Search Results

Search found 13928 results on 558 pages for 'large scale nat'.

Page 121/558 | < Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >

• Network config for KVM on physical machine with single NIC and single public IP

  - by neo0

  I have a physical machine running CentOS 6.4 and I will rent a place to run it in a data center. I want to install KVM on that machine to run some virtual machines. The problem is my physical machine have only one NIC and the data center give me a public IP for that interface. So how should I configure network on the physical machine to make it assign for each vm a private IP that can connect to Internet. If I create a br0 bridged with eth0 interface and create a vm with option --bridge=br0 then KVM could not assign an IP for the vm so setup can not be done. Should I use NAT mode? Does KVM have any host-only network like Virtualbox? But the vm still has to connect to outside? Thank you! Update I install the guest network using NAT (--network network:default) and then I only have to port-forwarding from the host. But if I config br0 bridged with physical eth0 then the guest can not get an IP from boot. So I removed the br0 and it worked.

  Read the article

• Iptables - Redirect outbound traffic on a port to inbound traffic on 127.0.0.1

  - by GoldenNewby

  I will be awarding a +100 bounty to the correct answer once it is available in 48 hours Is there a way to redirect traffic set to go out of the server to another IP, back to the server on localhost (preferably as if it was coming from the original destination)? I'd basically like to be able to set up my own software that listens on say, port 80, and receives traffic that was sent to say, 1.2.3.4. So as an example with some code. Here would be the server: my $server = IO::Socket::INET->new( LocalAddr => '127.0.0.1', LocalPort => '80', Listen => 128, ); And that would receive traffic from the following client: my $client = IO::Socket::INET->new( PeerAddr => 'google.com', PeerPort => '80', ) So rather than having the client be connecting to google.com, it would be connecting to the server I have listening on localhost for that same server. My intention is to use this to catch malware connecting to remote hosts. I don't specifically need the traffic to be redirected to 127.0.0.1, but it needs to be redirected to an IP the same machine can listen to. Edit: I've tried the following, and it doesn't work-- echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 127.0.0.1:80 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE

  Read the article

• iptables: allowing incoming for 192.168.1.0/24 allowed incoming for all?

  - by nortally

  The internal side of my ISP router has three devices: ISP router 128.128.43.1 Firewall router 128.128.43.2 Server 128.128.43.3 Behind the Firewall router is a NAT network using 192.168.100.n/24 This question is regarding iptables running on the Server. I wanted to allow access to port 8080 only from the NAT clients behind the Firewall router, so I used this rule -A Firewall-1-INPUT -s 192.168.100.0/24 -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT This worked, but UNEXPECTEDLY ALLOWED GLOBAL ACCESS, which resulted in our JBOSS server getting compromised. I now know that the correct rule is to use the Firewall router's address instead of the internal network, but can anyone explain why the first rule allowed global access? I would have expected it to just fail. Full config, mostly lifted from a RedHat server: *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :Firewall-1-INPUT - [0:0] -A INPUT -j Firewall-1-INPUT -A FORWARD -j Firewall-1-INPUT -A Firewall-1-INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT -A Firewall-1-INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type any -j ACCEPT -A Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A Firewall-1-INPUT -m comment --comment "allow ssh from all" -A Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT -A Firewall-1-INPUT -m comment --comment "allow https from all" -A Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT -A Firewall-1-INPUT -m comment --comment "allow JBOSS from Firewall" ### THIS RESULTED IN GLOBAL ACCESS TO PORT 8080 ### -A Firewall-1-INPUT -s 192.168.100.0/24 -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT ### THIS WORKED -A Firewall-1-INPUT -s 128.128.43.2 -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 8080 -j ACCEPt ### -A Firewall-1-INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT

  Read the article

• Batch deletion of smaller files from group of files via unix command line

  - by artlung

  I have a large number (more than 400) of directories full of photos. What I want to do is to keep the larger sizes of these photos. Each directory has 31 to 66 files in it. Each directory has thumbnails, and larger versions, plus a file called example.jpg I dispatched the example.jpg file easily with: rm */example.jpg I initially thought that it would be easy to delete the thumbnails, but the problem is they are not consistently named. The typical pattern was photo1.jpg and photo1s.jpg. I did rm */photo*s.jpg but it ended up some of the files named photoXs.jpg were actually larger and not smaller. Argh. So what I want to do is scan each directory for filesize and delete (or move) the thumbnails. I initially thought I'd just ls -R every file and extract the size of each file and save those under a threshold. The problem? In one directory the large will be 1.1 MB and the thumb is 200k. In another the large is 200k and the small 30k. Even worse, the files really are mostly named photo1.jpg - so simply putting them all in the same folder, sorting by size, and deleting in groups would not work without renaming already, and if it's possible I'd prefer to keep them in their folders. I was almost resolved to just doing this all manually, but then thought I'd ask here. How would you do this task?

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2008 R2 RAS VPN: access server on internal interface ip

  - by Mathias

  short question: I'm usually a linux admin but need to setup a Win2k8 R2 server for a student project. The server is running as VM on a root server and has a public internet IP assigned. Additionally I need a VPN server to access some services running on the server. I managed to set up a working VPN gateway via the Routing and RAS service which assigns clients an IP in the private subnet 192.168.88.0/24 with the Interface "Internal" listening on 192.168.88.1. Additionally I set up the external interface as NAT interface. So I can connect to the VPN server, get an IP assigned and the server additionally does NAT and I can access the internet over the VPN connection. The only thing I additionally need, is that I can access the server itself over that internal IP (e.g. client 192.168.88.2, server 192.168.88.1) as I want to access some services which I don't like to expose to the internet and restrict them to connected VPN clients. Does anybody have a hint, which configuration I'm missing here to be able to access the server over the VPN connection? EDIT: VPN clients get assigned the IP from the private subnet with subnetmask 255.255.255.255, I guess that might be the reason I can't access the server on the private IP address although it's in the same network range. Any ideas how to change this? I defined a static address pool in the Routing and RAS service, but I can't change the netmask there. EDIT2: I can't access the server from the client, but I can fully access the client from the server (ping, HTTP). I guess it has to do with firewall configuration. Thanks in advance, Mathias

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2008 R2 RAS VPN: access server on internal interface ip

  - by Mathias

  Hey, short question: I'm usually a linux admin but need to setup a Win2k8 R2 server for a student project. The server is running as VM on a root server and has a public internet IP assigned. Additionally I need a VPN server to access some services running on the server. I managed to set up a working VPN gateway via the Routing and RAS service which assigns clients an IP in the private subnet 192.168.88.0/24 with the Interface "Internal" listening on 192.168.88.1. Additionally I set up the external interface as NAT interface. So I can connect to the VPN server, get an IP assigned and the server additionally does NAT and I can access the internet over the VPN connection. The only thing I additionally need, is that I can access the server itself over that internal IP (e.g. client 192.168.88.2, server 192.168.88.1) as I want to access some services which I don't like to expose to the internet and restrict them to connected VPN clients. Does anybody have a hint, which configuration I'm missing here to be able to access the server over the VPN connection? EDIT: VPN clients get assigned the IP from the private subnet with subnetmask 255.255.255.255, I guess that might be the reason I can't access the server on the private IP address although it's in the same network range. Any ideas how to change this? I defined a static address pool in the Routing and RAS service, but I can't change the netmask there. EDIT2: I can't access the server from the client, but I can fully access the client from the server (ping, HTTP). I guess it has to do with firewall configuration. Thanks in advance, Mathias

  Read the article

• Possible to IPSec VPN Tunnel Public IP Addresses?

  - by caleban

  A customer uses an IBM SAS product over the internet. Traffic flows from the IBM hosting data center to the customer network through Juniper VPN appliances. IBM says they're not tunneling private IP addresses. IBM says they're tunneling public IP addresses. Is this possible? What does this look like in the VPN configuration and in the packets? I'd like to know what the source/destination ip/ports would look like in the encrypted tunneled IPSec Payload and in the IP packet carrying the IPSec Payload. IPSec Payload: source:1.1.1.101:1001 destination:2.2.2.101:2001 IP Packet: source:1.1.1.1:101 destination:2.2.2.1:201 Is it possible to send public IP addresses through an IPSec VPN tunnel? Is it possible for IBM to send a print job from a server on their network using the static-nat public address over a VPN to a printer at a customer network using the printer's static-nat public address? Or can a VPN not do this? Can a VPN only work with interesting traffic from and to private IP addresses?

  Read the article

• Sonicwall TZ210 - Set up public wifi on separate subnet & interface

  - by thomasjbarrett

  I want to set up a public wifi by connecting another router to the X6 interface, and put it on a separate subnet (192.168.10.0/24) & in the DMZ Zone to keep it away from the regular LAN. I believe I have the network settings correct: the router has acquired the IP and DNS information from the TZ210, and the TZ210 shows it as an active DHCP lease. X6 is in the DMZ. I now have a routing/NAT/firewall problem, since I can't get any traffic to travel from the subnet to the internet. I can't get to any external websites and can't ping the TZ210 from the subnet. X0 is the regular LAN, and X1 is the WAN. Looking for any tips or tutorials on this. Here's my current relevant rules: Routing Source: X6 Subnet Destination: Any Service: Any Gateway: Default Gateway Interface: X6 Source: Any Destination: X6 Subnet Service: Any Gateway: 0.0.0.0 Interface: X6 NAT Policies Source Original: Any Translated: WAN IP Destination Original: Any Translated: Original Inbound: X6 Outbound: X1 Source Original: Any Translated: U0 IP Destination Original: Any Translated: Original Inbound: X6 Outbound: U0 Firewall DMZ LAN : Deny All DMZ WAN : Allow All LAN DMZ : Allow All WAN DMZ : Allow All

  Read the article

• How to route to a secondary interface on the same physical ethernet?

  - by sjose3612611

  INTERNET<->(wan)BRIDGED_DEVICE(lan)<->ETH_ROUTER<->LAN Problem: Need to access web server on BRIDGED_DEVICE's LAN from INTERNET via ROUTER (BRIDGED_DEVICE's web server cannot be accessed form INTERNET since it has no Public management IP). Cannot configure bridged device. It has a static IP on its LAN to which its web server binds. Attempt: Create a secondary/alias WAN Interface on ETH_ROUTER (e.g Primary: eth0.1 (for internet access) and Secondary: eth0.2 (for accessing web server on BRIDGED_DEVICE), (No VLANs). eth0.1 has a public IP; eth0.2 has a static private IP in the BRIDGED_DEVICE's subnet (e.g 10.0.X.Y). Iptables on ETH_ROUTER: Added a port forward (DNAT) from eth0.1 to eth0.2: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -i eth0.1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.0.X.Y iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth0.2 -s 10.0.X.0/24 -j MASQUERADE Stateful firewall w/ overall drop policy on FORWARD chain, hence: iptables -I FORWARD -i eth0.1 -d 10.0.X.Y -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT Can ping from ETH_ROUTER to BRIDGED_DEVICE but unable to reach the web server from Internet. I see packet cont increasing for the DNAT rule but not sure where it disappears in the ETH_ROUTER after that. ETH_ROUTER is the only device that can be configured to achieve this. If familiar with this scenario, please suggest what I may be missing or doing wrong here or suggest techniques to debug?

