Search Results

Search found 693 results on 28 pages for 'mutli wan'.

Page 23/28 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

• How can I connect my Xbox to my Mac on my network

  - by codecowboy

  I have a wireless router/modem (Router 1) in my living room. This is connected to the internet (cable). Wireless is disabled as the router has a terrible wireless range. My Xbox is connected via ethernet to Router 1. Another LAN output from Router 1 connects to a powerline adapter. Router 1 acts as a DHCP server on 192.168.0.x and has the IP 192.168.0.1 In a second room I have Router 2. This has the powerline feed from Router 1 going into the WAN socket. This router runs the Tomato Firmware and acts as a wireless router for the rest of the house using the IP range 192.168.1.x. Router 2 IP is 192.168.1.1. My Mac is connected to Router 2 using a LAN cable and has the IP 192.168.0.133. Several mobile devices need wireless access. I want an ethernet connection to my Mac, not wireless. I should be able to use software like Connect360 to share media from my Mac to the XBox but the XBox does not see my Mac. I can ping 192.168.0.1 from the Mac. Is this possible using my current setup? If so, how?

  Read the article

• Backup Exec 10 - Network connection to the remote agent has been lost

  - by jherlitz

  Okay, so I have 4 remote offices, all running off of a 3mb ethernet connection. Two sites are part of a WAN and 2 sites are using 3mb connections over a site to site tunnel. I am using Backup Exec 2010, I have the remote agent installed on all the remote servers. For the past few weeks now, on the two sites running over the site to site tunnel have been failing with the following error message now. "The network connection to the Backup Exec Remote Agent has been lost. Check for network errors" We used to be on a DSL connection site to site tunnel, now we changed to the 3mb ethernet connection using site to site tunnel. I have to find out, has it been failing ever since we changed, or just recently. Backup exec support is telling me it is a network issue. My communication or connection to the server is solid, we don't have any issues, or outages. So I am baffled on why this continues to fail. And why just those two sites.. Any advice?

  Read the article

• Simple Linux program that takes any HTTP/HTTPS request and returns a single page?

  - by ultrasawblade

  I have a Linux box operating as router. There's a NIC that's connected to the internet (WAN), a NIC connected to an 8-port GbE switch (LAN), and a NIC connected to a Linksys wireless N-router (WLAN). Routing between everything is working perfectly. I have security completely disabled on the wireless router, but the WLAN NIC is firewalled such that it will only accept DNS queries and PPTP VPN connections. Currently HTTP/HTTPS traffic and everything else is blocked. I would like to run something that listens on port 80/443 of the WLAN NIC, and, for non VPN'ed connections, given any HTTP/HTTPS request it will return a single webpage saying "Unauthenticated" and explain how to sign into the VPN. A transparent proxy seems to be what I need, but my searches all seem to direct me to Squid, which is already running on my server and seems overkill for this simple task. Is there a simpler, lightweight program out there that does just this or should I just suck it up and run two instances of Squid (or figure out how to configure it)? Or, is this entire VPN thing I'm doing complete nonsense and I should just enable encryption on the wireless router?

  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

• iptables secure squid proxy

  - by Lytithwyn

  I have a setup where my incoming internet connection feeds into a squid proxy/caching server, and from there into my local wireless router. On the wan side of the proxy server, I have eth0 with address 208.78.∗∗∗.∗∗∗ On the lan side of the proxy server, I have eth1 with address 192.168.2.1 Traffic from my lan gets forwarded through the proxy transparently to the internet via the following rules. Note that traffic from the squid server itself is also routed through the proxy/cache, and this is on purpose: # iptables forwarding iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -s 192.168.2.0/24 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A POSTROUTING -t nat -j MASQUERADE # iptables for squid transparent proxy iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 192.168.2.1:3128 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-port 3128 How can I set up iptables to block any connections made to my server from the outside, while not blocking anything initiated from the inside? I have tried doing: iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -s 192.168.2.0/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -j REJECT But this blocks everything. I have also tried reversing the order of those commands in case I got that part wrong, but that didn't help. I guess I don't fully understand everything about iptables. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Sonicwall NSA 240, Configured for LAN and DMZ, X0 and X2 on same switch - ping issues

  - by Klaptrap

  Our Sonicwall vendor supplied and networked the NSA240 when we required a DMZ in our infrastructure. This was configured and appeared correct although VPN users periodically dropped DNS and Terminal Services. The vendor could not resolve and so the call was escalated to Sonicwall. The Sonicwall support engineer took a look and concluded that the X0 (LAN) and X2 (DMZ) intefaces were cabled to the same switch and so this is the issue. What he observed is a ping request to the LAN Domain Controller, from a connected VPN user, is forwarded (x0) from the VPN client IP to the DC IP but the ping response from the DC IP to the VPN client IP is on X2, a copy of the log is detailed below:- 02/02/2011 10:47:49.272 X1*(hc) X0 192.168.1.245 192.168.1.8 IP ICMP -- FORWARDED 02/02/2011 10:47:49.272 -- X0* 192.168.1.245 192.168.1.8 IP ICMP -- FORWARDED 02/02/2011 10:47:49.272 X2*(i) -- 192.168.1.8 192.168.1.245 IP ICMP -- Received X0 - LAN X1 - WAN X2 - DMZ The Sonicwall engineer concluded that we either need a seperate switch for X2 or we use a VLAN switch for both. I am the companies software engineer and we have yet to have heard back from the vendor, so I am lost at sea at the moment. Do we need to buy this additional equipment or is there another configuration on the NSA240 we can use?

  Read the article

• Private staff network within public network

  - by pianohacker

  I'm the sysadmin at a small public library. Since I got here a few years ago, I've been trying to set up the network in a secure and simple way. Security is a little tricky; the staff and patron networks need to be separated, for security reasons. Even if I further isolated the public wireless, I'd still rather not trust the security of our public computers. However, the two networks also need to communicate; even if I set up enough VMs so they didn't share any servers, they need to use the same two printers at the very least. Currently, I'm solving this with some jerry-rigged commodity equipment. The patron network, linked together by switches, has a Windows server connected to it for DNS and DHCP and a DSL modem for a gateway. Also on the patron network is the WAN side of a Linksys router. This router is the "top" of the staff network, and has the same Windows server connected on a different port, providing DNS and DHCP, and another, faster DSL modem (separate connections are very useful, especially as we heavily depend on some cloud-hosted software). tl;dr: We have a public network, and a NATed staff network within it. My question is; is this really the best way to do this? The right equipment would likely make my job easier, but anything with more than four ports and even rudimentary management quickly becomes a heavy hit on our budget. (My original question was about an ungodly frustrating DHCP routing issue, but I thought I'd ask whether my network was broken rather than asking about the DHCP problem and being told my network was broken.)

  Read the article

• RRAS Problem routing to central site from RRAS server only?

  - by TomTom

  Given is an office connected to headquarters using a RRAS bridge (2 virtual machines using RRAS to route between the two networks). Naming: The office is A, the RRAS on A is a-lnk. THe headquartters is B, b-lnk the RRAS machine there. The VPN works perfectly - machines can ping and work between the sites. Domain controllers on both ends replicating, DFS working, remote desktop working. All in all... everything is fine. EXCEPT: a-lnk itself can not reach any machine in B. This would normally not be troublesome (noone ever does anything on a-lnk), but there are two exceptions: * a-lnk is supposed to get it's license from a KMS in B, so not being able to reach B means it is not prolonging. * a-lnk is supposed to pull updates from a WSUS in B - and not being able to reach B means - no updates. Given that thigns work (and security is a minor issue - A-lnk is not reachable from the internet as it is behing a NAT hardware anyway) this got not handled for months. I just wan to get this item ticked off now. Anyone an idea what this is? It definitely is not a "dns does not work" or "routing in general is bad" item, as any computer in A can connect to any computer in B, and the other way arount - only the RRAS computer itself seems to do something really awkward. Platform for both: 2008 R2 standard.

  Read the article

• Windows VPN for remote site connection drawbacks

  - by Damo

  I'm looking for some thoughts on a particular way of setting up a estate of machines. We have a requirement to install machines into unmanned, remote locations. These machines will auto login and perform tasks controlled from a central server. In order to manage patching, AV, updates etc I want these machines to be joined to a dedicated domain for this estate. Some of the locations will only have 3G connectivity (via other hardware), others will be located on customer premises in internal networks. The central server (of ours) and the Domain Controller will be on a public WAN. I see two ways of facilitating this. Install a router at each location and have a site to site VPN between the remove device and the data centre where the servers are location Have the remote machine dial up and authenticate via a Windows VPN connection to the DC via RAS Option one is more costly to setup and has a higher operational cost. It also offers better diagnostics if the remote PC goes down. Option two works well but is solely dependent on the VPN connection been made before any communication can be made to the remote machine. In a simple test, I can got a Windows 7 machine to dial a VPN prior to authentication to a domain, then automatically login to the machine using domain credentials. If the VPN connection drops, it redials. I can also create a timed task to auto connect every hour in case of other issues. I'd like to know, why (if at all) is operating a remote network of devices which are located in various out of band locations in this way a bad idea? Consider 300-400 remote machines all at different sites. I'd rather have 400 VPN connections to a 2008 server than 400 routers, however I'd like to know other opinions on this.

  Read the article

• Linux server: Dropped packets

  - by Lars

  I see dropped packets using ifconfig on my eth0 interface: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:15:17:0d:03:ca inet addr:10.0.1.2 Bcast:10.0.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:9000 Metric:1 RX packets:30268348 errors:0 dropped:70721 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:133076885 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:8699434077 (8.6 GB) TX bytes:194937313025 (194.9 GB) Interrupt:16 Memory:feae0000-feb00000 When i use ethtool -S i dont see anything wrong: NIC statistics: rx_packets: 30267138 tx_packets: 133074510 rx_bytes: 8699356158 tx_bytes: 194934147340 rx_broadcast: 35296 tx_broadcast: 5435 rx_multicast: 0 tx_multicast: 0 rx_errors: 0 tx_errors: 0 tx_dropped: 0 multicast: 0 collisions: 0 rx_length_errors: 0 rx_over_errors: 0 rx_crc_errors: 0 rx_frame_errors: 0 rx_no_buffer_count: 0 rx_missed_errors: 0 tx_aborted_errors: 0 tx_carrier_errors: 0 tx_fifo_errors: 0 tx_heartbeat_errors: 0 tx_window_errors: 0 tx_abort_late_coll: 0 tx_deferred_ok: 0 tx_single_coll_ok: 0 tx_multi_coll_ok: 0 tx_timeout_count: 0 tx_restart_queue: 0 rx_long_length_errors: 0 rx_short_length_errors: 0 rx_align_errors: 0 tx_tcp_seg_good: 5757001 tx_tcp_seg_failed: 0 rx_flow_control_xon: 8649 rx_flow_control_xoff: 62072 tx_flow_control_xon: 0 tx_flow_control_xoff: 0 rx_long_byte_count: 8699356158 rx_csum_offload_good: 30212111 rx_csum_offload_errors: 0 rx_header_split: 10857552 alloc_rx_buff_failed: 0 tx_smbus: 0 rx_smbus: 0 dropped_smbus: 0 rx_dma_failed: 0 tx_dma_failed: 0 I am running Ubuntu 12.04 with kernel 3.2.0-30-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP I have pinged every device on my internal network for about 24 hours, without packet loss. Also checked my router and my interface to the WAN, also no errors there. Does anyone have any clue?

  Read the article

• Extending a home wireless network using two routers running tomato

  - by jalperin

  I have two Asus RT-N16 routers each flashed with Tomato (actually Tomato USB). UPSTAIRS: Router 'A' (located upstairs) is connected to the internet via the WAN port and connected via a LAN port to a 10/100/1000 switch (Switch A). Several desktops are also attached to Switch A. Router A uses IP 192.168.1.1. DOWNSTAIRS: I've just acquired Router 'B' and set it to IP 192.168.1.2. I have a cable running from Switch A downstairs to another switch (Switch B). Tivo, a blu-ray player and a Mac are connected to Switch B. My plan was to connect Router B to Switch B so that I have improved wireless access downstairs. (The wireless signal from Router A gets weak downstairs in a number of locations.) How should I configure Router B so that all devices in the house can see and talk to one another? I know that I need to change DHCP on Router B so that it doesn't cover the same range as DHCP on Router A. Should I be using WDS on the two routers, or is that unnecessary since I already have a wired connection between the two routers? Any other thoughts or suggestions? Thanks! --Jeff

  Read the article

• Vlaning on WNR3500L

  - by ageis23

  When I try connecting to my wireless network it attempts to connect then gives up. There's something strange going on with the mac's. The eternet switch and all the vlan interfaces have a mac 00:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF. config 'switch' 'eth0' option 'vlan0' '2 3 4 8*' option 'vlan1' '0 8' option 'vlan2' '1 8' config 'interface' 'loopback' option 'ifname' 'lo' option 'proto' 'static' option 'ipaddr' '127.0.0.1' option 'netmask' '255.0.0.0' config 'interface' 'lan' option 'type' 'bridge' option 'ifname' 'eth0.1' option 'proto' 'static' option 'netmask' '255.255.255.0' option 'ipaddr' '192.168.2.1' option 'ip6addr' '' option 'gateway' '192.168.1.253' option 'ip6gw' '' option 'dns' '' config 'interface' 'wan' option 'ifname' 'eth0' option 'proto' 'dhcp' option 'ipaddr' '192.168.1.8' option 'ip6addr' '' option 'netmask' '255.255.255.0' option 'gateway' '192.168.1.253' option 'ip6gw' '' option 'dns' '192.168.1.253' config 'interface' 'dmz' option 'ifname' 'eth0.2' option 'proto' 'static' option 'ipaddr' '192.168.0.1' option 'netmask' '255.255.255.0' Any help on this will be greatly appreciated! When I try setting the mac using macaddr it does nothing. It works perfectly fine when I turn the authentication off. I've also discovered that when wpa2 is switched on I don't receive a association reply from ap. thats my hostapd.conf interface=eth1 driver=broadcom bridge=br-lan ssid=O2BB3 wpa=2 wpa_passphrase=prettywoman wpa_key_mgmt=WPA-PSK rsn_pairwise=CCMP Btw that password is only temporary while am testing.

  Read the article

• OpenVZ with bridged interfaces and VLAN

  - by Deimosfr

  Hi, I've got a problem with OpenVZ with bridged VLAN. Here is my configuration: +------+ +-------+ +-----------+ +---------+ br0 |VE101 | | | | OpenBSD |----->| Debian |------->| | | WAN |--->| Router | | OpenVZ | +------+ | | | Firewall |----->| br0 br1 | br1 +------+ +-------+ +-----------+ +---------+------->|VE102 | |br0 | | |VLAN br0.110 +------+ v +---------+ |VE103.110| +---------+ I can't make VLAN work on br0 (br0.110) and I would like to understand why. I don't have any switch so no problem with unmanageable switch. I've configured a VLAN interface on OpenBSD in /etc/hostname.vlan110: inet 192.168.110.254 255.255.255.0 NONE vlan 110 vlandev sis1 And it seems to be working fine. I've also adapted my PF configuration to work with VLAN but I don't see any incoming traffic. On my Debian Lenny, here is my interfaces configuration : # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # br0 auto br0 iface br0 inet static address 192.168.100.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.100.254 network 192.168.100.0 broadcast 192.168.100.255 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_fd 9 bridge_hello 2 bridge_maxage 12 bridge_stp off # VLAN 110 auto br0.110 iface br0.110 inet static address 192.168.110.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.110.0 gateway 192.168.110.254 broadcast 192.168.110.255 pre-up vconfig add br0 110 post-down vconfig rem br0.110 It looks OK, but when I start my VE, here is the message: ... Configure veth devices: veth103.0 Adding interface veth103.0 to bridge br0.110 on CT0 for VE103 can't add veth103.0 to bridge br0.110: Operation not supported VE start in progress... So I've got one error here. I've followed this documentation http://wiki.openvz.org/VLAN but it doesn't work. I've certainly missed something but I don't know why. Someone could help me please? Thanks

  Read the article

• How do I access my samba drive through several layers of network topology?

  - by stephenmm

  I have a new windows 7 Home Premium machine that is in a different room than my main computer area. As such I have to use a bridge and another router. Everything is working wonderfully except I cannot access the SAMBA drive with the new machine. I know that SAMBA is accessible as an older WinXP machine can access it. A picture of my network would probably be helpfull: To ISP | | +---------------------------+ | WAN | | Cable Modem | | (2WIRE678) | | | | | +---------------------------+ | +---------------------------+ | | (|) (|) +-----------+ | Belkin Router | | | | Wireless | | (F5D) |--+ +--| WinXP | | | |SAMBA USER | | | +-----------+ +---------------------------+ | | | | +------------+ | | Ubuntu | | | Apache + | | |SAMBA Server| | +------------+ | | +---------------------------+ | | | Netgear Bridge | | (XET1001) | | | +---------------------------+ # # +---------------------------+ | | | Netgear Bridge | | (XET1001) | | | +---------------------------+ | +---------------------------+ | | | D-Link Router | | (DI-524) | | | | | +---------------------------+ | | | | +-----------+ | | | Win7 | |SAMBA USER?| +-----------+ More interesting data points: 1. I can ping the SAMBA server from the Win7 machine locally (Ie. 192.168.2.2) 2. I can access the webserver from the Win7 machine locally (Ie. 192.168.2.2) 3. I followed the advice to get Win7 and SAMBA to play nice: http://www.tannerwilliamson.com/2009/09/windows-7-seven-network-file-sharing-fix-samba-smb/ Sorry for being so long winded but it is kind of complex and I am really at a loss as to how to fix it. If any of you have some suggestions I would love to hear it!

  Read the article

• Vlan on DD-WRT v24 filesharing without internet

  - by user148888

  I'm planning to do a vlan with shared files without internet. my vlan is working correctly until I could lock the internet but I can not share files only I can ping from 172.168.1.x to 172.168.2.x but not backward. can u help me please?? This is my config. WRT54g DD-wrt v24 vlan0 eth 1,2,3 172.168.1.1/24 vlan1 Wan vlan2 eth 4 172.168.2.1/24(don't want internet here just Lan Conection) Pc (my pc) 172.168.1.10/24 gtway 172.168.1.1 (with internet) Ubiquity Nanostation loco M2 172.168.2.20/24(AP)(connect to eth 4 vlan2)(don't want internet here) Ubiquity Nanostation loco M2 172.168.2.21/24(Client)(don't want internet here) Friend pc 172.168.2.115/24(connected from the client)(don't want internet here) Any Help Please.. ![Lan Map][1] ![Vlan Config1][2] ![Vlan Config2][3] ![Vlan Config3][4] ![Command to block internet][5] [url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/194/lanxl.jpg/][img=http://imageshack.us/a/img194/4197/lanxl.th.jpg][/url] [url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/commandmf.jpg/][img=http://imageshack.us/a/img600/9530/commandmf.th.jpg][/url] [url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/811/57398524.jpg/][img=http://imageshack.us/a/img811/1917/57398524.th.jpg][/url] [url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/48064277.jpg/][img=http://imageshack.us/a/img717/829/48064277.th.jpg][/url] [url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/21456517.jpg/][img=http://imageshack.us/a/img685/256/21456517.th.jpg][/url]

  Read the article

• Two hosts on same subnet can't see each other

  - by Joey Hewitt

  I've got two routers with two separate public IP addresses on the same subnet, but I can't get them to talk to each other. Both are connected to the internet (ISP-provided gateway) via Ethernet ports provided by the landlord, but I don't have access to or knowledge of how those are physically connected or the protocols used to get back to the ISP. I can ping either from the outside, but they can't ping each other. Traceroutes in and out look the same, and they receive the same gateway over DHCP. I can ping other IPs on the subnet, so I assume this is not any sort of intentional isolation for security/privacy. Since I'm in a setup where my landlord provides internet and we don't have contact with the ISP, I can't really ask the ISP for help (doubt the landlord would know much either.) The situation is similar to the diagram at this question, but instead of the two servers, there's another router coming off the (presumed) switch, and I don't have access to the switch. I've tried giving them static routes to each other with the ISP internet gateway as the gateway, but that's not working. One is a Linksys WRT54GL running DD-WRT, the other is a Netgear WGR614v7, although I could get something more capable if necessary. I'd like to keep them each connected directly to the ISP on their WAN ports, but I can have an ethernet cable between them if necessary - I'm wondering if there's a way without that, and if there isn't, I'd appreciate advice on how to get that working. Sorry this is so nitpicky; there are reasons for all the constraints, but they don't apply to the real question, so I left them out. ;) Thank you!

  Read the article

• Wireless router setup for 1-1 NAT

  - by Carlos

  What I have: A linksys router WAG160N with firmware version 2 A "pool" of 5 external static IP's provided by my ISP 213.xx.xxx.n All the required configuration values for the static IPs such as (Subnet Mask, Gateway and static DNS 1, 2, 3) Current WAN Configuration: Encapsulation: RFC 2364 PPPoA Multiplexing: VC QoS type: UBR DSL modulation: MultiMode What's connected to the network: 1 x Server (That I want to make available to the outside) 5 x Desktops with static internal IP's, such as 192.168.0.xx 2 x Network printers, also with internal static IP's 2 x Laptops 1 x NAS (Network Attached Storage) also on static IP What I want to do: I would like to make the server available from outside the network, for example from your house. The problem is that Im not really sure how to do this. I have tried following the steps on the instruction manual in Linksys but they do not seem to work, once I set it up as shown bellow, I loose internet and all hell breaks loose. Going into further detail, I would prefer if the network is changed as little as possible, by this I mean that all the computers stay networked within eachother and only the server is accessible from the outside the network. What I need HELP with: I have read around that it is possible to set a 1-1 NAT (I know where it is in the menu but have no clue what it does...) so that I can NAT a single public IP directly to a single private IP (in our case the server). But please, How do I do that? Or maybe an alternative?

  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

• very slow internet with Linksys WRT54GL only in wireless mode (wired is OK)

  - by gojira

  I bought a new Cisco Linksys WRT54GL router to connect my laptop (running Windows 7) to the internet. I installed Tomato 1.28 firmware on the router. When I connect the laptop to the router via ethernet cable, everything is fine and I get extremely fast up- and download speeds. When I connect wirelesssly however, websites load extremely slow - it takes dozens of seconds to load a website! <-- This is my question, how can I fix the wireless speed issue? Gmail for example is unusable this way. I tried speedtest.net, but this always fails in the upload part of the test so I can't even test the bandwidth (could the fact that it fails in the upload part, not the download part, be an indication what the problem is?!). I have isolated the problem a bit, I am convinced it has to do either with the router itself, the router settings, or the settings of the wireless connection in Win 7. Because previously, I was using another router by Buffalo and I had no problems whatsoever. I have tried to reproduce the settings from the Bufallo router as closely as possible on the Linksys router (same channel, same encryption etc). The download speed problem only occurs with the Linksys router, and only in wireless mode! When I exchange the Linksys router with the Buffalo router I have here for testing, the wireless speed is up to normal again. Also, before I had installed the Tomato firmware I had exactly the same problem, so it has nothing to do with the firmware itself. Notes & things I already tried: Changing the channel: does not seem to affect anything, I am also on the same channel (10) which I was previously on when I had a Buffalo router. QoS is off. Ping to the router itself is OK, ~ 1 ms. Some current settings of the linksys router: WAN / Internet Type: DHCP Wirelesss Mode: Access Point B/G Mode: Mixed Broadcast: check Channel: 10 - 2.457 GHz Security: WPA2 Personal Encryption: AES

  Read the article

• Why are ISP's installing routers on my site when the feed is a form of ethernet already?

  - by Cosmin Prund

  I'm connected to 3 ISP's right now. Two of them already have routers at my site, the third one announced me "they need to install some equipment" when I requested BGP session. I can only assume they need to install a Router, since that connection is now working fine, using the usual /30 net block for the connection, and the "last-mile" solution is not going to change since they only installed it last week and the BGP was in the contract from the beginning. I simply don't understand this: the "feed" is already a form of ethernet. Even those they're using different technologies for the last mile, they're all entering the ISP router using an RJ45 WAN port. I assume the ISP router does something really important that can't be done by the Big Router on the other end of the connection. It must also be something that can hurt them if miss-configured, since they don't trust us (the client) to do the stuff on our router. And I'm not talking cheap throw-away routers here: One of the routers is Cisco 2800. Edit to add network details: I'm connected to 3 ISP's, two over Radio links, one over Fiber Optic. One of the radio links is going to get dropped and the other radio link will be turned into fiber sometime next year. The fiber is 20 Mbit, radio 1 is 40 Mbit and radio 2 is 2 Mbit. I've got a /24 of provider independent address space. I'm not doing out-of-the ordinary stuff with my network, I'm overly connected because my network needs to be "up" all the time.

  Read the article

• Why do I need a managed switch and which one should I buy?

  - by ascanio1

  I bought a 2nd router and I want both routers to have direct WAN access to the modem. One of the 2 routers directs VOIP traffic to a telephone line port. This VOIP service is provided by the cable carrier which also leases the modem & the router. The cable company technician told me that this VOIP line uses IPv6 addressing and therefore I must employ an IPv6 capable/compliant Giga Hub/Switch or my telephone line won't work anymore. Pls advise me (brand/model) an IPv6 compliant, 2 port, switch to purchase. Pls educate me: By reading this forum I thought that hubs broadcast traffic to all ports, regardless of which input/output is being used and so, theoretically, they have nothing to do with IP. Correct? Same story for unmanaged switches, where the only difference is that these latter devices route traffic only to those ports which are detected to be in use. Correct? I also understood that unmanaged switches route traffic simply by detecting hardware use and not by selecting specific IP traffic. Correct? Finally, there are managed switches which DO select traffic based on IP and, therefore, only these managed switches are involved with IPv6... Why would my cable company explicitly tell me, over and over, that I must use an IPv6 compliant switch? Why would they need a managed switch instead of an unmanaged one? Thanks in advance for helping me understand!

  Read the article

• ssh initial prompt hangs for 10 minutes but console login and initial prompt is very responsive - why?

  - by rfreytag

  I have been running an ESXi 4.0 server for months with a couple of WinServer2003 and several Ubuntu Server 10.4 VMs. The performance has been impressive on 6GB i7 Asus P6T hardware. Suddenly, a week ago, ssh logins to the Ubuntu VMs take 10 minutes when connecting over the LAN (over a WAN the connection (pipe) is broken long before that). When logging in to these VMs the password prompt arrives immediately, and failed passwords are responded to immediately. But the moment I log in then the shell prompt appears and I hang for many minutes. Sometimes the connection hangs before the shell prompt appears and sometimes I can type in a command but the moment I hit return the machine hangs. 10 full minute later control returns and the VM is responsive. NOTE: there are several Ubuntu VMs on the same host machine that are identical in all ways that I can tell. However, only one of the VMs displays this behavior. That is why I mention the ESXi host in passing - I don't think it has anything to do with the problem. This behavior is never seen when I connect with the troubled-VM's console (through vSphere Client). From the console the Ubuntu VMs all respond beautifully. I have seen: http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=1003496&sliceId=1&docTypeID=DT_KB_1_1&dialogID=229586372&stateId=1%200%20229588522 ...and since that relates to delays in seeing the password prompt that does not appear to be the solution here. Any other suggestions very welcome - thank you.

  Read the article

• Does anyone know how to "tcpdump" traffic decrypted by Mallory MITM? [migrated]

  - by chriv

  I'm looking for some help in capturing network traffic that I can analyze in Wireshare (or other tools). The tool I'm using is mallory. If anyone is familiar with mallory, I could use some help. I've got it configured and running correctly, but I don't know how to get the output that I want. The setup is on my private network. I have a VM (running Ubuntu 12.04 - precise) with two NICs: eth0 is on my "real" network eth1 is only on my "fake" network, and is using dnsmasq (for DNS and DHCP for other devices on the "fake" network) Effectively eth0 is the "WAN" on my VM, and eth1 is the "LAN" on my VM. I've setup mallory and iptables to intercept, decrypt, encrypt and rewrite all traffic coming in on destination port 443 on eth1. On the device I want intercepted, I have imported the ca.cer that mallory generated as a trusted root certificate. I need to analyze some strange behavior in the HTTPS stream between the client and server, so that's why mallory is setup in between for this MITM. I would like to take the decrypted HTTPS traffic and dump it to either a logfile or a socket in a format compatible with tcpdump/wireshark (so I can collect it later and analyze it). Running tcpdump on eth1 is too soon (it's encrypted), and running tcpdump on eth2 is too late (it's been re-encrypted). Is there a way to make mallory "tcpdump" the decrypted traffic (in both directions)?

  Read the article

• Freshly installed dd-wrt on dir-300 and no internet. What to do?

  - by Erik B

  With the d-link firmware I just connected the router and it worked, as is expected when using DHCP, but with dd-wrt I have no internet access. It is configured with DHCP, and dd-wrt's wan status page reports that it is connected and that it has an ip address. Yet it is impossible to reach the internet. If I disconnect the router and plugs the cable directly into my computer I get internet access, so it's obviously the dd-wrt software that isn't doing its job. However, I have no previous experience with the dd-wrt software and have no clue what to look for. I thought it would just work. By the way, the power led is orange, the internet led is off, and wireless+lan1 is green. They all used to be green with the d-link firmware. Not sure if it's relevant, but now you know. Does anyone have any idea what I should do to get internet access (besides reinstalling d-link's firmware)? EDIT: It's a version B1. I read that it is very different from the A1 version, so I thought it may be relevant.

  Read the article

• Moving Microsoft Exchange server to the private network.

  - by Alexey Shatygin

  In one of the offices, we have a 50-computers network, which had only one server machine: Windows 2003 Server Microsoft ISA Server Microsoft Exchange 2003 This server worked as a gateway (proxy server), mail server, file server, firewall and domain controller. It had two network interfaces, one for WAN (let's say 222.222.222.222) and one for LAN (192.168.1.1). I set up a Linux box to be the gateway (without a proxy), so the Linux box now has the following interfaces: 222.222.222.222 (our external IP, we removed it from the Windows machine) and 192.168.1.100 (internal IP), but we need to keep the old Windows server as a mail server and a proxy for some of our users, until we prepare another Linux machine for that, so I need the mail server on that machine to be available from the Internet. I set up iptables rules to redirect all the incoming connections on the 25th and 110th ports of our external IP to 192.168.1.1:25 and 192.168.1.1:110 and when I try to telnet our SMTP service telnet 222.222.222.222 25 I get the greetings from our windows server's (192.168.1.1) SMTP service, and that's works fine. But when I telnet POP3 service telnet 222.222.222.222 110 I only get the blank black screen and the connection seem to disappear if I press any button. I've checked the ISA rules - everything seems to be the same for 110th and 25th ports. When I telnet on 110th ports of our Windows server from our new gateway machine like this: telnet 192.168.1.1 110 I get the acces to it's POP3 service: +OK Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 POP3 server version 6.5.7638.1 (...) ready. What sould I do, to make the POP3 service available through our new gateway?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >