Search Results

Search found 9235 results on 370 pages for 'social networking'.

Page 186/370 | < Previous Page | 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193  | Next Page >

  • Unidentified network: How to configure TCP/IPv4 for Win7?

    - by Zolomon
    When I try to connect to internet I keep getting the error "Unidentified network". I've tried numerous attempts at restoring access without success. IP release, flushing DNS cache, reinstalling NIC, reactivating NIC, resetting router and so on... I've read several times that it's my default gateway that's wrong. Currently I've had automatic IP/DNS configuration set without any problems, and then it stopped working for some reason. Anyone know how I specify the IP? My subnetmask is 255.255.255.0, default gateway is 192.168.0.1 but I have no idea how to determine what IP I should set. I use a D-Link DIR-655 and other computers on the network have IPs like 192.168.0.194, next is 192.168.0.197. (I'm completely lost and am trying to cool down after two weekends of debugging filled with despair.)

    Read the article

  • pfSense routing between two routers with shared network

    - by JohnCC
    I have a network set-up using two pfSense routers arranged like this:- DMZ1 WAN1 WAN2 DMZ2 | | | | | | | | \___ PF1 PF2___/ | | | | \___TRUSTED___/ Each pfSense router has its own separate WAN connection, and a separate DMZ network attached to it. They share a common TRUSTED LAN between them. The machines on the trusted network have PF1 as their default gateway. PF1 has a static route defined to DMZ2 via PF2, and PF2 has a static route to DMZ1 via PF1. There is NAT to the WAN but internal networks (DMZ1/2 and TRUSTED) use different RFC1918 subnets. I inherited this arrangement, and all used to work fine. I made a config change to PF1 (relating to multicast), and machines on DMZ2 suddenly could not talk to TRUSTED. I rolled the change back, but the problem persisted. What I guess you'd hope would happen is that TCP packets would go DMZ2 - PF2 - TRUSTED and on return TRUSTED - PF1 - PF2 - DMZ2. That's the only way I can see it would have worked. However, PF1 drops the returning packets. I've verified this using tcpdump. I've worked around this by adding static routes to DMZ2 via PF2 to the servers on TRUSTED, but some devices on there do not support static routes so this is not ideal. Is there way to make this arrangement work decently, or is the design inherently flawed? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Internet wireless connected with limited access, windows vista

    - by Wawa wiya
    Hello I had some malware in my computer so I did a bit of manual work to remove it including resetting TCP/IP. Now the malware is gone. I can see my home wireless network and I can get connected to it but when connected I get the Internet wireless connected with limited access message. When I go to the IE I cannot browse. When I tried to ping 192.168.1.1 I got an Error Code 1231 Unconnected Network Problem. I have deactivated my Windows firewall as I thought it could be hyperactive security. Still no luck. I have Norton but it is not active, I have also Avast and AVG installed but they are not active. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Why is Windows 7 so slow to log-on when my Wireless USB dongle is plugged in?

    - by Sam
    I'm using an Edimax Wireless USB dongle (model EW-7711UTN) on Windows 7 64-bit. The dongle works brilliantly (it was truly plug-and-play) except for one thing. I've noticed that if the dongle is plugged in whilst I'm logging on to Windows it introduces a massive delay - after I type in my password and hit enter, Windows shows the "Welcome" screen, then the screen goes black for 2 minutes or so (with just the cursor showing) before finally displaying my desktop. If I unplug the dongle before I enter my password, Windows goes straight to my desktop. Even though the dongle didn't appear to need drivers for Windows 7, I did try downloading the latest ones from the Edimax website, but that made no difference.

    Read the article

  • Jumbo Frames on DIR-655

    - by Spookyone
    I am trying to set up jumbo frames on my gigabit home LAN but no luck so far. My setup is: D-Link DIR-655 router, HW Revision A3, Firmware 1.21 EU Synology DS107+, Firmware 3.0-1337 Laptop w/ Win7 x64, external PCIx NIC managed by "Generic Marvel Yukon 88E8053 based Ethernet Controller" The router is supposed to support jumbo frames but doesn't feature any relevant setting. I set the Jumbo Packet value to 9000 on both the NIC and the Synobox but it doesn't work, ping -f -l 8972 says "Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set". Is there any other setting I overlooked, the DIR-655 doesn't actually support jumbo frames, or what else could be the problem?

    Read the article

  • How to make XAMPP virtual hosts accessible to VM's and other computers on LAN?

    - by martin's
    XAMPP running on Vista 64 Ultimate dev machine (don't think it matters). Machine / Browser configuration Safari, Firefox, Chrome and IE9 on dev machine IE7 and IE8 on separate XP Pro VM's (VMWare on dev machine) IE10 and Chrome on Windows 8 VM (VMware on dev machine) Safari, Firefox and Chrome running on a iMac (same network as dev) Safari, Firefox and Chrome running on a couple of Mac Pro's (same network as dev) IE7, IE8, IE9 running on other PC's on the same network as dev machine Development Configuration Multiple virtual hosts for different projects .local fake TLD for development No firewall restrictions on dev machine for Apache Some sites have .htaccess mapping www to non-www Port 80 is open in the dev machine's firewall Problem XAMPP local home page (http://192.168.1.98/xampp/) can be accessed from everywhere, real or virtual, by IP All .local sites can be accessed from the browsers on the dev machine. All .local sites can be accessed form the browsers in the XP VM's. Some .local sites cannot be accessed from IE10 or Chrome on the W8 VM Sites that cannot be accessed from W8 VM have a minimal .htaccess file No .local sites can be accessed from ANY machine (PC or Mac) on the LAN hosts on dev machine (relevant excerpt) 127.0.0.1 site1.local 127.0.0.1 site2.local 127.0.0.1 site3.local 127.0.0.1 site4.local 127.0.0.1 site5.local 127.0.0.1 site6.local 127.0.0.1 site7.local 127.0.0.1 site8.local 127.0.0.1 site9.local 192.168.1.98 site1.local 192.168.1.98 site2.local 192.168.1.98 site3.local 192.168.1.98 site4.local 192.168.1.98 site5.local 192.168.1.98 site6.local 192.168.1.98 site7.local 192.168.1.98 site8.local 192.168.1.98 site9.local httpd-vhosts.conf on dev machine (relevant excerpt) NameVirtualHost *:80 <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName localhost ServerAlias localhost *.localhost.* DocumentRoot D:/xampp/htdocs </VirtualHost> # ======================================== site1.local <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName site1.local ServerAlias site1.local *.site1.local DocumentRoot D:/xampp-sites/site1/public_html ErrorLog D:/xampp-sites/site1/logs/access.log CustomLog D:/xampp-sites/site1/logs/error.log combined <Directory D:/xampp-sites/site1> Options Indexes FollowSymLinks AllowOverride All Require all granted </Directory> </VirtualHost> NOTE: The above <VirtualHost *:80> block is repeated for each of the nine virtual hosts in the file, no sense in posting it here. hosts on all VM's and physical machines on the network (relevant excerpt) 127.0.0.1 localhost ::1 localhost 192.168.1.98 site1.local 192.168.1.98 site2.local 192.168.1.98 site3.local 192.168.1.98 site4.local 192.168.1.98 site5.local 192.168.1.98 site6.local 192.168.1.98 site7.local 192.168.1.98 site8.local 192.168.1.98 site9.local None of the VM's have any firewall blocks on http traffic. They can reach any site on the real Internet. The same is true of the real machines on the network. The biggest puzzle perhaps is that the W8 VM actually DOES reach some of the virtual hosts. It does NOT reach site2, site6 and site 9, all of which have this minimal .htaccess file. .htaccess file <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\. RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L] </IfModule> Adding this file to any of the virtual hosts that do work on the W8 VM will break the site (only for W8 VM, not the XP VM's) and require a cache flush on the W8 VM before it will see the site again after deleting the file. Regardless of whether a .htaccess file exists or not, no machine on the same LAN can access anything other than the XAMPP home page via IP. Even with hosts files on all machines. I can ping any virtual host from any machine on the network and get a response from the correct IP address. I can't see anything in out Netgear router that might prevent one machine from reaching the other. Besides, once the local hosts file resolves to an ip address that's all that goes out onto the local network. I've gone through an extensive number of posts on both SO and as the result of Google searches. I can't say that I have found anything definitive anywhere.

    Read the article

  • How do I prevent internet access to a group of computers on my network?

    - by Kevin Boyd
    Well I have the following setup... Computer A , B and C are networked.... Computer A is connected to the internet, computer B and C are not setup for internet access currently but I guess its possible with some kind of setting they would eventually be able to access the internet and this is what I would like to prevent. In summary only A should have internet access while A and B and C should still be on intranet. Is this kind of config possible?, what kind of software or setup or tools would I need to achive this?

    Read the article

  • Siege - running a stress test benchmark

    - by morgoth84
    I need to do a benchmark test of a HTTPS server using Siege, to see how it behaves under massive load. I'm initiating tests from another machine which is quite powerful and it is connected to the same physical switch the server is connected on. But when I initiate a test, I can't get it to make more than 170 requests per second. With this load the server's CPU usage is at 15-20% and the average response time for a request is approx. 0.03 seconds. Load of the client machine is approx. at 10%. So, I gradually increase the number of users in Siege (the number of worker threads) and request rate linearly increases up to 170 reqs/sec, but it never gets over it. No matter how many more worker threads I start, the load on the server is never more than 20% (and the client's load also doesn't increase any more). How can I overcome this? I've googled a bit and found out that after a request is completed, a socket associated with one ephermal port remains in WAIT_TIME state for some time during which it can't be reused. I tried to overcome this by doing these things: sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range="1024 65535" echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_tw_recycle Oh, and the client machine is a Linux (RedHat, I think, but I'm not sure). Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Get the MAC addresses of all the machines connected to a LAN when NO machines have got an IP address yet

    - by JtheRocker
    Here is the real scenario. I have say 4 machines not having any IP address yet connected to a switch. In one of the machines (OS=CentOS), I would install a DHCP server and would provide the other machines IP addresses. Prior to assigning them IP addresses, I need to get the MAC address of each of the machines that I would assign IP addresses to. So, my question here is how to I get the MAC addresses of all the machines connected to a switch when NO machine has got any IP address yet? It's mandatory for my use case that I won't be having any IP addresses before the MAC addresses. -Thanks

    Read the article

  • How can a Virtualbox host connect to a guest VM when host wireless is disabled / host Ethernet cable is unplugged?

    - by uloBasEI
    I have a Virtualbox VM running on a computer connected to Internet via an Ethernet cable. The guest has a network adapter attached to a NAT. 2 ports (22 and 80) are forwarded so that the host can access them respectively on localhost:2222 and localhost:8080. When the Ethernet cable is plugged, both machine (host and guest) can access Internet and the host can access the SSH server/Webserver which ports are forwarded. When I unplug the Ethernet cable from the host, the host can not access the SSH server/Webserver of the guest anymore. Same situation with a Laptop connected to Internet via wireless when I disable the wireless adapter or set a wrong WPA key. My question is: is there a workaround for the host to access the guest services even if its Ethernet cable is unplugged / wireless is not available?

    Read the article

  • VirtualBox Port Forward not working when Guest IP *IS* specified (while doc says opposite)

    - by Patrick
    Trying to port forward from host (Mac OS X) 127.0.0.1:8282 - guest (CentOS)'s 10.10.10.10:8080. Existing port forwards include 127.0.0.1:8181 and 9191 to guest without any IP specified (so whatever it gets through DHCP, as explained in the documentation). Here is how the non-working binding was added: VBoxManage modifyvm "VM name" --natpf1 "rule3,tcp,127.0.0.1,8282,10.10.10.10,8080" Here is how the working ones were added: VBoxManage modifyvm "VM name" --natpf1 "rule1,tcp,127.0.0.1,8181,,80" VBoxManage modifyvm "VM name" --natpf1 "rule2,tcp,127.0.0.1,9191,,9090" And by "non-working", I of course mean not listening (as a prerequisite to forwarding): $ lsof -Pi -n|grep Virtual|grep LISTEN VirtualBo 27050 user 21u IPv4 0x2bbdc68fd363175d 0t0 TCP 127.0.0.1:9191 (LISTEN) VirtualBo 27050 user 22u IPv4 0x2bbdc68fd0e0af75 0t0 TCP 127.0.0.1:8181 (LISTEN) There should be a similar line above but with 127.0.0.1:8282. Just to be clear, this port is listening perfectly fine on the guest itself. And when I remove the guest IP (i.e., clear the 10.10.10.10) the forward works fine, albeit to eth0 (not eth1 where I need it). I can tcpdump and watch the traffic flow back and forth. And yes, I've disabled iptables entirely while testing -- it's not getting blocked anywhere on the guest. As VirtualBox writes in their documentation, you are required to specify the guest IP if it's static (makes sense, no DHCP record it keeps): "If for some reason the guest uses a static assigned IP address not leased from the built-in DHCP server, it is required to specify the guest IP when registering the forwarding rule:". However, doing so (as I need to), seems to break the port forward with nary a report in any log file I can find. (I've reviewed everything in ~/Library/VirtualBox/). Other notes: While I used the above command to add the third rule, I've also verified it showed up correctly in GUI and then removed/re-added from there just to make sure). This forum link -- while very dated -- looks somewhat related in that a port forward to a static IP was not appearing (perhaps they think due to lack of gratuitous arp being sent for host to know IP is there/avail?). Anyway, what gives? Is this still buggy? Any suggestions? If not, easy enough workarounds? What's interesting is that this works perfectly fine on another user's Mac, however he's running a slightly older version (4.3.6 v. 4.3.12).

    Read the article

  • How to analyze a wifi network with many devices

    - by Caveatrob
    My friend has a wifi network with an x-box, a wii, a playstation, and two nintendo portables. She's also got 2-3 PC's and a network printer. She's got a wifi repeater as well. She claims that she didn't have any issues for months with everything working together, and suddenly everything stopped disconnecting. I haven't been over there yet - wanted to figure out the best way to diagnose the thing. I asked her to send me the stats on the booster and the modem, etc: The booster is Netgear serial #2ac2195506b95 The modem is Cisco Linksys e1500 #10910c12129103 We have a sprint router thru centurylink and they said it is working fine 660 series

    Read the article

  • ip conflict error

    - by mhay
    how to resolve ip conflict error ? i m getting my server's ip address when i m downloading from rapidshare ? and my ip address is different.

    Read the article

  • Suggestion of device WiFi range in it's spec. Possible?

    - by SeeR
    I have router Draytek Vigor 2100VG at home almost in the center of it. The farthest point at my home is my balcony, ~12m from it. I have constant wifi signal range problems with some of my devices, but not with others. Notebook Lenovo W510 - no problems Nokia Home Music - always on 10m - no problems Sony PS3 - always on 7m - no problems Sony tablet S - problems around 6m Sony PSP - problems around 8m Sony PS Vita - problems around 8m Nokia E63 - problems around 8m I'm curious why my Notebook don't have any problems even on the balcony? I guess it has better hardware or uses more power for transmission. This information is really important when you want to buy new device/computer, so my real question is: Can device wifi range can somehow be found/suggested from official hardware technical specification? If not Is there some web page with wifi range reviews?

    Read the article

  • Process vsserv.exe attempts connection to unknown host (clients.your-server.de)

    - by pushpraj
    from past few day I notice a new connection is being made from my system, I discovered it within the outpost firewall, it is blocked by default with the reason Block Transit Packets in the image above you can see that the process vsserv.exe is attempting a connection to static.88-198-155-41.clients.your-server.de I tried to search on google but could not find any relevant info, however this link http://www.webmasterworld.com/search_engine_spiders/3963600.htm says that your-server.de hosts bad bots. I am bit concerned if something is not correct. Could you help me understand the same?

    Read the article

  • What software is used by buy-side investment companies?

    - by user44995
    What software is used by buy-side investment companies? For educational purposes, could anyone describe IT infrastructure of a typical buy-side investment company: a hedge fund, a mutual fund or a wealth management company. No particular details are needed, just what type of software is used how different software modules interact with each other. Am I asking too much?

    Read the article

  • Cannot connect to FTP server from external host

    - by h3.
    I have a FTP server (vsftpd) setuped on a Linux box (Ubuntu server). When I try to connect with a computer on the same network everything works fine as expected. But as soon the IP is external it won't connect.. I first assumed the port was blocked, but then: localserver:$ sudo tail -f /var/log/vsftpd.log Wed Jan 13 14:21:17 2010 [pid 2407] CONNECT: Client "xxx.xxx.107.4" remotemachine:$ netcat svn-motion.no-ip.biz 21 220 FTP Server And it hangs there. Do any ports other than 21 need to be open?

    Read the article

  • Sharing a USB wireless-g adaptor between two computers

    - by cornjuliox
    I've got two computers here that need to connect via wireless-g usb adapter to the same network for internet access but only one USB adapter. Both PCs are using Windows XP, and I have no crossover cables. I've got both computers wired up to a router, and the PC with the active internet connection has ICS enabled, but the second PC gets no internet. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • TCP/UDP hole punching from and to the same NAT network

    - by Luc
    I was wondering if tcp/udp hole punching would still work when you are in the same network (behind a NAT), and what the packet's path would be. What happens when using hole punching on the same network, is that it will send a packet out with the same destination and source address. Only the source and destination port would differ. I imagine a router with NAT loopback enabled will handle this as it should, but how about other routers? Would they drop the packet, or would a router (the first?) from the ISP bounce the packet back after which it gets handled okay? I'm wondering because I was thinking about using this technique to circumvent a block between peers in a network (like a school network where clients can only access the internet, but any contact with each other is blocked). The only other option is to use a man in the middle as proxy (tunnel?). The disadvantage of this is that you have to have a server with significantly more bandwidth than one that would only do hole punching. Also the latency would increase significantly.

    Read the article

  • Wifi and eth behavior

    - by r00ster
    I have a wireless router 150M Wireless Lite N Router Model No. TL-WR740N / TL-WR740ND. Normally, when I'm connected to the local network using eth0 I can ping other machines by issuing ping name. When I'm connected through wifi I have to issue ping name.domain.com. The machine is only visible in intranet. How to achieve the same behavior with wifi? The second problem is, that I can not connect to some external sites through wifi but through eth everything is ok. I guess that is related to some port forwarding, but I'm not sure. How can I resolve this issue? EDIT: I'm using Linux Mint.

    Read the article

  • get all ip address from subnet mask

    - by Guntis
    I have this IP list shown below. How i can calculate all ip addresses from that in Linux? Is there some tools that can calculate that for me ? I need that to check if i have not banned some cloudflare IP's. As firewall i am using shorewall and i am banning with fail2ban single IP. As i know, then i cannot detect subent mask from IP adress, right? 204.93.240.0/24 204.93.177.0/24 199.27.128.0/21 173.245.48.0/20 103.22.200.0/22 141.101.64.0/18 108.162.192.0/18 190.93.240.0/20 188.114.96.0/20

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193  | Next Page >