  Read the article

• Asterisk terminating outbound call when picked up, sends 'BYE' message

  - by vo

  I'm running Asterisk 1.6.1.10 / FreePBX 2.5.2.2 and I've got an outbound trunk setup. Everything use to work fine until recently (perhaps due to upgrade to FC12 or other things I'm not sure). Anyway the setup does not appear to have issues registering and setting up the call, RTP packets go both ways and you can hear the ringing from the other side. However it appears that when the call is picked up or thereabouts, the incoming RTP packets cease. Upon closer inspection with Wireshark, there are these particular packets that seem to be the cause: trunk->asterisk SIP/SD Status: 200 OK, with session description asterisk->trunk SIP Request: ACK sip:<phone>@trunk:6889 asterisk->trunk SIP Request: BYE sip:<phone>@trunk:6889 [..about a dozzen RTP packets in/outbound..] trunk->asterisk SIP Status: 200 OK, CSeq: 104 Bye [..outbound RTP continues, phone is silent..] Then the inbound RTP packets cease, however the asterisk logs dont show any activity at this point. The last entry reads 'SIP/ is answered SIP/'. Then when you hangup the extension, you get asterisk->trunk SIP Request: BYE sip:<phone>@trunk:6889 trunk->asterisk SIP Status: 481 Call Leg/Transaction does not exist My trunk peer settings in FreePBX are: username=<user> fromuser=<user> canreinvite=no type=friend secret=<pass> qualify=no [qualify yes produces 401/forbidden messages] nat=yes insecure=very host=<sip trunk gateway> fromdomain=<sip trunk gateway> disallow=all context=from-pstn allow=ulaw dtmfmode=inband Under sip_general_custom.conf i have stunaddr=stun.xten.com externrefresh=120 localnet=192.168.1.1/255.255.255.0 nat=yes Whats causing Asterisk to prematurely end the call and still think the call is in progress? I have no idea where to look next.

  Read the article

• RRAS Public Address Pool on Windows Server 2008

  - by Art

  I have a Windows 2008 server with two NICs running RRAS and a small public website. It also does NAT for several other PCs on my network and everything works great. I have a block of 5 public static IPs from my ISP, one of which is bound to the public NIC in the Windows 2008 server. I would like to assign one of the remainging 4 public IPs to a machine on my private network. I thought I could do this by going into RRAS, selecting NAT under IPv4 and then adding the public IP address to the address pool and specifying a reservation for the machine I would like to use that address by adding its private ip address. When I do this, the machine I reserved the public IP address for seems to loose all outside network connectivity. I can still ping other PCs on my 192.168.0.* net, but anything outside is no longer reachable. When I remove the reservation, everything seems to work. After setting the reservation and right clicking on the external public interface and selecting 'Show Mappings' I can see outbound requests from my private address with the desired associated private address, however I do not see any inbound requests. What am I doing wrong/missing?

  Read the article

• Cannot access firewalled jboss server from Internet Explorer

  - by Simon Gibbs

  I've produced a website for a client One Single Menu using JBoss and hosted it on Rackspace Cloud Servers running Ubuntu's Maverick Meerkat. Following advice, I esablished some iptables rule to protect jboss: iptables -I INPUT 1 -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 8080 iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 8080 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -o lo -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 8080 iptables -A INPUT -j DROP Now, several versions of IE on several computers on at least two different ISPs cannot access the onesinglemenu.com. Curl from within the datacenter, Firefox, and Safari on the same ISPs can all access the server fine. I even tried IE and Firefox on the same computer and IE failed but Firefox worked. The error behaviour is that IE hangs on connecting without reporting an error, even after a minute or so. No page is displayed at all. I find it quite odd that I'm having a browser specific connection issue, but it appears to be the case. Help!

  Read the article

• internet-based sync software that will keep running after Windows Live Sync stops doing PC-to-PC-syncs?

  - by Warren P

  According to the wikipedia page, Microsoft Live Sync will shortly stop offering the PC-to-PC sync service. There are lots of apps to sync two PCs on the same LAN, but I want to sync two PCs that are in different cities, across the internet, traversing two different NATs, and that requires some kind of service running in the internet that both connect into. There is already a few questions about syncing folders and files, but this is not a duplicate because none of them answer this basic question: Microsoft Live Sync works better than RSYNC, or any of the linked SYNC solutions in any of the "not really duplicates" because it works even when the two PCs have NAT and firewalls between them that forbid direct connectivity, because Windows Live Sync has a free always-on internet server that all the client PCs connect into. I'm looking for a FREE (no-fees) Microsoft Live Sync work-alike PC-to-PC sync solution that works between PCs and Macs, at least, as well as between PCs, and works behind NAT and firewalls at least as well as Microsoft's solution. (Note that Microsoft's solution makes only outbound socket calls to a microsoft server, so this solution must necessarily include a server-hub component that is hosted publically on a free site and which does not require that I set up and manage and pay for my own public internet hosting site) Hint: None of the answers in the linked duplicate are equivalent (PureSync,FreeFileSync,BestSync 2010,SyncButler,Comodo BackUp,QuickShadow,Gbridge) in that none of them work for the PC to Mac situation, where firewalls and nats prevent direct connection, or else they require money to be paid. When Microsoft Live Sync / Live Mesh finally kills direct PC-to-PC mode, the limitation will be that you will have to pay for more than 25 GB of cloud service, and you can then only sync PC #1 to PC #2 if you first sync to the cloud, then down to other clients. I can currently sync 100 gb of data from one computer to another, only temporarily "moving the data" through Microsoft's data servers without using up my Skydrive storage quota.

  Read the article

• VirtualBox: Can't get Bridged Networking to work (Win7 host)

  - by MikeTheTall

  I'm trying to set up a virtual LAMP server, including sharing files between the guest OS (Ubuntu Server) and the host OS (Windows 7) using samba. I think my problem is that I can't get Bridged (or Host-Only) networking to work in VirtualBox. I can boot the Linux VM just fine with NAT, but then can't access any services on it directly (except after port-forwarding port 80)(my understanding is that port-forwarding works because I'm not running a web server on the host OS, and therefore it can forward traffic to the unused port 80). I don't think that port-forwarding samba traffic (from the host to the guest) will work since I think that the host OS is using those ports. When I turn off NAT and turn bridged networking on I get an error. The VM fails to boot, with a dialog popping up (title: VirtualBox - Error) that says "Failed to open a session for the virtual machine UbuntuServer. Configuration error: Failed to get MAC address (VERR_CFGM_VALUE_NOT_FOUND). I'm hoping that once this is resolved then samba will work ok :) Any advice on this would be great (how to fix it would be wonderful, next steps for troubleshooting would be great, too :) )

  Read the article

• Is iptable capable of this or should I go with mod_proxy?

  - by Jesper

  I'm trying to configure my network to receive an incoming connection on one device and then redirect it to another device on a specific port. Right now I'm on about port 80 and a device running apache. The problem I'm facing is that when the forwarding is done it also sets the source ip to the first device instead of the source ip the user that connects to the service has. Let me illustrate it: [Internet User] = 7.7.7.7 connects to [Device 1] = 1.1.1.1:80 [Device 1] forwards it to [Device 2] = 1.1.1.2:80 [Device 2] outputs response that [Internet User] sees So on [Device 2] I will naturally see [Device 1]s IP in the logs, but I wanna see if there is a way to connect the internet user through [Device 1] to [Device 2] while seeing the real source IP in the logs on [Device 2]. Is that possible? My rule-set looks like this at the moment: (on Device 1) iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 80 --to-destination 1.1.1.2:80 iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -j SNAT -p tcp -d 1.1.1.2 --to-source 1.1.1.1 On [Device 2] it accepts all incoming on port 80 from [Device 1] as well as accepts all related and established connections. So, would there be any way to get the real source onto [Device 2]? Let me know if you need more information!

  Read the article

• L2TP over IPSec VPN with OpenSwan and XL2TPD can't connect, timeout on Centos 6

  - by Disco

  I'm setting up LT2p over IPSec on my Centos 6.3 fresh install. I have iptables flushed, permit all. Whenever I try to connect, i get a 'no reply from vpn' and nothi Here's my ipsec.conf file (Server is 1.2.3.4) : config setup nat_traversal=yes virtual_private=%v4:10.0.0.0/8,%v4:192.168.0.0/16,%v4:172.16.0.0/12 oe=off protostack=netkey conn L2TP-PSK-NAT rightsubnet=vhost:%priv also=L2TP-PSK-noNAT conn L2TP-PSK-noNAT authby=secret pfs=no auto=add keyingtries=3 rekey=no ikelifetime=8h keylife=1h type=transport left=1.2.3.4 leftprotoport=17/1701 right=%any rightprotoport=17/%any My /etc/ipsec.secrets 1.2.3.4 %any: PSK "password" My sysctl.conf (appened lines) net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter = 0 net.ipv4.conf.all.send_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.send_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.conf.all.log_martians = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.log_martians = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.accept_source_route = 0 net.ipv4.conf.all.accept_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.accept_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.icmp_ignore_bogus_error_responses = 1 Here's what 'ipsec verify' gives: # ipsec verify Checking your system to see if IPsec got installed and started correctly: Version check and ipsec on-path [OK] Linux Openswan U2.6.32/K2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.x86_64 (netkey) Checking for IPsec support in kernel [OK] SAref kernel support [N/A] NETKEY: Testing for disabled ICMP send_redirects [OK] NETKEY detected, testing for disabled ICMP accept_redirects [OK] Checking that pluto is running [OK] Pluto listening for IKE on udp 500 [OK] Pluto listening for NAT-T on udp 4500 [OK] Checking for 'ip' command [OK] Checking /bin/sh is not /bin/dash [WARNING] Checking for 'iptables' command [OK] Opportunistic Encryption Support [DISABLED] And I see xl2tpd is listening on 1701/udp : udp 0 0 1.2.3.4:1701 0.0.0.0:* 2096/xl2tpd

  Read the article

• Cannot browse ipv4 websites (OpenVPN )

  - by user1494428

  I have set up an openVPN tunnel on my VPS (OpenVZ - Ubuntu 12.04). The problem is when I'm connected to the vpn, I can only browse websites which support ipv6 like google. Ipv4 sites aren't loading (no error, just waiting indefinitely). http://whatismyv6.com/ reports me that I've an ipv6 address, so I guess this is the problem. Server configuration: dev tun server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt ca /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/ca.crt cert /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/server.crt key /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/server.key dh /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/dh1024.pem push "route 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0" push "dhcp-option DNS 8.8.8.8" push "dhcp-option DNS 8.8.4.4" push "redirect-gateway def1" comp-lzo persist-tun persist-key status openvpn-status.log log /var/log/openvpn.log verb 3 Client configuration: client remote xx.xx.xx.xx 1194 dev tun comp-lzo ca ca.crt cert client1.crt key client1.key redirect-gateway def1 verb 3 I have configured NAT with this command: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j SNAT --to xx.xx.xx.xx Can someone explain me how I can make it works (forcing ipv4?) I had the same problem with another vps and I also tried on another client (All Windows 7).

  Read the article

• iptables forwarding to a dummy interface

  - by madinc

  Hi, I'm trying to accomplish the following: I have a box with a service listening on a dummy interface (say 172.16.0.1), udp port 5555. Now what I'd like to do is to take packets that arrive on interfaces eth0 (1.1.1.1:5555) and eth1 (2.2.2.2:5555) and forward them to the service on the dummy interface, and have replies go back to clients out the same physical interface they came in. Clients must think they're talking to 1.1.1.1:5555 or 2.2.2.2:5555. I think I need a mix of iptables rules and packet marking, plus some iproute rules (if it's possible at all). What I tried is to catch packets coming in from eth0 and eth1, udp port 5555, and mark them with 1 and 2 respectively, and --save-mark in the connmark. Then I used a DNAT to 172.16.0.1. The service seems to be getting the packets. Now I'm not sure how to do the reverse. It seems that for packets originating from the box, you can't do anything before the routing decision, but that would be the place to restore the marks, and thus make a routing decision based on those. Here's what I have so far: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d 1.1.1.1 -p udp --port 5555 -j MARK --set-mark 1 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d 2.2.2.2 -p udp --port 5555 -j MARK --set-mark 2 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d 1.1.1.1 -p udp --port 5555 -j CONNMARK --save-mark iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d 2.2.2.2 -p udp --port 5555 -j CONNMARK --save-mark iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -m mark --mark 1 -j DNAT --to-destination 172.16.0.1 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -m mark --mark 2 -j DNAT --to-destination 172.16.0.1 # What next? As I said, I'm not even sure it can be done. To give a bit of background, it's an old OpenVPN installation that cannot be upgraded (otherwise I'd install a recent version that supports multihoming natively). Thanks for any help.

  Read the article

• Possible to IPSec VPN Tunnel Public IP Addresses?

  - by caleban

  A customer uses an IBM SAS product over the internet. Traffic flows from the IBM hosting data center to the customer network through Juniper VPN appliances. IBM says they're not tunneling private IP addresses. IBM says they're tunneling public IP addresses. Is this possible? What does this look like in the VPN configuration and in the packets? I'd like to know what the source/destination ip/ports would look like in the encrypted tunneled IPSec Payload and in the IP packet carrying the IPSec Payload. IPSec Payload: source:1.1.1.101:1001 destination:2.2.2.101:2001 IP Packet: source:1.1.1.1:101 destination:2.2.2.1:201 Is it possible to send public IP addresses through an IPSec VPN tunnel? Is it possible for IBM to send a print job from a server on their network using the static-nat public address over a VPN to a printer at a customer network using the printer's static-nat public address? Or can a VPN not do this? Can a VPN only work with interesting traffic from and to private IP addresses?

  Read the article

• Virtual Machine Network Architecture, Isolating Public and Private Networks

  - by Mark

  I'm looking for some insight into best practices for network traffic isolation within a virtual environment, specifically under VMWARE ESXi. Currently I have (in testing) 1 hardware server running ESXi but i expect to expand this to multiple pieces of hardware. The current setup is as follows: 1 pfsense VM, this VM accepts all outside (WAN/internet) traffic and performs firewall/port forwarding/NAT functionality. I have multiple public IP addresses sent to the this VM that are used for access to individual servers (via per incoming IP port forwarding rules). This VM is attached to the private (virtual) network that all other VMs are on. It also manages a VPN link into the private network with some access restrictions. This isn't the perimeter firewall but rather the firewall for this virtual pool only. I have 3 VMs that communicate with each other, as well as have some public access requirements: 1 LAMP server running an eCommerce site, public internet accessible 1 accounting server, access via windows server 2008 RDS services for remote access by users 1 inventory/warehouse management server, VPN to client terminals in warehouses These servers constantly talk with each other for data synchronization. Currently all the servers are on the same subnet/virtual network and connected to the internet through the pfsense VM. The pfsense firewall uses port forwarding and NAT to allow outside access to the servers for services and for server access to the internet. My main question is this: Is there a security benefit to adding a second virtual network adapter to each server and controlling traffic such that all server to server communication is on one separate virtual network, while any access to the outside world is routed through the other network adapter, through the firewall, and on the the internet. This is the type of architecture i would use if these were all physical servers, but i'm unsure if the networks being virtual changes the way i should approach locking down this system. Thank you for any thoughts or direction to any appropriate literature.

  Read the article

• Windows Firewall Software to Filter Transit Traffic

  - by soonts

  I need to test my networking code for Nintendo Wii under the conditions when some specific Internet server is not available. Wii is connected to my PC with crossover ethernet cable. PC has 2 NICs. PC is connected to hardware router with ethernet cable. The hardware router serves as NAT and has an internet connected to its uplink. I set the Wii to be in the same lan as PC by using Windows XP Network bridge. I can observe the WII network traffic using e.g. Wireshark sniffer. Is there a software firewall that can selectively filter out transit traffic? (e.g. block outgoing TCP connections to 123.45.67.89 to port 443) I tried Outpost Pro 2009 and Comodo. Outpost firewall blocks all transit traffic with it's implicit "block transit packet" rule. If the transit traffic is explicitly allowed by creating the system-wide low level rule, then it's allowed completely and no other filter can selectively block it. Comodo firewall only process rules when the packet has localhost's IP as either source or destination, allowing the rest of the traffic. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! P.S. Platform is Windows XP 32 bit, no other OSes is allowed, Windows ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) doesnt work since the Wii is unable to connect, becides I don't like the idea of adding one more level of NAT.

  Read the article

• AWS VPC ELB vs. Custom Load Balancing

  - by CP510

  So I'm wondering if this is a good idea. I have a Amazon AWS VPC setup with a public and private subnets. So I all ready get the Internet Gateway and NAT. I was going to setup all my web servers (Apache2 isntances) and DB servers in the private subnet and use a Load Balancer/Reverse Proxy to pick up requests and send them into the private subnets cluster of servers. My question then, is Amazons ELB's a good use for these, or is it better to setup my own custom instance to handle the public requests and run them through the NAT using nginx or pound? I like the second option just for the sake of having a instance I can log into and check. As well as taking advantage of caching and fail2ban ddos prevention, as well as possibly using fail safes to redirect traffic. But I have no experience with their ELB's, so I thought I'd ask your opinions. Also, if you guys have an opinion on this as well, would using the second option allow me to only have 1 public IP address and be able to route SSH connections through port numbers to respective instances? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Linux VLAN Bridge

  - by raspi

  I have home network with VLANs, one for LAN, one for WLAN and one for internet. I'd like to use bridging so that instead of configuring these same VLANs to every machine, they had own VLAN ID and bridges were LAN, WLAN and internet. I've tried it but for some reason keep-alive/ttl seems to get broken because SSH sessions etc suddenly disconnects. We have this same setup working in workplace for 4+ years with 100+ customers but it's custom firewall/router hardware so accessing it is impossible. I know that it runs Linux. So what is Debian/Ubuntu default network settings doing wrong or is it just NIC driver/hw problem? I've tried to mess araund with ttl etc settings without any luck. The bad stuff is happening in the bridge because current VLAN-only setup works fine. interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 allow-hotplug eth1 iface eth0 inet static iface eth1 inet static auto vlan111 auto vlan222 auto vlan333 auto vlan444 auto br0 auto br1 auto br2 # LAN iface vlan111 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # WLAN iface vlan222 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # ADSL Modem iface vlan333 inet static vlan_raw_device eth1 # Internet iface vlan444 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # LAN bridge iface br0 inet static address 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0.111 bridge_stp on # Internet bridge iface br1 inet static address x.x.x.x netmask x.x.x.x gateway x.x.x.x bridge_ports eth1.333 eth0.444 bridge_stp on post-up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o br1 -j MASQUERADE pre-down iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o br1 -j MASQUERADE # WLAN bridge iface br2 inet static address 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0.222 bridge_stp on Sysctl: net.ipv4.conf.default.forwarding=1

  Read the article

• Using NFS for scalable PHP/MySQL web application

  - by Jeroen Moons

  Here's the situation: I have a PHP/MySQL web application that accepts user uploads (pdf files). From these pdf files' pages a preview image is made on the fly and presented to the web app's users. Some pdfs might be on the large side, most will be under 50 MB but some extreme cases could be as large as a few hundred MB. A little waiting for the preview image for large pdf files is acceptable but no more than a minute let's say. Everything is running on one server for now, but soon the app will hit the server's limit on both storage and processing power. My idea to solve the problem: To deal with this situation I had the idea of having one or more pdf processing servers as needed, and one or more file storage servers. These two types of servers are mounted to the server on which the actual app runs using NFS. The app could then use GearMan to delegate pdf processing tasks to these processing servers. The processing server can mount the storage server and read the file stored there, process it and write its output to that server. The servers I'm talking about will be amazon ec2 instances. The web app returns a link to the resulting pdf preview image on the storage server that was used which can then be used on the front end to show the image to the user. My question: I have zero experience with apps that use multiple servers, is this idea viable or is there a better way to do it? Is an NFS setup fast and reliable enough for this situation?

  Read the article

• NTLM, Kerberos and F5 switch issues

  - by G33kKahuna

  I'm supporting an IIS based application that is scaled out into web and application servers. Both web and applications run behind IIS. The application is NTLM capable when IIS is configured to authenticate via Kerberos. It's been working so far without a glitch. Now, I'm trying to bring in 2 F5 switches, 1 in front of the web and another in front of the application servers. 2 F5 instances (say ips 185 & 186) are sitting on a LINUX host. F5 to F5 looks for a NAT IP (say ips 194, 195 and 196). Created a DNS entry for all IPs including NAT and ran a SETSPN command to register the IIS service account to be trusted at HTTP, HOST and domain level. With the Web F5 turned on and with eachweb server connecting to a cardinal app server, when the user connects to the Web F5 domain name, trust works and user authenticates without a problem. However, when app load balancer is turned on and web servers are pointed to the new F5 app domain name, user gets 401. IIS log shows no authenticated username and shows a 401 status. Wireshark does show negotiate ticket header passed into the system. Any ideas or suggestions are much appreciated. Please advice.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >