Search Results

Search found 20447 results on 818 pages for 'f5 big ip'.

Page 172/818 | < Previous Page | 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  | Next Page >

• Default IPv6 route on debian squeeze does not come up after boot

  - by Georg Bretschneider

  I have a problem with my default IPv6 route not coming up after boot on a Debian Squeeze system. This is my config (/etc/network/interfaces): # Loopback device: auto lo iface lo inet loopback iface lo inet6 loopback # device: br0 auto br0 iface br0 inet static bridge_ports eth0 bridge_fd 0 address 88.198.62.xx broadcast 88.198.62.63 netmask 255.255.255.224 gateway 88.198.62.33 up route add -net 88.198.62.32 netmask 255.255.255.224 gw 88.198.62.33 br0 iface br0 inet6 static address 2a01:4f8:131:10x::2 netmask 64 gateway 2a01:4f8:131:100::1 up route -A inet6 add 2a01:4f8:131:100::1/59 dev br0 My inet comes up alright, but I have to exec the route command manually after boot to make IPv6 work. Otherwise I can't even reach my gateway. This is the output of ip -6 route show after boot: 2a01:4f8:131:10x::/64 dev br0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 unreachable fe80::/64 dev lo proto kernel metric 256 error -101 mtu 16436 advmss 16376 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev br0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 I already tried it with: up ip -6 route add 2a01:4f8:131:100::1 dev br0 up ip -6 route add default via 2a01:4f8:131:100::1 dev br0 in /etc/network/interfaces, but with the same results. If I execute those commands manually on my shell, everything starts working nicely. And yes, I tried with post-up instead of up, too. Only other changes I made was to activate ip forwarding for IPv6, because I want to run some LXC containers on that system.

  Read the article

• server dosnt produce syn-ack

  - by steve

  I have a small program that take packets from the nfqueue . change the ip.dst to my server dst (and ttl), recalc checksum and return the packet to the nfqueue. The server and the client are linux and apache web server is run on the server and listen on port 80. i open telnet in the client to fake ip on port 80 . the packet is changed by my program and sent to the server, but the target server (the new dst ip) get the syn , but dosnt generate syn-ack (the server also belong to me , so i can see that it get the syn with checksum correct , but dosnt generate syn-ack). if i do the same , but with the real server ip as the dest, the tcp handshake is done correct (in this case i just change the ttl and checksum. The change that i did to the ttl is just a test to see that my checksum calc is ok). i compare the sys's , but didnt find and difference. Any idea? Ps. i saw this topic : Server not sending a SYN/ACK packet in response to a SYN packet and i set all flags the same , but this didnt help. Thank you

  Read the article

• How to set up daisy-chained routers for separate sub-nets?

  - by joe

  This question seems to be similar to others, but I'll take a shot anyway. A client recently switched ISPs from TDS to Comcast Business Class. Before the switch, they had 5 static IP addresses assigned. Now they'll have a single IP address that will change whenever Comcast decides to do so. The issue is that this internet connection will be shared among two companies, both having (and wanting to keep) their own private subnets. Because TDS was supplying multiple IP addresses to the one location, this allowed me to put each router on the switch. Now, with Comcast, they only get one IP address, meaning there has to be a main router before the subnet routers. Luckily, the cable modem has a built-in router, which I would like to connect to each company's router, and still have DHCP enabled on all accounts. Question: What do I need to do to the subnet routers to keep them separate from each other, but still allow internet access from the main router. I would love to say "I tried this", and give you links, but everything I find on the internet only mentions daisy-chaining routers with DCHP disabled.

  Read the article

• How browsers handle multiple IPs

  - by Sandman4

  Can someone direct me to information on exact browsers behavior when browser gets multiple A records for a given hostname (say ip1 and ip2), and one of them is not accessible. I interested in EXACT details, like (but not limited to): Will browser get 2 IPs from OS, or it will get only one ? Which ip will browser try first (random or always the first one) ? Now, let's say browser started with the failed ip1 For how long will browser try ip1 ? If user hits "stop" while it waits for ip1, and then clicks refresh which IP will browser try ? What will happen when it times-out - will it start trying ip2 or give error ? (And if error, which ip will browser try when user clicks refresh). When user clicks refresh, will any browser attempt new DNS lookup ? Now let's assume browser tried working ip2 first. For the next page request, will browser still use ip2, or it may randomly switch ips ? For how long browsers keep IPs in their cache ? When browsers sends a new DNS request, and get SAME ips, will it CONTINUE to use the same known-to-be-working IP, or the process starts from scratch and it may try any of the two ? Of course it all may be browser dependent, and may also vary between versions and platforms, I'd be happy to have maximum of details. The purpose of this - I'm trying to understand what exactly users will experience when round-robin DNS based used and one of the hosts fails. Please, I'm NOT asking about how bad DNS load balancing is, and please refrain from answering "don't do it", "it's a bad idea", "you need heartbeat/proxy/BGP/whatever" and so on.

  Read the article

• I go to www.facebook.com, but a completely different site appears.

  - by Rosarch

  I am going to www.facebook.com, but the site that appears is totally different. This occurs on Chrome 6+, IE9, and FF 3+. What could be happening? Is this a security risk? Facebook was working just fine, then all of a sudden this happened. Update: The same problem occurs on my netbook. Update 2: When I go to http://69.63.189.11/, it works fine. So... DNS problem? How do I fix? Update 3: Checked the hosts file: # Copyright (c) 1993-2009 Microsoft Corp. # # This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows. # # This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each # entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should # be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name. # The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one # space. # # Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual # lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol. # # For example: # # 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server # 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host # localhost name resolution is handled within DNS itself. # 127.0.0.1 localhost # ::1 localhost Looks like it hasn't been altered.

  Read the article

• Virtualbox port forwarding with iptables

  - by jverdeyen

  I'm using a virtualmachine (virtualbox) as mailserver. The host is an Ubuntu 12.04 and the guest is an Ubuntu 10.04 system. At first I forwarded port 25 to 2550 on the host and added a port forward rule in VirtualBox from 2550 to 25 on the guest. This works for all ports needed for the mailserver. The guest has a host only connection and a NAT (with the port-forwarding). My mailserver was receiving and sending mail properly. But all connections are comming from the virtualbox internal ip, so every host connection is allowed, and that's not what I want. So.. I'm trying to skip the VirtualBox forwarding part and just forward port 25 to my host only ip of the guest system. I used these rules: iptables -F iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P PREROUTING ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P POSTROUTING ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT --protocol tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.99.0/24 -i vboxnet0 -j ACCEPT echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -i eth0 -d xxx.host.ip.xxx --dport 25 -j DNAT --to 192.168.99.105:25 iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.99.0/24 -i vboxnet0 -p tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.99.0 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -L -n But after these changes I still can't connect with a simple telnet. (Which was possible with my first solution). The guest machine doesn't have any firewall. I only have one network interface on the host (eth0) and a host interface (vboxnet0). Any suggestions? Or should I go back to my old solution (which I don't really like). Edit: bridge mode isn't an option, I have only on IP available for the moment. Thanks!

  Read the article

• UDP blocked by Windows XP Firewall when sending to local machine

  - by user36367

  Hi there, I work for a software development company but the issue doesn't seem to be programming-related. Here is my setup: - Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3, all updated - Program that sends UDP datagrams - Program that receives UDP datagrams - Windows Firewall set to allow inbound UDP datagrams on a specific port (Scope: Subnet) If I send a UDP datagram on any port to other, similar machines, it goes through. If I send the UDP datagram to the same computer running the program that sends (whether using broadcast, localhost IP or the specific IP of the machine), the receiver program gets nothing. I've traced the problem down to the Windows XP Firewall, as Windows 7 does not have this problem (and I do not wish to sully my hands with Vista). If the exception I create for that UDP port in the WinXP firewall is set for a Scope of Subnet the datagram is blocked, but if I set it to All Computers or specifically enter my network settings (192.168.2.161 or 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0) it works fine. Using different UDP ports makes no difference. I've tried different programs to reproduce this problem (ServerTalk to send and either IP Port Spy or PortPeeker to receive) to make sure it's not our code that's the issue, and those programs' datagrams were blocked as well. Also, that computer only has one network interface, so there are no additional network weirdness. I receive my IP from a DHCP server, so this is a straightforward setup. Given that it doesn't happen in Windows 7 I must assume it's a defect in the Windows XP Firewall, but I'd think someone else would have encountered this problem before. Has anyone encountered anything like this? Any ideas? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Cherrypy web application won't communicate outside localhost via VPN

  - by Geoffrey Shea

  I'm trying to run a Python2.7/Cherrypy web server on Win 7 which is connected to a VPN to establish a dedicate IP address. (If I run the exact same application on Win XP connected to the VPN it works fine.) On Win 7 I tried configuring it to use port 8080, 8005, or 80 with no improvements. I turned off Windows Firewall altogether to test and there was no improvement. If I run Apache on the Win 7 machine on port 80 it works fine so I'm pretty sure it's not the VPN service or router. If I go to WhatismyIP.com it shows that I have the IP address being provided by the VPN. Here is the Python code, but I suspect the problem is the network configuration: import cherrypy class HelloWorld: def index(self): return "Hello world!3" index.exposed = True cherrypy.root = HelloWorld() cherrypy.config.update({"global":{ "server.environment": "production", "server.socketPort": 8005 } }) cherrypy.server.start() This will return a web page if I go to localhost:8005, but not if I go to the VPN IP address:8005 from another machine. As I said, if I run Apache on the Win 7 machine on port 80 I can see it at localhost:80 AND at the VPN IP address:80 from another machine. Thanks for any light you can shed! Geoffrey

  Read the article

• Having problems VPN'ing into our Windows server network.

  - by Pure.Krome

  Hi folks, When two people (on their notebooks) try to VPN to our office, only the first user gets a connection. the second user always times out. Is it possible for VPN to allow two or more people, using / sharing the same EXTERNAL PUBLIC IP to connect/authenticate? Now for some specifics (cause those two statements are very broad). I'm not in the IT Dept. I'm a developer. Our IT Dept don't really care (sigh) so it's up to me to fix this crap. Our office is all Microsoft shop stuff - servers and clients. We also have a firewall (watchguard brand?) and some other crazy setups (yes i know, it's very vague :( ). So i'm wondering - is it possible for multiple users, from the same public IP, to connect via VPN to a windows server? i'm under the impression - yes. But it is possible that this only happens when the clients (who are all behind the single, public IP .. otherwise they will have their OWN ip's) need to have UPnP running or something? this is killing me and i need to start asking the right questions cause these guys don't know what they are doing and i can't work without this happening. I know this is a vauge question with so many 'if-what's-etc' but maybe some questions/suggestions from you guys might start to lead to solving this problem. EDIT: Network Connection: WAN Miniport (PPTP)

  Read the article

• IIS 7 and ASP.NET State Service Configuration

  - by Shawn

  We have 2 web servers load balanced and we wanted to get away from sticky sessions for obvious reasons. Our attempted approach is to use the ASP.NET State service on one of the boxes to store the session state for both. I realize that it's best to have a server dedicated to storing sessions but we don't have the resources for that. I've followed these instructions to no avail. The session still isn't being shared between the two servers. I'm not receiving any errors. I have the same machine key for both servers, and I've set the application ID to a unique value that matches between the two servers. Any suggestions on how I can troubleshoot this issue? Update: I turned on the session state service on my local machine and pointed both servers to the ip address on my local machine and it worked as expected. The session was shared between both servers. This leads me to believe that the problem might be that I'm not using a standalone server as my state service. Perhaps the problem is because I am using the ip address 127.0.0.1 on one server and then using a different ip address on the other server. Unfortunately when I try to use the network ip address as opposed to localhost the connection doesn't seem to work from the host server. Any insight on whether my suspicions are correct would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• "Error 53" with local LAN machines after VPN session on server

  - by tim11g

  I have a Windows 2000 server with a Windows 7 client that occasionally gets "error 53" when accessing the server by name (net view \\server). It still works by IP address (net view \\192.168.0.1). The server's primary IP address (as shown in "routing and remote access" as "Gigabit Ethernet" is 192.168.0.1. There is also a secondary IP address shown as "Internal" which is 192.168.0.50 The server also supports VPN. When a VPN user connects, it gets an address in the range of 192.168.0.51 to .59. Normally (when there is no error), when the local LAN client runs "ping server", it resolves to 192.168.0.1. When the Error 53 problem happens, "ping server" resolves to 192.168.0.50. This problem seems to be related to when a user connects or has recently connected to the server VPN. Is there some connection between the VPN services on the server and the DNS services on the server that could cause a local LAN client to become confused about which IP address to use for the server? Or is there a misconfiguration in the VPN or DNS?

  Read the article

• Hyper-V: Dedicated NIC for Guests VMs

  - by TheLizardKing

  I have two NIC cards and created a private virtual network for my virtual machines and unchecked "Allow management operating system to share this network adapter" which basically turns my Guest NIC into this sorta shell of a NIC card on the host machine and the only thing checked in it's properties is "Microsoft Virtual Network Switch Protocol" which I am fine with. Everything works and everything is connected. My issue is that for some reason my guest (Ubuntu Server with legacy network drivers) is not talking properly to my DHCP server. Specifically my DHCP server reserves the guest's IP address using it's MAC address but the guest isn't picking it up. It's picking up any old IP it can get and I can't even ping the hostname from another PC on the network but it pings fine if I use the IP. I see the guest showing up in my DHCP table but I can't get the reservation to stick. Is there some reason it's only partially communicating with my DHCP server? Pinging it's hostname on itself reveals it's using 127.0.0.1 instead of it's network IP. Is this an issue with the legacy drivers used in Hyper-V?

  Read the article

• Trouble connecting to a local SQL server instance from the web

  - by dfarney

  We have a small network behind a firewall (WatchGuard XTM 2 series) and network switch. On our network we have multiple instances of SQL server, but 1 in specific that I would like to be able to access remotely from our website. We have a static IP address from our ISP and then all the machines on the network have a locally assigned dynamic IP address. When trying to connect to the database from outside our network how do I get the request to be directed to the proper machine / SQL instance? Is it a parameter in my connection string or something in my firewall? A few things to rule out: 1) The firewall is allowing access from the website to our network. I added the site's IP and opened up port 1433. Also, when trying to connect and monitoring the firewall no exceptions come up as they did before I added the proper IP address. 2) Remote connections on the SQL server has been setup and enabled. I've done a lot of reading up on remote connections and I am sure it has been setup properly. I am currently getting this error message on my site: A network-related or instance-specific error occurred while establishing a connection to SQL Server. The server was not found or was not accessible. Verify that the instance name is correct and that SQL Server is configured to allow remote connections. (provider: TCP Provider, error: 0 - A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.)

  Read the article

• Port Forwarding to put my web server on The Internet

  - by Chadworthington

  I went to http://canyouseeme.org/ to check to see what my external IP address. Regardless of what port I enter, it tells me that the port is blocked. I have a LinkSys router that basically has the default settings with the exception that I have WEP encrptin setup and I have forwarded a few ports, including 80 and 69. I forwarded them to the 192.x.x.103 IP address of the PC which is running IIS. That PC runs Symantec Endpoint Protection, which I right mouse clicked in the tray to Disable. These steps used to make my PC visible so I could host my own web site in IIS on port 80, or some other port, like 69. Yet, the Open Port tool cannot see my IP when it checks eiether port and when I navigate to http://my external ip/ I get "page cant be displayed" At first I was thinking that maybe Comcast is blocking port 80, but 69 doesnt work eiether. I do not see any other blockking set up in my router and, as I mentioned, I went with teh defaults except where discussed. This is a corporate PC and Symantec End Point Protecion is new to it (this previously worked on teh same PC with Symantec Protection Agent), but I thought that disabling Sym End Pt from the tray, that that would effectively neutralize it. I do not have the rights to kill the program itself. Any suggestions on what else to try to make my PC externally visible?

  Read the article

• Load balancing with puppet

  - by Gonçalo Queirós

  Hi there. Im trying to setup a loadbalancing system. My load balancer (nginx) has a conf file where i should list all IP's of the upstream servers. I could put the IP's on the conf manually, but this ways i would need to change the conf file every time i add/remove an upstream server. For now i came up with two different ideas, but i don't like much of neither: 1 - Have every upstream machine to use Exported Resources to create a file with it's IP..Then the load balancer server will have an "include conf_directory/*", and load all the files created by the upstrem servers. Since the load balancer is using nginx this can be done, but if i wan't latter on to configure something that doesn't have the "include" on the conf files, this solution will not work. 2 - If the config doesn't support the "include" command, then we could have again, every upstream server use the Exported Resources to create a filw with its IP, and latter on, the load balancer execute a command that would pick every file and generate the config Both versions addopt the same techinque, the difference is that version 2 is used when the server (that needs to have a conf generated) doesn't recognize a command like "include" inside its own conf. Now, my question is, is there any way to do this in a different form? I suspect that there is, since puppet is made to manage multiple servers, it seems a bit strange not have a easy way to configure load balancers.

  Read the article

• What are these isolated resource requests in Apache's access_log?

  - by Greg

  I was looking at my Apache access log and came across some strange requests. A single IP address will access several resources (mostly css style sheets and images), but no actual pages. Sometimes they are requesting a resource that no longer exists on the server, or one that is still under the web root but no longer used (e.g. a resource in an old WordPress theme). Also: The requests list no referrer I get no useful information on the IP address by looking it up There doesn't seem to be any pattern among the IP addresses that are making these requests (e.g. different countries) Are these just links from a stale cache somewhere? Could it be a sign of an attack of some sort? Here is a typical example: GET /wp-content/themes/my-theme/images/old-image.gif HTTP/1.1" 500 809 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;)" This was one of about 10 similar requests, some for existing resources, some for older resources. There is no other sign of this IP address in access_log. Note the internal server error, which is a topic for a different thread. What I'm asking here is where would isolated requests like this come from?

  Read the article

• How can I avoid my web browser from redirecting to localhost using WAMP in Windows7?

  - by Josh

  I'm currently using Windows 7 with WAMP to try and work on some software, but my web browsers will not accept cookies from the "localhost" domain. I tried creating a few bogus domains in my hosts file by pointing them to 127.0.0.1 but when I type them in I am automatically redirected back to localhost. I have also configured virtualhosts in apache to correspond with the domains I added to the hosts file and it still redirects back to localhost. Is there anything special I must do on Windows 7 to get around this localhost redirect? Thanks for looking :) I'll include my host file here: # Copyright (c) 1993-2009 Microsoft Corp. # # This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows. # # This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each # entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should # be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name. # The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one # space. # # Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual # lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol. # # For example: # # 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server # 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host # localhost name resolution is handled within DNS itself. # 127.0.0.1 localhost # ::1 localhost 127.0.0.1 magento.localhost.com www.localhost.com Thanks for looking :)

  Read the article

• OpenBSD pf - implementing the equivalent of an iptables DNAT

  - by chutz

  The IP address of an internal service is going to change. We have an OpenBSD access point (ssh + autpf rules) where clients connect and open a connection to the internal IP. To give us more time to reconfigure all clients to use the new IP address, I thought we can implement the equivalent of a DNAT on the authpf box. Basically, I want to write a rule similar to this iptables rule which lets me ping both $OLD_IP and $NEW_IP. iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -d $OLD_IP -j DNAT --to-dest $NEW_IP Our version of OpenBSD is 4.7, but we can upgrade if necessary. If this DNAT is not possible we can probably do a NAT on a firewall along the way. The closest I was able to accomplish on a test box is: pass out on em1 inet proto icmp from any to 10.68.31.99 nat-to 10.68.31.247 Unfortunately, pfctl -s state tells me that nat-to translates the source IP, while I need to translate the destination. $ sudo pfctl -s state all icmp 10.68.31.247:7263 (10.68.30.199:13437) -> 10.68.31.99:8 0:0 I also found lots of mentions about rules that start with rdr and include the -> symbol to express the translation, but it looks like this syntax has been obsoleted in 4.7 and I cannot get anything similar to work. Attempts to implement a rdr fail with a complaint that /etc/pf.conf:20: rdr-to can only be used inbound

  Read the article

• How to host an ssh server?

  - by balki

  Hi, I have a broadband internet connection. I have an wireless modem (Airtel India). I don't have a static ip address. I want to host a ssh/web/ftp server to be visible to the outside world just for testing and learning purpose so I can ask my friend to connect to my current ip address and test. My modem has an admin interface which allows to port forward and open ports. I set up ssh server as shown and checked if port 22 is open using this website , Port Scan And port 22 is open. I have an openssh server running and it works if i do, ssh [email protected] which is my local ip address but doesn't work if i do ssh [email protected] where 122.xx.xx.xx is my external ip address of my modem which i checked from whatismyipaddress.com. Since it looks like the port is open, I wonder if there is some setting I need to change in my server config to expose my server. How should I go about solving this?

  Read the article

• How to configure network on Windows Server 2008

  - by Gokhan Ozturk

  I have a IBM x3400 Server Machine with Windows Server 2008 R2 installed on it. But, since I am not expert on networking I have some problems. These roles installed on my server: Active Directory DNS File Sharing Hyper-V ISS VPN There is two network card on them. I configured them like this: Local Connection 1: 192.168.30.3 255.255.255.0 192.168.30.2 127.0.0.1 Local Connection 2: 192.168.30.101 255.255.255.0 192.168.30.6 127.0.0.1 My problem is, when I use this Ip gateways, It is sharing internet to all computers. This is not I want. I want to use Local Connection 1 for internal network. I am giving all computers gateway and DNS IP as 192.168.30.3 The Local Connection 2 is for Hyper-V and VPN connections. 192.168.30.2 and 192.168.30.6 are my modem's gateways. I am using 192.168.30.6 external IP for VPN connections. There is two 24 port switches. There is a connection between them and this two ethernet card connected directly to them. And modems are connected to switches as well (Morems are not near the server. They are somewhere in the building). I disabled network Bridge and removed all ethernet cards from it. With this configuration, all computers can ping my server's IP (192.168.30.3) but on server I cannot ping any clients (Request timeout). What is the best way to configure my network? Thank you. Redgards

  Read the article

• VPN sharing on Mac OS X 10.5 machine

  - by Jens

  I have a rather weird problem. I want to share a VPN connection that has been established by my Mac OS X 10.5 computer with another machine in my network. This is what I did: In the /etc/hostcongig file on the main computer I added the line: IPFORWARDING=-YES- I assigned a fixed IP address to my computer (192.168.178.30), a fixed one to the other machine (192.168.178.60) and my computer's IP address as gateway on the other machine. I connected to my VPN using the internal Mac OS X VPN client (PPTP connection) I run this script: #!/bin/sh natd -same_ports -use_sockets -unregistered_only -dynamic -interface ppp0 -clamp_mss ipfw -f flush ipfw add divert natd ip from any to any via ppp0 ipfw add pass all from any to any sysctl -w net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 Source: Using (and sharing) a VPN connection on your Mac Now everthing works smootly, however speed is an issue. I get 1,8 MBit/s on my main machine and only 0,3 - 0,6 MBit/s on the other one. My question: What could possibly be wrong? Do I have to tweak MTU settings, is there any packet inspection ongoing that needs time....? Any help appreciated!

  Read the article

• Hide/Replace Nginx Location Header?

  - by Steven Ou

  I am trying to pass a PCI compliance test, and I'm getting a single "high risk vulnerability". The problem is described as: Information on the machine which a web server is located is sometimes included in the header of a web page. Under certain circumstances that information may include local information from behind a firewall or proxy server such as the local IP address. It looks like Nginx is responding with: Service: https Received: HTTP/1.1 302 Found Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Location: http://ip-10-194-73-254/ Server: nginx/1.0.4 + Phusion Passenger 3.0.7 (mod_rails/mod_rack) Status: 302 X-Powered-By: Phusion Passenger (mod_rails/mod_rack) 3.0.7 X-Runtime: 0 Content-Length: 90 Connection: Close <html><body>You are being <a href="http://ip-10-194-73-254/">redirect ed</a>.</body></html> I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong: but from what I gathered, I think the problem is that the Location header is returning http://ip-10-194-73-254/, which is a private address, when it should be returning our domain name (which is ravn.com). So, I'm guessing I need to either hide or replace the Location header somehow? I'm a programmer and not a server admin so I have no idea what to do... Any help would be greatly appreciated! Also, might I add that we're running more than 1 server, so the configuration would need to be transferable to any server with any private address.

  Read the article

• Easiest way to allow direct HTTPS connection in Intercept mode?

  - by Nicolo

  I know the SSL issue has been beaten to death I'm using DNS redirect to force my clients to use my intercept proxy. As we all know, intercepting HTTPS connection is not possible unless I provide a fake certificate. What I want to achieve here is to allow all HTTPS requests connect directly to the source server, thus bypassing Squid: HTTP connection Proxy by Squid HTTPS connection Bypass Squid and connect directly I spent the past few days goolging and trying different methods but none worked so far. I read about SSL tunneling using the CONNECT method but couldn't find any more information on it. I tried a similar method in using RINETD to forward all traffic going through port 443 of my Squid back to the original IP of www.pandora.com. Unfortunately, I did not realize all other HTTPS requests are also forwarded to the IP of www.pandora.com. For example, https://www.gmail.com also takes me to https://www.pandora.com Since I'm running the Intercept mode, the forwarding needs to be dynamic and match each HTTPS domain name with proper original IP. Can this be done in Squid or iptables? Lastly, I'm directing traffic to my Squid server using DNS zone redirect. For example, a client requests www.google.com, my DNS server directs that request to my Squid IP, then my transparent Squid will proxy that request. Will this set up affect what I'm trying to achieve? I tried many methods but couldn't get it to work. Any takes on how to do this?

  Read the article

• NAT via iptables and virtual interface

  - by Alex

  I'm trying to implement the following scenario: One VM-host, multiple guest VMs, each one gets its own IP-address (and domain). Our server has only one physical interface, so the intended use is to add virtual interfaces on eth0. To complicate our situation the provider uses port-security on their switches, so I can't run the guest interfaces in bridged mode, because then the switch detects a "spoofed" MAC-address and kills the interface (permanently, forcing me to call the support, which I'm sure will get them a little bit angry the third time ;) ). My first guess was to use iptables and NAT to forward all packages from one virtual interface to another one, but iptables doesn't seem to like virtual interfaces (at least I can't get it to work properly). So my second guess is to use the source IP of the packages to the public interface. Let's assume libvirt creates a virbr0-network with 192.168.100.0/24 and the guest uses 192.168.100.2 as IP-address. This is what I tried to use: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING --src public_ip_on_eth0:0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.100.2:80 That doesn't give me the intended results either (accessing the server times out). Is there a way to do what I'm trying to do, or even to route all traffic to a certain IP on a virtual interface to the VM's device?

  Read the article

• trying to route between two openvpn clients

  - by user42055

  I have two openvpn clients on the 10.0.1.0 (client1) and 192.168.0.0 (client2) subnets with the server's openvpn connection having the ip 192.168.150.1 The server has ip forwarding enabled. Currently, client1's vpn ip is 192.168.150.10 and the P-t-P ip is 192.168.150.9 I have created the following static route on client1: route add -net 10.0.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.150.9 The routing table on client1 looks like this: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 192.168.150.9 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.150.1 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tun0 10.0.1.0 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 I thought this would be correct to allow traffic from client1 to reach computers on client2's network, but it does not work. Is 192.168.150.9 (the P-t-P address) the correct one to be routing through ? I tried using 192.168.150.1 but I couldn't create the route. I hope this is clear.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  | Next Page >