Search Results

Search found 33162 results on 1327 pages for 'static ip address'.

Page 320/1327 | < Previous Page | 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327  | Next Page >

• Autoscaling EC2 with NFS mounts

  - by Jamie Taylor

  I'm trying to set up a shared filesystem on EC2 and I've read tutorials such as this: http://blog.ronaldmccollam.com/2012/07/configuring-nfs-on-ubuntu-in-amazon-ec2.html In step 2 it talks about configuring the exports, for this I need an IP range but when I'm auto-scaling I can't predict what the IP will be before it scales. Is there any other way of doing this while still staying secure? Thanks Edit: Just tried s3fs, didn't seem to work properly

  Read the article

• Virtual IPv6 Network between VirtualBox VMs

  - by Ben

  I'm trying to create a virtual IPv6 network as a test environment. I have 5 VirtualBox VMs (Ubuntu Server) with network adapters using host-only networking. You can imagine them being connected in series and every machine connects 2 subnets. I want to ping the last machine from the first one: On: 2001:db8:aaaa::100 I want to ping 2001:db8:dddd::101 (Note: there is no cccc network in between) Only static configuration and routes are used: /etc/network/interfaces auto eth0 iface eth0 inet6 static address 2001:db8:aaaa::100 netmask 64 /etc/network/interfaces auto eth0 iface eth0 inet6 static address 2001:db8:aaaa::101 netmask 64 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet6 static address 2001:db8:bbbb::100 netmask 64 up ip -6 route add 2001:db8:dddd::/64 via 2001:db8:bbbb::101 dev eth1 down ip -6 route del 2001:db8:dddd::/64 via 2001:db8:bbbb::101 dev eth1 I thought there might be some automatic route discovery going on. Anyway, ping6 2001:db8:dddd::100 will not work from aaaa::100 When I add the route: ip -6 route add 2001:db8:dddd::/64 via 2001:db8:aaaa::101 it will work. But the next interface in the same network dddd::101 is not reachable. How could that be? There is a machine with an interface bbbb::101 and another dddd::100 and I can ping the latter one, but the machine connected to it, dddd::101 not?? I also have also turned on forwarding. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• postgresql solution for a server failure

  - by user1272305

  i describe the situation: i have two pc with postgressql server: - a main pc, with ip 192.168.5.1 turned on - a "backup" pc, with ip 192.168.5.1 turned off i want that the main pc saves the two identical databases in local hard drive and on a nas real-time. when the main pc has a failure, i turn on, manually, the secondary pc, that reads the database from the nas it's possible to do that? postgres: postgresql-9.1 operating system: Ubuntu 10.04

  Read the article

• Connect two networks

  - by Meek Barrios

  Connecting two different offices with a wireless link and linux boxes. Hardware: 2 CISCO RV42, 2 Dual Homed Linux Boxes running debian, 2 2Wire and 2 AirMax 5 Configuration is: Office A LAN A (10.1.1.0/24) -> RV42 A (WAN1 - 10.1.1.254) -> 2Wire A (Internet) LINUX A ( ETH0 (LAN) 10.1.1.253, ETH1 (LINK) (10.1.3.3) Wireless Link --- AirMax A <-> AirMax B connected as Wireless Bridge Office B LAN B (10.1.2.0/24) -> RV42 B (WAN1 - 10.1.2.254) -> 2Wire B (Internet) LINUX B ( ETH0 (LAN) 10.1.2.253 -> ETH1 (LINK) (10.1.3.4) Network configuration is: LAN A - Default Gateway 10.1.1.254 RV42 A - Static Route 10.1.3.0/24 on 10.1.1.253 Static Route 10.1.2.0/24 on 10.1.1.253 Default on 192.168.1.1 (WAN1 Internet Access) Linux A - ETH0 10.1.1.253 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.1.1.254 ETH1 10.1.3.3 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.1.3.1 AIRMAX A - 10.1.3.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.1.3.1 LAN B - Default Gateway 10.1.2.254 RV42 B - Static Route 10.1.3.0/24 on 10.1.2.253 Static Route 10.1.1.0/24 on 10.1.2.253 Default on 192.168.1.1 (WAN1 Internet Access) Linux B - ETH0 10.1.2.253 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.1.2.254 ETH1 10.1.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.1.3.2 AIRMAX B - 10.1.3.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.1.3.2 Both linux have ip_forward set to 1 and the following on the iptables: iptables -F iptables -X iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT I can ping from Linux B any ip on 10.1.1.0/24 segment and on linux A any ip on 10.1.2.0/24 segment however I cannot connect to HTTP or FTP on those machines. From LAN A I cannot see any other network. I'm looking for some advice for this configuration or a better solution. Regards

  Read the article

• Virtualbox - routing subnet to bridge adapters

  - by user42384

  Hello, I have set up a Debian Lenny box with 3 vbox Lenny machines running eth0 of the host in bridged mode (on virtualbox 3.1.6). When testing in my local LAN, this all worked perfectly well and traffic flowed to and from the IPs of the virtual machines as it should. However, now that it's in its co-lo home, the networking setup is a bit different, and I'm unable to get traffic to flow to the vboxes properly. Specifically, the host has its own Primary IP, and I have a separate subnet of 8 (6 usable) IPs routed to the box for use by the vboxes. So, eth0 on host is: Machine IP: 2x.x.x.137 Gateway IP: 2x.x.x.138 Subnet Msk: 255.255.255.252 Subnet for vboxes is Subnet: 2x.x.x.240/29 Netmask: 255.255.255.248 vbox1 is configured to 2x.x.x.241 on eth0 as follows: auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 2x.x.x.241 netmask 255.255.255.248 Setting up a virtual interface (eth0:0) on the host with one of these subnet IPs allows me to ping to that address only from vbox1, and it allows me to ping vbox1 from the host. I can also ping that virtual interface perfectly well from outside, so the IPs are definitely landing at my machine. It seems I'm missing some sort of routing instruction either on the host or vbox1 to get traffic moving between the subnet and the default gateway, but I can't seem to figure out what it should be, or what glaringly obvious thing i'm missing. Most of my obvious attempts (the gw of eth0, the ip of eth0) were rejected by route command with SIOCADDRT: No such device (eg - i can't find it). I tried setting vbox1 to bridge on eth0:0, but this was not an acceptable device name and VBoxHeadless refused to start. The physical machine does have an unused physical NIC at eth1 that can be used if necessary for something or other. Host machine is running iptables configured by ferm, have experimented with it allowing forwarding for that subnet, but I wouldn't have thought this was necessary given the nature of the virtualbox devices (nor did it actually work). Clearing out all of these rules for a blank iptables set does not resolve the issue. (you can see ferm generated iptables at http://codedumper.com/ojaze) Thanks for any help you can give... Patrick

  Read the article

• Port-forwarding HTTPS web server

  - by James Moore

  I have port forwarded our front-facing IP to an internal HTTPS server. The browser does not connect. A wget command determines that the certificate is self-signed for the internal IP. Hence why the browser is refusing to display the page properly. What is the best-practice scenario for this sort of stuff? Thanks

  Read the article

• How to vieww all users in the list?

  - by lakshmi

  I have installed IP messenger in my machine. Now i can see onle my name in the users list. How to vieww all users in the list? One month before ip messenger for win32 work on my pc but now its only showing my name on it i cant see any other member please tell me what to do..?

  Read the article

• Dual SMTP Server issue with Unicast Network Load Balancing

  - by Igor K

  Using two servers with NLB, each box contains IIS and a mail server. Server1 is the primary Server2 runs the backup mail server The problem is the web app sends email to ourselves. When mail is sent from Server2 (via its own SMTP server) to ourselves, it tries to contact Server1, as its the mail server IP. But under Unicast mode of NLB, it cant reach the host via the public dedicated IP address. How can we get round this?

  Read the article

• Managing hosts and iptables in scalable architecture

  - by hakunin

  Let's say I have a load balancer in front of 3 app servers. Let's say I also have these services available at certain IPs: Postgres server Redis server ElasticSearch server Memcached server 1 Memcached server 2 Memcached server 3 So that's 6 nodes at 6 different IP addresses. Naturally, every one of my 3 app servers needs to talk to these 6 servers above. Then, to make it a bit funkier, I also have 3 worker servers. And each worker also talks to the above 6 servers, but thankfully workers and apps never need to talk to each other. Now's the kicker. Everything is on Digital Ocean VPS. What that means is: you have no private network, no private IPs. You only have separate, random IP address on each machine. You can't mask them or anything. So in order to build a secure environment I would have to configure some iptables. For example: Open app servers be accessed by load balancer server Open redis, ES, PG, and each memcached servers to be accessed by each app's IP and each worker's IP This means that every time I add an app or worker I have to also reconfigure iptables in those above 6 servers to welcome the new app or worker. Is there a way to simplify this type of setup? I was thinking — what if there was a gateway machine between apps/workers and the above 6 machines. This way all the interaction would always happen via the gateway server, and when I add a new app or worker I wouldn't need to teach the 6 servers to let it in. If I went this route, then I'd hope a small 512mb server could handle that perhaps, and there wouldn't be almost any overhead. Or would there? Please help with best way to handle this situation. I would appreciate an answer as concrete as possible. I don't think this is too specific, because this general architecture is very common, and Digital Ocean is becoming increasingly popular. A concrete solution here would be much appreciated by many.

  Read the article

• BIND: forward 1st level zone

  - by raven

  First of all: sorry for the language, English is not my primary language. I have star-like DNS structure with many filials (more that 2): ^ | v filialNS_1.filial_1.city.local <---- ns.main.city.local <---- filialNS_2.filial_2.city.local ^ | v ns.mail.city.local is slave of all filials zones filialNS_1 is master of filial_1.city.local filialNS_2 is master of filial_2.city.local filialNS_N is master of filial_N.city.local I want to: serve DNS queries for xxx.filial_N.city.local with filialNS_N.filial_N.city.local forward all queries for xxx.xxx.xxx.local from filialNS_N to ns.main.city.local forward other queries to our provider's DNS on filial (or google-public-dns or anything else) FILIAL CONFIG named.conf zone "filial_1.city.local" { type master; file "/etc/namedb/dynamic/filial_1.city.local"; allow-update { key DHCP_UPDATER; }; allow-transfer { <ns.main.city.local IP address> }; }; zone "2.76.10.in-addr.arpa" { type master; file "/etc/namedb/dynamic/2.76.10.in-addr.arpa"; allow-update { key DHCP_UPDATER; }; allow-transfer { <ns.main.city.local IP address> }; }; zone "local." { type forward; forward only; forwarders { <ns.main.city.local IP address> }; }; nslookup server.filial_1.city.local - works fine nslookup server.main.city.local Server: 127.0.0.1 Address: 127.0.0.1#53 ** server can't find server.main.city.local: NXDOMAIN Where am I going wrong?

  Read the article

• Htaccess strange behaviour with Nginx

  - by Termos

  I have a site running on Nginx (v1.0.14) serving as reverse proxy which proxies requests to Apache (v2.2.19). So Nginx runs on port 80, Apache is on 8080. Overall site works fine except that i cannot block access to certain directories with .htaccess file. For example i have 'my-protected-directory' on 'www.site.com' Inside it i have htaccess with following code: <Files *> order deny,allow deny from all allow from 1.2.3.4 <--- my ip address here </Files> When i try to access this page with my ip (1.2.3.4) i get 404 error which is not what i expect: http://www.site.com/my-protected-directory However everything works as expected when this page is served directly by Apache. I can see this page, everyone else can't. http://www.site.com:8080/my-protected-directory Update. Nginx config (7.1.3.7 is site ip.): user apache; worker_processes 4; error_log logs/error.log; pid logs/nginx.pid; events { worker_connections 1024; } http { include mime.types; default_type application/octet-stream; log_format main '$remote_addr - $remote_user [$time_local] "$request" ' '$status $body_bytes_sent "$http_referer" ' '"$http_user_agent" "$http_x_forwarded_for"'; sendfile on; keepalive_timeout 65; gzip on; gzip_min_length 1024; gzip_http_version 1.1; gzip_proxied any; gzip_comp_level 5; gzip_types text/plain text/css application/x-javascript text/xml application/xml application/xml+rss text/javascript image/x-icon; server { listen 80; server_name www.site.com site.com 7.1.3.7; access_log logs/host.access.log main; # serve static files location ~* ^.+.(jpg|jpeg|gif|png|ico|css|zip|tgz|gz|rar|bz2|doc|xls|exe|pdf|ppt|txt|tar|mid|midi|wav|bmp|rtf|js)$ { root /var/www/vhosts/www.site.com/httpdocs; proxy_set_header Range ""; expires 30d; } # pass requests for dynamic content to Apache location / { proxy_redirect off; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header Host $http_host; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_set_header Range ""; proxy_pass http://7.1.3.7:8080; } } Could please anyone tell me what is wrong and how this can be fixed ?

  Read the article

• Unable to SSH to a virtualbox Redhat

  - by Rajat

  I am using a MAC and using virtualbox to start a Redhat instance. The instance is started with two adapters (first being NAT, and second being host-only-adapter). The problem is that I am unable to SSH from my Mac to the virtualbox instance using the IP (I am able to ping the IP, though). I checked in the iptables and SSH is allowed (port 22), and sshd daemon is also running. Anything I am missing?

  Read the article

• OpenVPN access to a private network

  - by Gior312

  There are many similar topics about my issue, however I cannot figure out a solution for myself. There are three hosts. A without a routable address but with an Internet access. Server S with a routable Internet address and host B behind NAT in a private network. What I've managed to do is a OpenVPN connection between A and B via S. Everything works fine so far according to this manual VPN Setup What I want to do is to connect A to Bs private network 10.A.B.x I tried this manual but had no luck. So A has a vpn address 10.9.0.10, B's vpn address is 10.9.0.6 and B's private network is 10.20.20.0/24. When at the Server I try to make a route to Bs private network like this sudo route add 10.20.20.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.9.0.6 dev tun0 it says "route: netmask 000000ff doesn't make sense with host route" but I don't know how to tell Server to look for a private network in a different way. Do you know how can I make it right ?

  Read the article

• Port scanning from localhost

  - by Jaels

  I see lot of tcp connections on different ports on my server with 'TIME_WAIT' status. Just simple port scan, but i cant see ip address of this bastard because connections is going from my nginx. Can you please give me a tip how can i see IP address of this bastard? Here is example: [root@vh9 ~]# netstat tcp 0 0 srv:http srv:53280 TIME_WAIT tcp 0 0 srv:http srv:53536 TIME_WAIT tcp 0 0 srv:http srv:52768 TIME_WAIT tcp 0 0 srv:http srv:53024 TIME_WAIT

  Read the article

• Remote access to internal machine (ssh port-forwarding)

  - by MacUsers

  I have a server (serv05) at work with a public ip, hosting two KVM guests - vtest1 & vtest2 - in two different private network - 192.168.122.0 & 192.168.100.0 - respectively, this way: [root@serv05 ~]# ip -o addr show | grep -w inet 1: lo inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0 inet xxx.xxx.xx.197/24 brd xxx.xxx.xx.255 scope global eth0 4: virbr1 inet 192.168.100.1/24 brd 192.168.100.255 scope global virbr1 6: virbr0 inet 192.168.122.1/24 brd 192.168.122.255 scope global virbr0 # [root@serv05 ~]# route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr1 xxx.xxx.xx.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.122.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1002 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 xxx.xxx.xx.62 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 I've also setup IP FORWARDing and Masquerading this way: iptables --table nat --append POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables --append FORWARD --in-interface virbr0 -j ACCEPT All works up to this point. If I want to remote access vtest1 (or vtest2) first I ssh to serv05 and then from there ssh to vtest1. Is there a way to setup a port forwarding so that vtest1 can be accessed directly from the outside world? This is what I probably need to setup: external_ip (tcp port 4444) -> DNAT -> 192.168.122.50 (tcp port 22) I know it's easily do'able using a SOHO router but can't figure out how can I do that on a Linux box. Any help form you guys?? Cheers!! Update: 1 Now I've made ssh to listen to both of the ports: [root@serv05 ssh]# netstat -tulpn | grep ssh tcp 0 0 xxx.xxx.xx.197:22 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 5092/sshd tcp 0 0 xxx.xxx.xx.197:4444 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 5092/sshd and port 4444 is allowed in the iptables rules: [root@serv05 sysconfig]# grep 4444 iptables -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 4444 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.122.50:22 -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 4444 -j ACCEPT -A FORWARD -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 4444 -j ACCEPT But I'm getting connection refused: maci:~ santa$ telnet serv05 4444 Trying xxx.xxx.xx.197... telnet: connect to address xxx.xxx.xx.197: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host Any idea what's I'm still missing? Cheers!!

  Read the article

• Watchguard XTM blocking login attempts

  - by user192702

  routinely I'm seeing lots of login attempts to my mail server trying out various login names starting from A to Z coming from the one IP on one day and another IP on another day. Is there any means to detect this type of activities and block accordingly? I asked Watchguard and it appears they don't support this on their XTM series. Anything else I can do other than to have a super long password?

  Read the article

• Fail-over caching reverse proxy

  - by sybreon

  Is there a way to configure varnish or any other caching reverse proxy, to serve pages from its cache when the back-end fails? At the moment, if the back-end goes down a 503 Service Unavailable error would be returned to the browser. I would prefer it if visitors got to see a cached version than an error page while the back-end is being fixed. My setup: [varnish (public ip)] <=== [router] <=== [web server (private ip)] PS: I have only one back-end web server.

  Read the article

• SharePoint Search with NLB

  - by Nick

  SharePoint MOSS 2007 on 64 bit OS and SQL. Added a new Web Front End to our farm, all sites seem to work fine - but now we've noticed that the search service has completely stopped working. It works if I change my host file to point to the original WFE, but if I use the NLB IP or the IP of the new WFE, it says "Unable to Connect to the Search Service

  Read the article

• Connecting to a remote mysql server from a windows machine (XP)

  - by Samuel Martin

  I am trying to connect to mysql server which is installed on my home pc from another pc. I allowed all connection in mysql configuration. There's no firewall blocking on the pc I am trying to connect from. I used the command- mysql -h Some.Host.IP -u SomeUser -p SomePassword I am getting- ERROR 2003 (HY000): Can't connect to MySQL server on 'Some.Host.IP' (10060) I can connect through php!! What's the problem? How do I solve it?

  Read the article

• new PC not work with existing router, but works fine when directly connecting to cable modem

  - by user34786

  I bought a new desktop PC (eMachine ET1331G-03W from WalMart) with windows 7 installed, but I can not access internet by connecting to my existing wireless router(LinkSys BEFW11S4) with wired cable. Though all other existing desktops and laptops have no problem connecting to the same router. However, the new desktop PC works fine and able to connect to internet if I bypass the router and directly hook up with the cable modem. At new PC when connecting to the router, I got the below information by typing ipconfig, the IP address looks wrong to me: autoconfiguration IPv4 Address: 169.254.71.140 subnet mask: 255.255.0.0 default gateway: (empty) NetBIOS over Tcpip: Enabled Typing ipconfig at all other desktop and laptop have values like below, which are good to me: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.140 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1 The wireless router was on 192.168.1.1, I do not know why the new desktop got 169.254.71.140 IP? It should have something like 192.168.1.xxx, and it was configured to automatically get IP by DHCP. I have tried to switch cables,power off cable modem, router and reboot new pc many times and got no luck. So I believe this is only an issue related to router or new pc configuration. Can someone help me figure out the issue?

  Read the article

• cisco 2851 router: can't view switch ports

  - by red888

  I want to setup vlans on a 2851, but I'm not sure how to access the switch ports. I can access or view them. Is there something I have to enable? I have some devices plugged into the switch ports and they are communicating with each other fine. router(config)#do show ip int bri Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol GigabitEthernet0/0 unassigned YES NVRAM administratively down down GigabitEthernet0/1 unassigned YES NVRAM administratively down down GigabitEthernet1/0 10.1.1.1 YES manual up up

  Read the article

• How to configure hostname for `apache22` package on FreeBSD?

  - by Eonil

  I'm configuring development & test FreeBSD machine on VM. I installed apache22 package and restarted. But the daemon does not started with this error: %apachectl start httpd: apr_sockaddr_info_get() failed for test.box httpd: Could not reliably determine the server's fully qualified domain name, using 127.0.0.1 for ServerName (13)Permission denied: make_sock: could not bind to address [::]:80 (13)Permission denied: make_sock: could not bind to address 0.0.0.0:80 no listening sockets available, shutting down Unable to open logs % My hostname is test.box. Because this is temporary test box, it has no real domain-name. But I used 2-level name to avoid long time waiting of sshd on booting. However, I searched web, and I modified /etc/hosts file like this (I didn't touches this file before): # This is original configuration #::1 localhost localhost.my.domain #127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.my.domain # New configuration ::1 localhost test.box 127.0.0.1 localhost test.box 127.0.0.1 test.box test Now apache fails with this error message: %apachectl start httpd: Could not reliably determine the server's fully qualified domain name, using test.box for ServerName (13)Permission denied: make_sock: could not bind to address [::]:80 (13)Permission denied: make_sock: could not bind to address 0.0.0.0:80 no listening sockets available, shutting down Unable to open logs % I don't know what's required now. Please let me know reason and solution of this error. ---- (edit) ---- The permission errors are caused from omission of sudo.

  Read the article

• lenovo x1 carbon windows 8 frequent wifi disconnect issue

  - by hIpPy

  I'm having frequent wifi disconnects on my Lenovo X1 Carbon Touch laptop. I got this laptop 2 months back and it has been happening ever since about 3-5 times a day and 10 times a week on average. I've Frontier Fios internet. Power connected or not does not matter. Once I get disconnected, I try below to connect again in that order: turn Airplane mode on and off, troubleshoot network problems windows troubleshooter), restart the laptop I'd find that the WiFi adapter would get disabled and sometimes windows troubleshooting would help but more than often I'd end up restarting the laptop. A week back, I upgraded my wifi network adapter drivers (now Intel, version 15.5.6.48, 10/3/2012). I still get disconnected frequently but turning Airplane mode on and off gets me connected again. So the driver update did help. Windows 8 is updated. None of the other devices (nexus, iphone phones, nexus7, ipad tablets) would have wifi issues when my laptop would get disconnected. config: Intel(R) Centrino(R) Advanced-N 6205 (WiFi network adapter) Microsoft Windows 8 Pro Microsoft Windows [Version 6.2.9200] x64-based PC LENOVO System Model: 3443CTO X1 Carbon Touch I recently noticed this log message When I got disconnected in event viewer: Your computer was not assigned an address from the network (by the DHCP Server) for the Network Card with network address 0x[XXXXXXXXXXXX]. The following error occurred: 0x79. Your computer will continue to try and obtain an address on its own from the network address (DHCP) server. Any idea?

  Read the article

• how to restrict null session

  - by jack

  Hi I've changed the following things in regedit and restarted PC to restrict null session: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\LSA Value Name: RestrictAnonymous Data Type: REG_DWORD Value: 1 Value Name: RestrictAnonymousSam Data Type: REG_DWORD Value: 1 Value Name: EveryoneIncludesAnonymous Data Type: REG_DWORD Value: 0 However, I can still run and get null session. net use //IP /u:"" "" command completed successfully I've also done "Disable NetBios over TCP/IP" but it didn't help. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• How to connect laptop with telephone using WI-FI? (ethernet)

  - by rmaster

  What I did: 1)added new wireless network in wireless network settings and gave it SSID 2)gave laptop the IP like 192.168.0.1, mask: 255.255.255.0, gateway: 192.168.0.2 3)gave the telephone with wifi the same mask but IP and gateway rewersed But telephone can not find my new wireless network(it can find all other networks), computer also can not find it. where is error? how to make it visible and working? if my steps are wrong tell me correct way to establish this connection via wi-fi

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327  | Next Page >