so the machines may not be in the same subnet - can this be a cause of the problem? Where is the problem? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What services does hosts.allow NOT affect?

    - by Jed Daniels
    I know that hosts.allow and host.deny only affect things that are tcpwrappered, but what does this mean in practice? It seems that most people use hosts.allow to handle ssh and nfs blocking, but what other services are typically handled there? And what services AREN'T typically handled there? Edit: ok, I realize I did a terrible job of explaining what I was after. No, I'm not interested in knowing if a particular service can be handled by hosts.allow, I want to know if a service will be handled. For example, if I do an lsof -i, I get a nice list of things that are listening for connections to my box. I want to know which ones will be affected if I go stick an entry into hosts.allow (well, I really want to know which ones won't be affected).

    Read the article

  • Why should I use Firewall Zones and not just Address Objects?

    - by SRobertJames
    I appreciate Firewall Address Objects and Address Groups - they simplify management by letting me give a name to a group of addresses. But I don't understand what Firewall Zones (LAN, WAN, DMZ, etc.) do for me over Address Groups. I know all firewalls have them, so there must be a good reason. But what do I gain by stating a rule applies to all traffic from LAN Zone to WAN Zone which comes from LAN Address Group to WAN Address Group? Why not just mention the Address Groups?

    Read the article

  • Cisco QoS Guidance

    - by Kyle Brandt
    I have a 10M connection to the internet that is hooked into a 100M port. I am getting started with QoS, and am hopping for a little guidance on setting it up on a Cisco 3825 router. Right now I am going forward with the idea that I have to implement it on my router, and the provider can't provide QoS for me. How I envision it working is that the QoS will drop or queue packets on my router and that will help prevent a situation where the provider has to start dropping a lot of packets. Right now all I am tasked with is making sure that one of the 3 LANs gets a certain slice (say 3M for Gig Lan1) of the 10M internet connection (But ideally this will be more flexible in the Future). 10M Internet on 100M port on HWIC-4ESW +-----------------------+ | | Gig Lan1 | Cisco 3825 | Lan3 on HWIC-4ESW | | +-----------------------+ Gig Lan2 I need to learn more about QoS, but having a target technology and maybe example configuration will help me wrap my head around the reading I am doing a little more. Which Cisco QoS Technology do you recommend for this particular situation? Have a basic sample config of how this might work? Right now the 10M line is not congested, so this more to have something in place in case it starts to become mildly congested in the future. I do have VOIP at one location connected to this one over the Internet that goes through a VPN tunnel. Everything else that is between this location and other offices is on a separate MPLS network.

    Read the article

  • How does TTL affect my internet connection?

    - by Luiscencio
    Each day I run pings to test latencies, but TTL is different every day, sometimes higher, sometimes lower. How does this affect my connection? Reply from 209.131.36.159: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=52 Reply from 209.131.36.159: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=52 Reply from 209.131.36.159: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=52 Reply from 209.131.36.159: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=52

    Read the article

  • Router recommendation to virtualize 800 IPs

    - by delerious010
    I've recently been looking at getting some new load balancers for our environment as we are expecting to double our client base in the next 12 months. Currently we have 400 public IPS serving 800 clusters ( 2 clusters / IP due to ports ) on Coyote Point Balancers, and distributing connections to 3 web servers serving about 6GBytes outgoing, 2Gbytes in per day. If we double, this would be about 800 IPs, possibly 1600 clusters, and about 6 servers per cluster ( for a total of 9600 so called "real servers" using Barracuda's lingo ). Due to the amount of clusters, most solutions I've looked at ( Coyote, Barracuda, Loadbalancer.org ) seem to be unsure whether they'll be able to handle our planned growth, mostly due to health checks performed on the servers ... which makes total sense when you think of it. So the fine folk at loadbalancer.org recommended that we may be better off offload the 400-800 public IPs, which we require for SSL eCommerce solutions, over to a forward facing router. From that point on, the router could do some mangling to route EXT_IP:443 to INT_IP:INT_PORT which would then allow us to reduce the Load Balancer configuration to 1 or 2 clusters, thus resolving the health check problem. Does this idea make sense to yall ? Or would you have other recommendations to make ? Secondly, what router would you recommend for such an undertaking ? I'd be looking at something that has some form of failover mechanism built in. On a totally unrelated note, I've got to admit that I'm extremely pleased with the responses I got from loadbalancer.org. Their responses to my inquiries were surprisingly helpful ( i.e. I didn't feel as if I was taking to a sales guy trying to push something ). ( No I don't work for them, and sadly nor are they sending me free gear ).

    Read the article

  • Do all routers really must know all routes to every router?

    - by Philipili
    This is my complicated and long question. First let's talk about the context. Network topology: PC A --- RT A --- RT C --- RT B --- PC B (RT C has a WAN NIC connected to "the cloud") With this situation : PC A must send a packet to PC B Default routes direct packets to the cloud We haven't access to RT C's configuration RT C only knows how to join network A, not network B RT A knows about network B RT B knows about network A RT C's routing table: Destination NIC Gateway 0.0.0.0 WAN Cloud Network A LAN A RT A's WAN RT A's routing table: Destination NIC Gateway 0.0.0.0 WAN LAN A Network B WAN LAN A RT B's routing table: Destination NIC Gateway 0.0.0.0 WAN LAN B Network A WAN LAN B I would like to permit PC A and PC B to communicate, but I don't have access to RT C. Networks B and BC are new. Can PC A send a packet to RT B's WAN NIC (which is possible) and "ask RT B to direct the packet to PC B" ? I believe replacing RT B with a VPN server should do the trick, but I would like to know if it is possible to make it without establishing a new connection.

    Read the article

  • Why do I often have to refresh pages I navigate to once for them (or content in them) to load?

    - by GetOutOfBox
    I have noticed a bizarre pattern when using my PC, that when I open a link to a website, it often will often take a very long time to load, or time out. Sometimes content on the website will be drawn, but again, it seems to get "stuck" for an unusual amount of time before finishing. Most affected is Youtube; almost every time I navigate to a youtube video from another website such as Google, the video will not begin playing, but will instead just display the player controls with a black screen where the video should be and the buffering symbol, usually before displaying an error such as "The video failed to load". The unusual part of this problem is that whenever this happens, refreshing the page always causes it to load almost immediately the second time around, without any problems. Note that I'm not talking about how some browsers will dump whatever has been cached to the "pallet" briefly when the page is refreshed or loading stopped; but that the second time loading the website being faster. I have done my best to rule out some of the obvious causes: My Windows 7 desktop computer is the only device that seems to be affected. I use Firefox on it (latest version, flash updated, etc). My connection has more than enough bandwidth (30 megabits down, 4 up), and I've even tried QoSing all other devices to make sure this isn't happening due to usage spikes. Wireshark is not showing any clearly unusual network activity (i.e frequently dropped packets).

    Read the article

  • Homegroup should be working, but doesn't

    - by Tim
    I have Win7 installed on both my PC and laptop. When I choose to make a homegroup I can go through the steps of creating, getting password, then joining it from the other computer and it says that it all connects properly. But when I go to the homegroup tab it always says no other computers connected. If I look in the settings it will say "connected to suchandsuch homegroup" but the comps won't show. Also, on my PC, when I tick the boxes in the homegroup settings on what libraries I want to share, then click on save settings, it shuts down the settings window and when I re-open it the library tick boxes are all unticked again. Yet, I have had no problems with the tick boxes stayin ticked on the laptop. I have tried cancelling and remaking the homegroup, have tried making it on both computers, and have tried disabling and re-enabling the network connectors but it still won't work. At my old house we had 3 PCs running win 7 and 2 of them could homegroup together fine but mine never could as it was getting the same problem I am getting now. I feel like I am the only one on the planet with this problem. Can anybody help?

    Read the article

  • How to access web server of any machine of my network from the outside

    - by Luc
    Hello, I have an ip like username.dyndns.org, this is the external IP of my router. On my lan, I have several machine (m1, m2, ...) , each running a dedicated web server. Is it possible to reach each machine from the outside with something like: http://m1.username.dyndns.org http://m2.username.dyndns.org ? Do you know what needs to be configured in my router for NAT ? Also, is there a special directive in Apache to do so ? Thanks a lot, Regards, Luc

    Read the article

  • Automounting Active Directory home drives on a Linux server on login

    - by Ethan
    I've got a Centos 5.7 box authenticating against Active Directory through PBIS Open (the new LikeWise Open), which works well. Now, I'm trying to get the server to automount the user's AD home directory, located at //ad.server.dom/shares/home directories (Yeah, it's a space in the path. I didn't set this up). Each user has a directory in there with the same name as the user. I've tried to get pam_mount working, but it has a series of issues on RedHat and friends, and I can't seem to get that working. The directory does need to be automounted for the server to perform it's role. My reading on automount seems to suggest that there's no way to get it to do it's thing with authentication, though I'm happy to be proved wrong. I've looked at this resource, but it requires version RedHat (thus CentOS) 6 or higher, and newer packages than I have. I can manually (As root) mount the AD directory using the command mount.cifs "//ad.server.dom/Shares/home directories/testuser" /home/local/AD/testuser/nfs_mount/ -o username=testuser and when I log in as testuser, I can see all of the sample files in the nfs_share directory. Any tips towards the right direction would be highly appreciated. This is going to be on a server at a college, so it needs to be fairly stable, and would lead towards more Linux adoption there.

    Read the article

  • Ip doesn't change when switching networks, although automatic ip is set. Cause of the issue known

    - by Julio Acevedo
    I have two routers at my house. Both of them have DCHP server enabled. One of them is 192.168.1.1 and gives adresses from 192.168.1.2 to 192.168.1.32 The other one is 192.168.1.50 and gives adresses from 192.168.1.51 to 192.168.1.99 The problem is that I only have internet access in one because my ip is 192.168.1.7, and when I switch to the other one, the ip remains 192.168.1.7, even though I have automatically get a ip adress in Ipv4. When I manually change my ip to one in the range allowed by the router, I can browse the internet. Any ideas how to solve this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Open mysql only to localhost and a particular address

    - by Rodrigo Asensio
    My config: ubuntu server 9 and msyql 5 my.cnf = bind-address = 0.0.0.0 my iptables script = iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -s 99.88.77.66 -p tcp --destination-port 3306 -j ACCEPT I can connect from any place to mysql, not only that IP. I made a iptables-save , /etc/init.d/netwokring restart... but I still can connect from any IP, any clue ?

    Read the article

  • Pros/cons to turning off cable modem

    - by Jay
    A little off the wall perhaps, but ... I have a cable modem and a router for a wireless home network. Is it a good or a bad idea to turn it off at night and during the day when we're all at work or school? Or should I leave it on 24/7. I was thinking that leaving it on constantly makes me more vulnerable to hackers, not to mention wasting electricity. (Though I'd guess the amount of electricity used by a cable modem and a router is probably pretty trivial. Still, every little bit helps.) When I have turned it off and turned it on again, it takes several minutes for it to go through its little dialog with the cable company and get me connected to the Internet again, which is annoying but not a big deal. Anyone know any good reasons one way or the other?

    Read the article

  • Separating two networks

    - by Farhan Ali
    I have two routers, R1 and R2. R1 (a stock linksys router running dd-wrt) is connected to internet and is serving internet to a network of 5 devices/PCs running a DHCP server, with a network of 192.168.1.0/24. R1 also serves internet services to R2. R2 (a ubuntu server 12.04) gets internet from R1. R2 has 3 PCs attached to it, runs a DHCP server with a network of 172.22.22.0/24. My requirement is that the clients on both sides should not talk to each other at all – with the exception that R1 clients may access the R2 router through its IP of 192.168.1.x. At the moment, R2 clients are able to ping R1 clients, which is unacceptable, whereas R1 clients cannot ping R2 clients, which is OK. I believe iptables could be set up but I don't know how.

    Read the article

  • Force local IP traffic to an external interface

    - by calandoa
    I have a machine with several interfaces that I can configure as I want, for instance: eth1: 192.168.1.1 eth2: 192.168.2.2 I would like to forward all the traffic sent to one of these local addresses through the other interface. For instance, all requests to an iperf, ftp, http server at 192.168.1.1 should be not just routed internally, but forwarded through eth2 (and the external network will take care of re-routing the packet to eth1). I tried and looked at several commands, like iptables, ip route, etc... but nothing worked. The closest behavior I could get was done with: ip route change to 192.168.1.1/24 dev eth2 which send all 192.168.1.x on eth2, except for 192.168.1.1 which is still routed internally. May be I could then do NAT forwarding of all traffic directed to fake 192.168.1.2 on eth1, rerouted to 192.168.1.1 internally? I am actually struggling with iptables, but it is too tough for me. The goal of this setup is to do interface driver testing without using two PCs. I am using Linux, but if you know how to do that with Windows, I'll buy it!

    Read the article

  • Force local IP traffic to an external interface

    - by calandoa
    I have a machine with several interfaces that I can configure as I want, for instance: eth1: 192.168.1.1 eth2: 192.168.2.2 I would like to be able to forward all the traffic to one of these local address trhough the other interface. For instance, all requests to an iperf, ftp, http server at 192.168.1.1 are not just routed internally, but forwarded through eth2 (and the external network will take care of re-routing the packet to eth1). I tried and looked at several commands, like iptables, ip route, etc... but nothing worked. The closest behavior I could get was done with: ip route change to 192.168.1.1/24 dev eth2 which send all 192.168.1.x on eth2, except for 192.168.1.1 which is still routed internally. The goal of this setup is to do interface driver testing without using two PCs. I am using Linux, but if you know how to do that with Windows, I'll buy it!

    Read the article

  • Planning home network

    - by gakhov
    I'm planning to setup my home network from scratch and want to ask professional opinions or tips. My home is connected to Internet with a cable connection (100 Mb/s). The devices I would like to connect are VoIP phone (RJ-45), TV (WiFi/LAN), 3 laptops (WiFi), 2 smartphones (WiFi), an iPad (WiFi), a Kindle (WiFi), a network printer and, probably, a home media storage (WiFi/LAN). As you can see, the most load will be on WiFi connections (probably, even if TV supports WiFi it's better to connect it by LAN?). So, I need help to choose the best router (or combination of routers) to support stable connections for all these devices and minimize the total number of routers/adapters. I like how Cisco/Linksys devices were working for me in the past, so preferably (but not obligatorily) I want to setup network with their solutions. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Iptables Forwarding problem

    - by ankit
    Hi all, I had initally asked question about sertting up my linux box for natting for my home network and was given suggestions in the thread here. Did not want to clutter the old question so starting a new one here. based on the earlier suggestions, i have come up with the following rules ... :PREROUTING ACCEPT [1:48] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [12:860] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [3:228] -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT *filter :INPUT DROP [3:228] :FORWARD DROP [0:0] :OUTPUT DROP [0:0] -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT COMMIT If you notice, i do have the proper MASQURADING rule and the proper FORWARD filter rule as well. However i am facing 2 problems On the linux box itself DNS resolving is not working the lan clients connected to the linux box, are still not able to get to internet. when i ping something from them, i see the DROP count in iptables INPUT rule increasing. now my question is, when i am pinging something from the lan client, how come it is being matched by the input chain ?! should it be in the forward chain ? Chain INPUT (policy DROP 20 packets, 2314 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 99 9891 ACCEPT all -- lo any anywhere anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT icmp -- eth0 any anywhere anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- eth0 any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:http 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- eth0 any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https 122 9092 ACCEPT tcp -- eth0 any anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ssh Thanks ankit

    Read the article

  • Wireless Network Disappearing From Available Networks (Windows 7)

    - by PeteDaMeat
    I have been using Windows 7 with a BT Voyager wireless adapter to connect to my home wireless network for around the last 6 months or so and until recently have experienced no problems. However, over the last couple of days Windows has been unable to connect to the network and the network name is no longer visible in the list of available wireless networks. The only way I have got round the problem is to reboot the NetGear router and to change the SSID to a network name which has not already been used. I do not believe the problem is with the router as my mobile phone can connect to it without any problems. The BT Voyager wireless adapter detects all other available networks so I presume this is a Windows 7 issue as it seems to occur when the PC is rebooted. This problen has happened twice in the last 2 days and is becoming extremely annoying. Does anyone have any suggestions?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124  | Next Page >