Search Results

Search found 8979 results on 360 pages for 'dynamic routing'.

Page 73/360 | < Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >

• No Internet access while being connected to VPN using Cisco VPN Client 5.

  - by szeldon

  Hi, I have an access to corporate VPN using Cisco VPN Client 5.0.00:0340, but when I'm connected to it, I don't have an Internet access. I'm using Windows XP SP3. As it was suggested here http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread.php?t=209167 , I tried to enable "Allow local LAN Access" but it doesn't work. I also tried a second solution - deleting entry using "route" command, but it didn't help. I used "route delete 192.168.100.222". It's a third day of my attempts to solve this issue and I don't have an idea what else to do. I'm not very experienced in VPN stuff, but I know something about networking. Basing on my knowledge, I think that it's theoretically possible to achieve Internet access using my local network and only corporate stuff to be routed using VPN connection. I think that theoretically this should look like this: every IP being inside by corporation - VPN interface IP every other IP - my ethernet interface I've tried many possibilities of how to change those routes, but neither of them work. I'd really appreciate any help. My route configuration before connecting to VPN: =========================================================================== Interface List 0x1 ........................... MS TCP Loopback interface 0x2 ...00 c0 a8 de 79 01 ...... Atheros AR5006EG Wireless Network Adapter - Teefer2 Miniport 0x10005 ...02 00 4c 4f 4f 50 ...... Microsoft Loopback Card 0x160003 ...00 17 42 31 0e 16 ...... Marvell Yukon 88E8055 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller - Teefer2 Miniport =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Active routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metrics 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.101.254 192.168.100.222 10 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 10.0.0.10 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 30 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.100.0 255.255.254.0 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 192.168.100.222 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.100.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 3 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 2 1 Default gateway: 192.168.101.254. =========================================================================== My route configuration after connection to VPN: =========================================================================== Interface List 0x1 ........................... MS TCP Loopback interface 0x2 ...00 c0 a8 de 79 01 ...... Atheros AR5006EG Wireless Network Adapter - Teefer2 Miniport 0x10005 ...02 00 4c 4f 4f 50 ...... Microsoft Loopback Card 0x160003 ...00 17 42 31 0e 16 ...... Marvell Yukon 88E8055 PCI-E Gigabit Ethernet Controller - Teefer2 Miniport 0x170006 ...00 05 9a 3c 78 00 ...... Cisco Systems VPN Adapter - Teefer2 Miniport =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Active routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metrics 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.251.6.1 10.251.6.51 1 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.251.6.1 10.251.6.51 10 10.0.0.10 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 30 10.1.150.10 255.255.255.255 192.168.101.254 192.168.100.222 1 10.251.6.0 255.255.255.0 10.251.6.51 10.251.6.51 20 10.251.6.51 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 20 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.251.6.51 10.251.6.51 20 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.100.0 255.255.254.0 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 10 192.168.100.0 255.255.254.0 10.251.6.1 10.251.6.51 10 192.168.100.222 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 10 192.168.100.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 10 213.158.197.124 255.255.255.255 192.168.101.254 192.168.100.222 1 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 30 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.251.6.51 10.251.6.51 20 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 10 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.0.0.10 10.0.0.10 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.251.6.51 10.251.6.51 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 192.168.100.222 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.100.222 2 1 Default gateway: 10.251.6.1. ===========================================================================

  Read the article

• How can I make outbound requests from two servers that appear to come from the same IP address

  - by Brad

  I am making calls from an ec2 instance to a third party web service (over which I have no control). I would like to be able to scale horizontally, so that I can make these calls from multiple ec2 instances, but the web service I'm calling whitelists my IP, and for the sake of discussion let's assume I can't get another IP address whitelisted. How can I send requests from 2+ machines that appear to the web service to be from the same IP address? Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to build an outbound load balancer with linux?

  - by matnagel

  We have a small house in the countryside and there is no fixed broadband, so we had a mobile flatrate first, and for 2 people with 2 computers it was too slow, so now we have 2 flatrates for 2 client machines. So I pay 2 flatrates and have double bandwith theoretically. There is a local network in the house that connects everything. But when I am alone I wonder how I can use both connections at the same time. I want to build a solution where I can browse the web and page requests are spread between the 2 connections. I imagine there are expensive routers who can split the traffic between 2 lines. But is there a good way to do it with linux? The solution I am looking for will split the requests already for one page (multiple images, css files, javascrfipt files) between the two lines.

  Read the article

• OpenVZ multiple networks on CTs

  - by user6733

  I have Hardware Node (HN) which has 2 physical interfaces (eth0, eth1). I'm playing with OpenVZ and want to let my containers (CTs) have access to both of those interfaces. I'm using basic configuration - venet. CTs are fine to access eth0 (public interface). But I can't get CTs to get access to eth1 (private network). I tried: # on HN vzctl set 101 --ipadd 192.168.1.101 --save vzctl enter 101 ping 192.168.1.2 # no response here ifconfig # on CT returns lo (127.0.0.1), venet0 (127.0.0.1), venet0:0 (95.168.xxx.xxx), venet0:1 (192.168.1.101) I believe that the main problem is that all packets flows through eth0 on HN (figured out using tcpdump). So the problem might be in routes on HN. Or is my logic here all wrong? I just need access to both interfaces (networks) on HN from CTs. Nothing complicated.

  Read the article

• Do I need a VPN to secure communication over a T1 line?

  - by Seth

  I have a dedicated T1 line that runs between my office and my data center. Both ends have public IP addresses. On both ends, we have a T1 routers which connect to SonicWall firewalls. The SonicWalls do a site-to-site VPN and handle the network translation, so the computers on the office network (10.0.100.x) can access the servers in the rack (10.0.103.x). So the question: can I just add a static route to the SonicWalls so each network can access each other with out the VPN? Are there security problems (such as, someone else adding the appropriate static route and being able to access either the office or the datacenter)? Is there another / better way to do it? The reason I'm looking at this is because the T1 is already a pretty small pipe, and having the VPN overhead makes connectivity really slow.

  Read the article

• sbs-server with 2 nics and 2 connections to the internet with different providers not working as it

  - by erik-van-gorp

  We have the following configuration : A sbs-2003 server in a domain (mydomain.com) with 2 network cards, each connected to a different network (provider), with different gateways, one for web and one for mail and clients. (we do this because the bandwitdh we get from our providers is too small to handle all the mail(+spam) traffic and webservices, so we took 2 providers) DNS is as follows : www.mydomain.com 1.2.3.4 mail.mydomain.com 5.6.7.8 NIC 1(192.168.1.3) is connected to to the internet through a firewall at 192.168.1.1, having wan address 1.2.3.4 NIC 2(10.0.0.3) is connected to to the internet through a firewall at 10.0.0.1, having wan address 5.6.7.8 Both nics have their default gateway installed at their corresponding routers. Also the metrics are set equal. (i know this isn't a supported config, but it works more or less). In this configuration i can use RDP on both wan adresses, and telnet to port 25 works as well on both. The issue now is that since a few weeks , we get regular disconnections, and website hickups(timeouts), several per hour. If we set one router to a higher metric, that route no longer works. In short, I want the mails to route through NIC2 and the web through NIC1. Any better configuration (without installing a second mail server) ?

  Read the article

• Will my internet address for my internal site cause my traffic to go external?

  - by Toby Allen

  If I have two domains pointing to the same machine, but one resolves to an internal address and the other to my internet facing router, will there be any differnce in route taken to my machine (primarily in terms of performanc). eg. internal.mydomain.com resolves to 192.168.1.200 external.mydomain.com resolves to A.Web.External.IP both eventually resolve back to the same machine. For a client in the network, will using the external address give a performance penalty?

  Read the article

• Slackware - Assigning routes (IP address ranges) to one of many network adapters

  - by Dogbert

  I am using a Slackware 13.37 virtual machine within VirtualBox (current). I currently have a number of Ubuntu VMs on a single server, along with this Slackware VM. All VMs have been set up to use "Internal Network" mode, so they are all on a private LAN, and can see each other (ie: share files amongst themselves), but they remain private from the outside world. On on the these VMs (the Slackware one), I need to be able to grant it access to both this private network, and the internet at large. The first suggestion I found for handling this is to add another virtual network adapter to the VM, then set it to NAT. This results in the Slackware VM having the following network adapter setup: -NIC#1: Internal Network -NIC#2: NAT I want to set up the first network adapter (NIC#1) to handle all traffic on the following subnets: 10.10.0.0/255.255.0.0 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0 And I want the second virtual network adapter (NIC#2) to handle everything else (ie: internet access). May I please have some assistance in setting this up on my Slackware VM? Additionally, I have searched for similar questions on SuperUser and Stackoverflow, but they all seem to pertain to my situation (ie: they all refer to OSX, or Ubuntu via the use of some UI-based tool). I'm trying to do this on Slack specifically via the command-line. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Using iptables to forward traffic destined for specific ip via specific interface

  - by shapeshifter

  I want to forward traffic destined for a specific ip from my internal network via a specific interface. I have two interfaces which are currently load balanced. I need all requests for a certain ip to go out via eth0 otherwise my external ip changes and sessions are dropped. eg. all requests from 10.1.1.1/24 to ip 11.22.33.44 on port 443 must go out via interface eth0. How can I do this with iptables?

  Read the article

• What is a good router linux distro and WHY?

  - by madmaze

  I have a rather large home network with many clients. Ive decided I want to build a Linux based router, I have an 1.6Ghz dual-core(atom) system kicking around which will be re-purposed. So ive looked at a bunch of specific router distros but cant decide. I have also looked into taking a Ubuntu server or FreeBSD install and adding needed packages. So question is, what is the best router-Linux or base Linux distro and why? resources appreciated.

  Read the article

• Use first or last free IP for the default gateway?

  - by Thomas

  Please assume a simple LAN on 192.168.100.0/24. Would you configure the default router on 192.168.100.1 or 192.168.100.254 and why? Thanks

  Read the article

• One dns server in different subnets

  - by hofmeister

  I have installed a small Linux server; the server is in a different subnet as the internet hosts. I added a route to my nat router to create a connection between both subnets. In both subnets I use an extra dhcp Server. Subnet A: 192.168.0.0/26 Subnet B: 192.168.1.0/26 Router: 192.168.0.1, Server in A: 192.168.0.62, Server in B: 192.168.1.62 internet ____ nat router ___ (Sub A)___ internet hosts | |____(Sub B)___ other hosts I could ping every host. Also the hosts which are connected to the subnet b, has internet connection. But sadly I have a problem with the dns server. I use the dnsServer from my nat router, I set the dns Server for subnet b to the ip 192.168.0.1, but every dns entries are equal with the hostname from my linux server. Example if the hostname from the server is test Test 192.168.0.62 //Server subnet a Test-2 192.168.1.62 //Server subnet b Test-2-2 192.168.1.1 //host a Test-2-2-2 192.168.1.2 //host b Any idea what went wrong? The internet dns resolution works fine.

  Read the article

• IPTABLE & IP-routed netwok solution for HOST net and VM's subnet

  - by Daniel

  I've got ProxmoxVE2.1 ruled KVM node on Debian and bunch of VM's guests machine. That is how my networking looks like: # network interface settings auto lo iface lo inet loopback # device: eth0 auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 175.219.59.209 gateway 175.219.59.193 netmask 255.255.255.224 post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/proxy_arp And I've got two working subnet solution auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 10.10.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 post-up ip route add 10.10.0.1/24 dev vmbr0 This way I can reach internet, to resolve outside hosts, update and download everything I need but can't reach one guest VM out of any other VM's inside my network. The second solution allows me to communicate between VM's: auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet static address 10.10.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward post-up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s '10.10.0.0/24' -o vmbr1 -j MASQUERADE post-down iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -s '10.10.0.0/24' -o vmbr1 -j MASQUERADE I can even NAT internal addresses: -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 789 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.10.0.220:345 My inexperienced mind is ready to double VM's net adapters: one for the first solution and another - for second (with slightly different adresses) but I'm pretty sure that it's a dumb way to resolve the problem and everything can be resolved via iptables/ip route rules that I can't create. I've tried a dozen of "wizard manuals" and "howto's" to mix both solution but without success. Looking for an advice (and good reading links for networking begginers).

  Read the article

• What are the advantages of OSPF vs nexthop self with iBGP?

  - by Matt Hamilton

  Assuming I have a fairly small network internally, but I have 4 routers each connected out to a different network. The routers are all sat next to each other connected via a switch. Each router uses BGP to speak to the outside networks. There is an iBGP mesh for each router to exchange the routes internally it knows about from each external network. The usual setup is to use OSPF to distribute the connected routes, as the routes via iBGP will still have the next hop set to their original value. What is the advantage of using OSPF in this scenario versus simply using 'set nexthop self' on the routes?

  Read the article

• Nginx fastcgi problems with django

  - by wizard

  I'm deploying my first django app. I'm familiar with nginx and fastcgi from deploying php-fpm. I can't get python to recognize the urls. I'm also at a loss on how to debug this further. I'd welcome solutions to this problem and tips on debugging fastcgi problems. Currently I get a 404 page regardless of the url and for some reason a double slash For http://www.site.com/admin/ Page not found (404) Request Method: GET Request URL: http://www.site.com/admin// My urls.py from the debug output - which work in the dev server. Using the URLconf defined in ahrlty.urls, Django tried these URL patterns, in this order: ^listings/ ^admin/ ^accounts/login/$ ^accounts/logout/$ my nginx config server { listen 80; server_name beta.ahrlty.com; access_log /home/ahrlty/ahrlty/logs/access.log; error_log /home/ahrlty/ahrlty/logs/error.log; location /static/ { alias /home/ahrlty/ahrlty/ahrlty/static/; break; } location /media/ { alias /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/django/contrib/admin/media/; break; } location / { include /etc/nginx/fastcgi_params; fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:8001; break; } } and my fastcgi_params fastcgi_param QUERY_STRING $query_string; fastcgi_param REQUEST_METHOD $request_method; fastcgi_param CONTENT_TYPE $content_type; fastcgi_param CONTENT_LENGTH $content_length; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_NAME $fastcgi_script_name; fastcgi_param REQUEST_URI $request_uri; fastcgi_param DOCUMENT_URI $document_uri; fastcgi_param DOCUMENT_ROOT $document_root; fastcgi_param SERVER_PROTOCOL $server_protocol; fastcgi_param GATEWAY_INTERFACE CGI/1.1; fastcgi_param SERVER_SOFTWARE nginx/$nginx_version; fastcgi_param REMOTE_ADDR $remote_addr; fastcgi_param REMOTE_PORT $remote_port; fastcgi_param SERVER_ADDR $server_addr; fastcgi_param SERVER_PORT $server_port; fastcgi_param SERVER_NAME $server_name; fastcgi_param PATH_INFO $fastcgi_script_name; # PHP only, required if PHP was built with --enable-force-cgi-redirect fastcgi_param REDIRECT_STATUS 200; And lastly I'm running fastcgi from the commandline with django's manage.py. python manage.py runfcgi method=threaded host=127.0.0.1 port=8080 pidfile=mysite.pid minspare=4 maxspare=30 daemonize=false I'm having a hard time debugging this one. Does anything jump out at anybody?

  Read the article

• IPv6 host route is deleted after PMTU expires

  - by SAPikachu

  I am experimenting my new IPv6 tunnel setup between my local Ubuntu box and a scratch Linode. I set up some docker containers, configured 6in4 tunnel server and IPv6 forwarding on the Linode: # uname -a Linux argo 3.15.4-x86_64-linode45 #1 SMP Mon Jul 7 08:42:36 EDT 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # ip addr .. snipped .. 48: sit-sapikachu: <POINTOPOINT,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1472 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default link/sit 106.185.41.115 peer 1.2.3.4 inet6 fd00::1/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::6ab9:2973/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 13: docker0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UP group default link/ether 56:84:7a:fe:97:99 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 172.17.42.1/16 scope global docker0 valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fc00::1/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::5484:7aff:fefe:9799/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever // Docker containers are bridged to docker0 On my local box, I configured a 6in4 tunnel interface to connect to the Linode box, and added a host route to one of the docker container: # uname -a Linux sapikachu-netbox 3.13.0-24-generic #47-Ubuntu SMP Fri May 2 23:30:00 UTC 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # ip addr .. snipped .. 16: sit-argo: <POINTOPOINT,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1480 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default link/sit 0.0.0.0 peer 106.185.41.115 inet6 fd00::2/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::a97:302/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::ac19:1/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::c0a8:1f0/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::c0a8:1fa/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP group default qlen 1000 link/ether *** brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff .. snipped .. inet6 fd00:0:1::1/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::2e0:6fff:fe0e:365e/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever # ip route replace fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d via fd00::1 # Add route to docker container # ip -6 route .. snipped unrelated routes fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d via fd00::1 dev sit-argo metric 1024 expires 590sec mtu 1472 fd00::/64 dev sit-argo proto kernel metric 256 fd00:0:1::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 fe80::/64 dev sit-argo proto kernel metric 256 (Note that tunnel MTU on my local box is different from the server, this is intentional for testing) After adding the host route to the docker container (fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d), I can ping the container without problem until the route expires. After that I couldn't get reply any more. If I run ip -6 route in a few seconds after expiration, expiration time of the host route will be a negative number: fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d via fd00::1 dev sit-argo metric 1024 expires -1sec And output of ip route get fc00::1875:8606:d8c1:8a9d shows that it is routed to my default IPv6 gateway (which fails to route it correctly of course, since the address is not globally routable). After some time, the host route disappears without a trace. This problem won't happen if I do either one of the following things: Set MTU of tunnel on my local box to be the same as the server (1472). The route won't have expiration time in both ip -6 route and ip route get in this case. Instead of adding a host route, add a route with network mask (even /127 works). In this case ip -6 route shows the route without expiration time, ip route get shows expiration time but it will be correctly refreshed after expiration. Although this problem can be easily resolved, I am curious to know why this happens. Is there error in my configuration, or is this a kernel bug?

  Read the article

• Using a nat rule to translate 80/443 traffic to web server, but internal users cannot access it using external ip/domain name

  - by Josh

  I am using Cisco ASDM for ASA I have my internal network called soa. My outside interface is called outside. Let's say my outside IP given to me by my ISP isp is y.y.y.y I have a web server inside my network with a static ip of x.x.x.110. I have configured 2 static nat rules (one for http the other for https). Source is x.x.x.110. Interface is outside, service (http or https). Maybe I am doing this wrong, but when I run the packet tracer, I choose outside interface and for the source IP I used 8.8.8.8 and the destination ip is my outside IP address, y.y.y.y When I run that, it shows the packet traversing successfully, using 9 steps. For my other test, I switch to the soa interface, input an ip on that network, and leave the destination the same. This test comes up with 2 steps and then fails on my access list. When I see the rule that fails, it is my catch all which is source: any desitnation: any, service: ip action: deny. What rule do I need to make to allow my soa network access to go out and come back in by my external IP addess (using a domain name attached to that ip in my dns, of course)?

  Read the article

• ADD ROUTE command in windows 2008R2

  - by Mehrdad Kamelzadeh

  I don't know much about Networking, So excuse me if I am raising some basic issues. I have a LAN where there is a Windows Server 2008R2 with some clients connected to it. The clients are not joined to the domain of the Server (they are in a WORKGROUP). I have set up a VPS on the server machine (PPTP) with a Static address pool of range 10.0.0.1 - 10.0.0.10 but the LAN range itself is 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.254. When I connect to the server from another location over the internet, I can just see the server and I can not see the other clients which are in the same LAN as the server. what to do to see the other clients? a friend of mine said that you should use the ADD ROUTE command. Beacuse of that I used this command as my title. What would be the best way to address this problem? Thanks

  Read the article

• How to route packets from Wi-Fi to Ethernet on OSX?

  - by Alexander Artemenko

  I have a trouble, configuring a home network. Here is how my devices are connected together: Internet     ? Wi-Fi Router ? MacBook     ? iMac ?ethernet cable? Synology NAS I have no ability to plugin NAS right into the Wi-Fi router. The problem is that MacBook does not see NAS, because they are in different networks — I configured Wi-Fi Router to serve 192.168.10.0/24 addresses, and configured iMac's ethernet connection to use 192.168.20/24 network. Is there a way to setup route from MacBook to the NAS?

  Read the article

• How secure is a subnet?

  - by HorusKol

  I have an unfortunate complication in my network - some users/computers are attached to a completely private and firewalled office network that we administer (10.n.n.x/24 intranet), but others are attached to a subnet provided by a third party (129.n.n.x/25) as they need to access the internet via the third party's proxy. I have previously set up a gateway/router to allow the 10.n.n.x/24 network internet access: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interface iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT However, I now need to enable access to users on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet to some private servers on the 10.n.n.x/24 network. I figured that I could do something like: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.n.n.x/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.n.n.x/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two public connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT My concern is that I know that the computers on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet can be accessed via a VPN through the larger network operated by the provider - therefore, would it be possible for someone on the provider's supernet (correct term? inverse of subnet?) to be able to access our private 10.n.n.x/24 intranet?

  Read the article

• Network topology for both direct and routed traffic between two nodes

  - by IndigoFire

  Despite it's small size, this is the most difficult network design problem I've faced. There are three nodes in this network: PC running Windows XP with an internal WiFi adapter.Base station with both WiFi and a Wireless Modem (WiModem)Mobile device with both WiFi and WiModem The modem is a low-bandwidth but high-reliability connection. We'd like to use WiFi for high-bandwidth stuff like file transfers when the mobile is nearby, and the modem for control information. Here's the tricky part: we'd like the wifi traffic to go directly from the mobile to the PC, as rebroadcasting packets on the same WiFi channel takes up double the bandwidth. We can do that with a manual configuration by giving the both the PC and the base station two IP addresses for their WiFi interfaces: one on a subnet shared with the mobile, and one on their own subnet. The routes on the PC are set up so that any traffic going to the mobile via WiModem goes through the secondary IP address so that return traffic from the mobile also goes through the WiModem. Here's what that looks like: PC WiFi 1: 192.168.2.10/24 WiFi 2: 192.168.3.10/24 Default route: 192.168.2.1 Base Station WiFi 1: 192.168.2.1/24 WiFi 2: 192.168.3.1/24 WiModem: 192.168.4.1/24 Mobile WiFi: 192.168.3.20/24 WiModem: 192.168.4.20/24 We'd like to move to having the base station automatically configure the mobile and PC, as the manual setup is problematic when you start having multiple mobiles and PCs. This means that the PC can only have 1 IP address and needs to be treated as being pretty simple. Is it possible to have a setup driven by DHCP on the base station that is efficient with bandwidth?

  Read the article

• How to route traffic through a VPN tunnel?

  - by Gabriel

  The problem with our server is that we need to use the bug ridden and awful AT&T network client, which causes our server to bluescreen once per 24 hours. Does any one know how to (or has a good guide) quickly set up a workstation running Windows server 2008 R2 as a proxy server. So this spare workstation would run AT&T and would act as a bridge between our server and the server that can be connected to only via the AT&T VPN software. And this way our own production server would not crash so often (or not at all) and the workstation can happily crash whenever it wants to.

  Read the article

• IPTABLES route, redirect, forwardc traffic

  - by Anthony

  I am trying to redirect traffic from one IP reached on a specific port to a website. For example I have two external ips, lets say 194.145.63.1 and 194.145.63.2 set on one network card as 194.145.63.1 - eth0 and 194.145.63.2 -eth0:1 mywebsite.com allows access only from 194.145.63.1 and I want to set my rules like if I hit http://194.145.63.2:8080 to open mywebsite.com trough 194.145.63.1. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• How can the route between two private IPs go via public IPs?

  - by Gilles

  I'm trying to understand what this output from traceroute means. I changed the IP addresses for privacy but retained the public/private IP range distinction. traceroute.db -e -n 10.1.1.9 traceroute to (10.1.1.9), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 10.0.0.1 0.596 ms 0.588 ms 0.577 ms 2 10.0.0.2 1.032 ms 1.029 ms 1.084 ms 3 10.0.0.3 3.360 ms 3.355 ms 3.338 ms 4 23.0.0.4 3.974 ms 4.592 ms 4.584 ms 5 23.0.0.5 13.442 ms 13.445 ms 13.434 ms 6 45.0.0.6 13.195 ms 12.924 ms 12.913 ms 7 67.0.0.7 52.088 ms 51.683 ms 52.040 ms 8 10.1.1.8 46.878 ms 44.575 ms 44.815 ms 9 10.1.1.9 45.932 ms 45.603 ms 45.593 ms The first 10.0.* range is inside my organisation. The last 10.1.* range is another site of my organisation. The intermediate addresses belong to various ISPs. I expect that there is some kind of VPN between the two sites, but I don't know much about our network topology. What I don't understand is how the route can go from a private address through public addresses back into private addresses. Searching led me to Public IPs on MPLS Traceroute, which gives a possible explanation: MPLS. Is MPLS the only possible or most likely explanation? Otherwise what does this tell me about our network infrastructure? Bonus question for my edification: in this scenario, who is generating the ICMP TTL exceeded packets and if relevant mangling their source and destination addresses?

  Read the article

• Allow access to printer between interfaces on Cisco ASA5510

  - by Jonas Stensved

  I have a Cisco ASA5510 where we have to separate networks on two separate interfaces. The networks have and should have nothing to do with each other except that network B needs to access a printer on network A. Network A: 192.168.137.0/24 Printer: 192.168.137.20 Network B: 192.168.0.0/24 I've added an incoming rule from Network A to the Printer IP in the ASDM interface but clients can't print. Our previous router was configured to let traffic through so the clients on Network B is already configured so it think it should work if the traffic is allowed. How do I let clients on Network B communicate with the printer?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >