Search Results

Search found 8366 results on 335 pages for 'admin routing'.

Page 59/335 | < Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >

• Using iptables to selectively route outgoing requests?

  - by Olivier

  Hello, I'd like to set up my Dd-WRT firewall so that it uses the VPN service from a VPN provider to access a bunch of destinations and normal route foe all other requests. In detail: giganews.com would be accessed thru VPN VyprVPN normal web sites such as amazon, ebay, et al thru transparent firewall. I've run nito reading SOOOO many tutorials but I can't get to understand what the different entities are. Any help? Thxs

  Read the article

• IP Phone over VPN - one way calls unless default route?

  - by dannymcc

  I have come across a strange problem with our VPN and BCM 50 (Nortel/Avaya) phone system. As you can tell by my other questions I have been doing some work on setting a VPN up from one location to another and it's all working well. With one exception. We have an IP phone that is connected at the remote location, straight to a router which has a VPN tunnel to our main practice. The phone works mostly, but every few calls it turns into a one way call. As in, the caller (from the remote phone) can't hear the receiver- but the receiver can hear the caller. This is fixed by setting the VPN tunnel to be the default route for all traffic. The problem with fixing it that way is that all traffic then goes through the tunnel which slows internet access etc. down considerably. The router is set to send the following over the VPN: 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.4.0/24 The IP of the remote location is: 192.168.3.0/24 The remote router (where the phone is) is a Draytek 2830n, and the local router (at the main practice) is a Draytek 2820. We are using an IPSec tunnel with AES encryption <- as a result of a previous answer pointing to the incompatibility in the hardware encryption. Any advice would be appreciated!

  Read the article

• Multicast in private LAN with different subnets

  - by Gobliins

  after i read Multicast IP Addresses and Multicast accross the subnets I am confused. Configuration: I have two devices in the same network. They may not be in the same Subnet, but always in the same physical network (beyond the same router, switch etc.) I want to communicate across IP multicast either 224.x.x.x or 239.x.x.x may be more fitting because we want it local, not beyond of forward through the router. Can one machine be the receiver and the other machine sender of the same multicast address? and can the receiving machine send an answer to the sending machine?

  Read the article

• Blocking ports on the public IP assigned to lo interface in GNU/Linux

  - by nixnotwin

  I have setup my Ubuntu server as a router and webserver by following the answer given here. My ISP facing interface eth0 has a private 172.16.x.x/30 ip and my lo interface has a public IP as mentioned in the answer to the question linked above. The setup is working well. The only snag I have experienced is that I could not find a way to block the ports exposed by the public IP on the lo interface. I tried doing iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -j DROP, and my server lost connectivity to the public network (internet). I could not ping any public ips. What I want is a way to block ports that are exposed by the public ip on the lo interface. And also I require iptables rules that can expose ports like 80 or openvpn port to the public network.

  Read the article

• What kind of router do I need to handle multiple external I.P addresses?

  - by user1308743

  I have 3 dedicated I.P addresses going to a location with a few servers, and 1 RVS4000 router. Right now, only one I.P is being used. I would like a router that can use all 3 I.P addresses and I can make rules like this: IP1:80 goes to ServerA IP2:80 goes to ServerB What kind of router/device with what features do I need to handle this? I will need to set 30-40 rules to forward certain ports to certain servers. Only a couple ports will need to go to IP2 or IP3. Thanks

  Read the article

• Route traffic on vpn to another interface on an ASA 5510

  - by Dave

  I have a ASA 5510 that has about 60-70 vpn tunnels. I have four interfaces on the device: 1)External, 2)192.168.1.0, 3)192.168.2.0, 4) 192.168.3.0 A VPN tunnel is configured from the remote site (192.168.200.0) to the 192.168.2.0 subnet on the ASA. I have remote applications I would like the users at the remote site to be able to access which are hosted on the 192.168.3.0 subnet. I can route traffic between the subnets that are located on the ASA. Any way I can route traffic from the remote site to the 192.168.3.0?

  Read the article

• Private IP getting routed over Internet

  - by WernerCD

  We are setting up an internal program, on an internal server that uses the private 172.30.x.x subnet... when we ping the address 172.30.138.2, it routes across the internet: C:\>tracert 172.30.138.2 Tracing route to 172.30.138.2 over a maximum of 30 hops 1 6 ms 1 ms 1 ms xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.org [192.168.28.1] 2 * * * Request timed out. 3 12 ms 13 ms 9 ms xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xx.xxx.xxxxxxx.net [68.85.xx.xx] 4 15 ms 11 ms 55 ms te-7-3-ar01.salisbury.md.bad.comcast.net [68.87.xx.xx] 5 13 ms 14 ms 18 ms xe-11-0-3-0-ar04.capitolhghts.md.bad.comcast.net [68.85.xx.xx] 6 19 ms 18 ms 14 ms te-1-0-0-4-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.xx.xx] 7 28 ms 30 ms 30 ms pos-4-12-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.xx.xx] 8 30 ms 43 ms 30 ms 68.86.xx.xx 9 30 ms 29 ms 31 ms 172.30.138.2 Trace complete. This has a number of us confused. If we had a VPN setup, it wouldn't show up as being routed across the internet. If it hit an internet server, Private IP's (such as 192.168) shouldn't get routed. What would let a private IP address get routed across servers? would the fact that it's all comcast mean that they have their routers setup wrong?

  Read the article

• Exchange 2010 Cannot send email to myself

  - by durilai

  We have began using Exchange 2010 in production, with no issues until now. I tried to email my self a link and it does not get received. I get no error or NDA. If I track the message is shows as successfully delivered, but it has not. This happens in OWA and Outlook Anywhere. Any help is appreciated. Thanks

  Read the article

• IP assignment in a /28 block

  - by mks

  Need help on setting up firewall router. My config is as below: Public static network ID: x.x.x.48/28 gateway: x.x.x.49 available IP for the hosts: x.x.x.52 to 62 gw_eth0 <-- fw_eth0 - fw_eth1 <-- dmz_switch Four servers are connected on dmz_switch (say s1, s2, s3, s4) all have to use public static IP address from the above block. Any recommendation on IP assignment and route setup? Do I need to subnet the above block further or simply use /32 netmask and point-to-point static routes in the above setup?

  Read the article

• How to approach taking a very diverse hybrid network and making something lean and cohesive

  - by Gregg Leventhal

  I am going to have an opportunity (from the role of Linux Sysadmin) to work on optimizing a corporate server network that has a lot of different application servers from LAMP stacks to JBOSS to IIS based ASP/.NET systems of all sorts. I am interested to hear how you would approach evaluating and consolidating a network in a situation like this where you are walking in cold? What are some of your go-to techniques?

  Read the article

• pix 501, static route to d-link router (different subnet)

  - by ra170

  I have pix 501 cisco firewall with internal ip 192.168.10.1. I have connected d-link router (dir-655) to pix 501. The d-link router has internal ip 192.168.0.1 The picture would like something like that: |pix 501| has 192.168.10.1 ip |DIR-655| has 192.168.0.1 ip 1. |cable modem|----|pix 501|-------|DIR-655|-----PC 2. PC--------|pix 501|---------|DIR-655| | | |cable modem| When I'm on the wireless network (dir-655) with assigned ip of 192.168.0.x I can cross the subnet and connect to my firewall 192.168.10.1. (pic. 1) The problem is that if I'm on the 192.168.10.x network I can't connect to anything over at 192.168.0.x network. (pic.2) I've tried entering a static route like this: `route inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.1 1` I also tried assigning static ip to wan interface on DIR-655 to 192.168.10.30 and then tried this: route inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.30 1 But still, can't connect to 192.168.0.1 or anything on that subnet. Is there a way to setup a static route? Would adding a separate router between PIX 501 and DIR-655 help? I would think that static route like this should take care of it, but it doesn't. This is my route config and nat: (config)# sh route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 (outside_IP) 1 DHCP static outside (outside_IP) 255.255.248.0 (outside_IP) 1 CONNECT static inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.1 1 OTHER static inside 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.1 1 CONNECT static or (route inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.30 1) (config)# sh nat nat (inside) 1 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 0 0 nat (inside) 1 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 0 0 nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 0 I ended up turning DIR-655 into an Access Point (turning off DHCP and pluging cable from PIX lan interface into one of the LAN interfaces on DIR-655, and leaving WAN port empty), that works as far as DIR-655 being on the same subnet now, and I can access every machine. However the question is, why can't I simply route between those two? would router between these two help? One of the reasons is, that the PIX 501 has only 10 licences, so now I'm using almost all of them. (I have few computers, iphones, ps3, print server, etc.) I would really appreciate some help! Thanks.

  Read the article

• centos 6.3 kvm external ip forwarding to guests

  - by user1111702

  I have a centos 6.3 server with kvm installed. The server has 4 external ips and one NIC. 176.9.xxx.xx1 176.9.xxx.xx2 176.9.xxx.xx3 176.9.xxx.xx4 I use the following configuration ifcfg-eth0 as slave to ifcfg-br0 the configuration in ifcfg-eth0 is DEVICE=eth0 ONBOOT=yes BRIDGE=br0 HWADDR=14:da:e9:b3:8b:99 and in the ifcfg-br0 DEVICE=br0 TYPE=Bridge BOOTPROTO=static BROADCAST=176.9.xxx.xxx IPADDR=176.9.xxx.xx1 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 SCOPE="peer 176.9.xxx.xxx" and I have 3 more aliases for br0 , br0:1 to get the trafic from the second external ip DEVICE=br0:1 IPADDR=176.9.xxx.xx2 NETMASK=255.255.255.248 ONBOOT=yes br0:2 to get the trafic from the third external ip DEVICE=br0:1 IPADDR=176.9.xxx.xx3 NETMASK=255.255.255.248 ONBOOT=yes br0:3 to get the trafic from the second external ip DEVICE=br0:1 IPADDR=176.9.xxx.xx4 NETMASK=255.255.255.248 ONBOOT=yes The above settings work fine and I recieve the trafic from all the external ips. My problem is that I want to pass the trafic from external ip to specific virtual guest on my server. ie trafic that comes from 176.9.xxx.xxx2 must pass to virtual machine 1 176.9.xxx.xxx3 must pass to virtual machine 2 176.9.xxx.xxx4 must pass to virtual machine 3 Can you please help me how to achieve this ? What are the settings on the host and what should I do to the guests. Thank you in advance

  Read the article

• Multi-WAN bonding across different media

  - by Tom O'Connor

  I've recently been thinking again about a product that Viprinet provide, basically they've got a pair of routers, one that lives in a datacentre, Their VPN Multichannel Hub and the on-site hardware, their VPN multichannel routers They've also got a bunch of interface cards (like HWICs) for 3G, UMTS, Ethernet, ADSL and ISDN adapters. Their main spiel seems to be bonding across different media. It's something that I'd really like to use for a couple of projects, but their pricing is really quite extreme, the hub is about 1-2k, the routers are 2-6k, and the interface modules are 200-600 each. So, what I'd like to know is, is it possible with a couple of stock Cisco routers, 28xx or 18xx series, to do something similar, and basically connect a bunch of different WAN ports, but have it all presented neatly as one channel back to the internet, with seamless (or nearly) failover if one of the WAN interfaces should fail. Basically, If i got 3x 3G to ethernet modems, and each on a different network, I'd like to be able to loadbalance/bond across all of them, without having to pay Viprinet for the privilege. Does anyone know how I'd go about configuring something for myself, based around standard protocols (or vendor specific ones), but without actually having to buy the Viprinet hardware?

  Read the article

• SharePoint 2007: Moving main site, to be a subsite - How can urls be redirected/changed?

  - by program247365

  The setup: SharePoint 2007 (MOSS Enterprise) on WINSVR03/IIS6 One site collection, with one access mapping (http://mainsite) currently I'm moving the main SharePoint site, in our one site collection, to be a subsite in a new site collection. I'm using SharePoint Content Deployment Wizard to complete this task (http://spdeploymentwizard.codeplex.com/). The Question So the main site http://mainsite being moved has many subsites, etc. I want to be sure that urls like this: http://mainsite/subsite/doclib/doc1.docx map to and redirect to the new url: http://newsite/mainsite/subsite/doclib/doc1.docx ? And furthermore: I'm aware of this - http://rdacollaboration.codeplex.com/releases/view/28073 , however is it IIS7 only? That'd wouldn't work for me. Looking at this question - http://serverfault.com/questions/107537/dealing-with-moved-documents-and-sites-in-sharepoint is the only one I see that is similar. Would an IIS redirect of http://mainsite to http://newsite/mainsite work only for the root url?

  Read the article

• Blocking ICMP outgoing requests only in eth1

  - by Raj

  I am creating a NAT with iptables: Computer A: eth0 (dhcp) + eth1 (static ip 192.168.0.1 - gateway) Computer B: eth1 (static ip 192.168.0.2, using Computer A as gateway) I know how to block ICMP outgoing requests (-A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j DROP), but that would block ICMP requests from Computer A, but not from Computer B (in fact, only for Computer A - Computer B can keep doing those). I tried with the same command, but adding -o eth1, but that does not block at all. Any idea?

  Read the article

• Amazon AWS VPN how to open a port?

  - by Victor Piousbox

  I have a VPN with public and private subnets; I am considering only public subnet for now. The node 10.0.0.23, I can ssh into it. Let's say I want to connect to MySQL on the node using its private address: ubuntu@ip-10-0-0-23:/$ mysql -u root -h 10.0.0.23 ERROR 2003 (HY000): Can't connect to MySQL server on '10.0.0.23' (111) ubuntu@ip-10-0-0-23:/$ mysql -u root -h localhost Welcome to the MySQL monitor. Commands end with ; or \g. --- 8< --- snip --- 8< --- mysql> The port 3306 is not reachable if I use the private IP? My security group allows port 3306 inbound from 0.0.0.0/0 AND from 10.0.0.0/24. Outbound, allowed all. The generic setup done by Amazon through their wizard does not work... I add ACL that allows everything for everybody, still does not work. What am I missing?

  Read the article

• Linksys router with multiple external IP's

  - by Adrian Mester

  In an office I've got a network connection with 5 external IPs and a Linksys router (I'm not 100% percent sure of the model). I need 4 of those 5 IPs to be routed to a server, and the fifth to be shared between the other computers at the office. This can probably be done using a switch in front of the router. Connect the server and the router to the switch, and let the router handle the rest of the network. Is there a way to configure the router to route the 4 IPs to the server, and create an internal network the the other computers at the same time?

  Read the article

• Route an IP from WAN to a host on LAN on OpenWRT

  - by Zsub

  EDIT: I know how to use NAT, I specifically want the server to be reachable on two IP's, one private, one public, with the firewall of the OpenWRT in between, if feasible. At the office we have recieved a /29 from our ISP. The first address is reserved for their endpoint, so I'm free to use five addresses. We run a local network, so of course there is a router in between running OpenWRT to provide all hosts with (W)LAN (dhcp from a private range). However, we also have a server running OS X Server 10.6 (Snow Leopard) and I'd like that server to be accessible both from the LAN using a private IP as well as from the WAN on it's own public IP. Point of note is that the server only has one network port, so multiple NICs is not an option, unfortunately. How would I go about doing this?

  Read the article

• Server 2003 and XP Client; Why are HTTP connections being silently dropped.

  - by Asa Yeamans

  On my network, my edge-router, a windows 2003 r2 server router with all the latest updates, will drop packets, but only under specific circumstances. I have troubleshot and isolated it down to the most simple configuration i can. There is NO NAT involved. Only fully-public IP addresses. No Firewalls are running either, all ahve been disabled. no packet filters on any interfaces anywhere either. I have a single Windows XP virtual machine and my edge-router(the windows 2003 r2 server, and also a virtual machine) running on a windows 2008 x64 r2 system (running virtual server 2005 as i dont have Intel-VT compatible chip yet). The edge router can access any external http site just fine, no issues. However the windows XP machine is only able to access certain sites. These work: www.google.com www.txstate.edu www.workintexas.com www.thedailywtf.com . These Dont: www.yahoo.com www.utexas.edu en.wikipedia.org slashdot.org www.bing.com. I have removed all possibility of DNS issues by connecting with net-cat from the XP box and sending GET /\r\nHost: \r\n\r\n and that connection replicates the issue as well. The network setup: My statically assigned IP block: x.x.x.168/29 DSL Modem -----PPPoE Connection---- x.x.x.169[EdgeRouter] [EdgeRouter]x.x.x.170 -----Virtual Ethernet----- x.x.x.174 [Test2] Test2's Default gateway is x.x.x.170 and test2 can ping any and every valid, accessible, public IP address with no packet loss what-so-ever. If i connect directly over PPPoE from test2 (the XP box) everything works just fine... Im at my wits end, i have NO IDEA whats causing this.

  Read the article

• Isolate clients on same subnet?

  - by stefan.at.wpf

  Given n (e.g. 200) clients in a /24 subnet and the following network structure: client 1 \ . \ . switch -- firewall . / client n / (in words: all clients connected to one switch and the switch connected to the firewall) Now by default, e.g. client 1 and client n can communicate directly using the switch, without any packets ever arriving the firewall. Therefore none of those packets could be filtered. However I would like to filter the packets between the clients, therefore I want to disallow any direct communication between the clients. I know this is possible using vlans, but then - according to my understanding - I would have to put all clients in their own network. However I don't even have that much IP addresses: I have about 200 clients, only a /24 subnet and all clients shall have public ip addresses, therefore I can't just create a private network for each of them (well, maybe using some NAT, but I'd like to avoid that). So, is there any way to tell the switch: Forward all packets to the firewall, don't allow direct communication between clients? Thanks for any hint!

  Read the article

• hosts file for ip address

  - by Jon Clegg

  I would like to map ip address to specific localhost interfaces (e.g. 23.45.66.77 = 127.0.3.3). For named hosts I can use the hosts file. Naturally this doesn't work for IP address. This has to work in windows, the only option I've found so far is implementing a TAP/TUN driver like openvpn does. Are there any other options?

  Read the article

• Basic networking: Centos Server Router + Ubuntu Client setup.. unable to access outside world from client

  - by ale

  I am trying to set up my Centos Server with two NICs as a router. eth0 is connected to the outside world and eth1 is connected to an Ubuntu client. Here's eth0 on the server: DEVICE=eth0 BOOTPROTO=dhcp ONBOOT=yes TYPE=Ethernet eth1 on the server: DEVICE=eth1 BOOTPROTO=static IPADDR=192.168.0.10 # a free address on my network ONBOOT=yes TYPE=Ethernet My server has IPv4 packet forwarding turned on and my iptables only contains: # iptables --table nat --append POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE # iptables --append FORWARD --in-interface eth1 -j ACCEPT My Ubuntu client has this in its /etc/network/interfaces auto lo iface lo inet loopback iface eth0 inet dhcp gateway 192.168.0.10 but I can't get an Internet connection from the server for my client. I can't even ping my server from the client: $ ping 192.168.0.10 Destination Host Unreachable

  Read the article

• What is the optimum number of admins to server?

  - by monocasa

  Hello all. I'm starting a business, and I'd like to know what you guys think the optimum number of admins to server ratio is for financial modeling reasons. Or if there's a better metric to use? I come from an embedded programming background so this is an area that I'm pretty squishy on knowledge-wise. : \ Additional Info: There will be a lot of servers. Mainly Linux boxes, with about 10% Windows boxes. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Understanding tcptraceroute versus http response

  - by kojiro

  I'm debugging a web server that has a very high wait time before responding. The server itself is quite fast and has no load, so I strongly suspect a network problem. Basically, I make a web request: wget -O/dev/null http://hostname/ --2013-10-18 11:03:08-- http://hostname/ Resolving hostname... 10.9.211.129 Connecting to hostname|10.9.211.129|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: ‘/dev/null’ 2013-10-18 11:04:11 (88.0 KB/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [13641] So you see it took about a minute to give me the page, but it does give it to me with a 200 response. So I try a tcptraceroute to see what's up: $ sudo tcptraceroute hostname 80 Password: Selected device en2, address 192.168.113.74, port 54699 for outgoing packets Tracing the path to hostname (10.9.211.129) on TCP port 80 (http), 30 hops max 1 192.168.113.1 0.842 ms 2.216 ms 2.130 ms 2 10.141.12.77 0.707 ms 0.767 ms 0.738 ms 3 10.141.12.33 1.227 ms 1.012 ms 1.120 ms 4 10.141.3.107 0.372 ms 0.305 ms 0.368 ms 5 12.112.4.41 6.688 ms 6.514 ms 6.467 ms 6 cr84.phlpa.ip.att.net (12.122.107.214) 19.892 ms 18.814 ms 15.804 ms 7 cr2.phlpa.ip.att.net (12.122.107.117) 17.554 ms 15.693 ms 16.122 ms 8 cr1.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.4.54) 15.838 ms 15.353 ms 15.511 ms 9 cr83.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.123.10.110) 17.451 ms 15.183 ms 16.198 ms 10 12.84.5.93 9.982 ms 9.817 ms 9.784 ms 11 12.84.5.94 14.587 ms 14.301 ms 14.238 ms 12 10.141.3.209 13.870 ms 13.845 ms 13.696 ms 13 * * * … 30 * * * I tried it again with 100 hops, just to be sure – the packets never get there. So how is it that the server does respond to requests via http, even after a minute? Shouldn't all requests just die? I'm not sure how to proceed debugging why this server is slow (as opposed to why it responds at all).

  Read the article

• Prevent users from Router 2 seeing Router 1 computers

  - by Patrick Robert Shea O'Connor

  I've got 2 Netgear N300 (WNR2000v3) routers. Here's my setup: Modem Router 1 Private Users/Router 2 Public Wireless Users on "Guest" Network. I want to prevent users who are connected to Router 2's "Guest" network from accessing anything that is connected to Router 1. There is an option when setting up the "Guest" network called "Allow guest to access My Local Network" which I thought if unchecked would do this very thing; however, I can still access files and such of computers connected to Router 1. Router 1 assigns 192.0.0.x IP addresses, Router 2 assigns 10.0.0.x IP addresses, how can they even see each other? Do I need to change the subnet or something else?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >