Search Results

Search found 17267 results on 691 pages for 'dynamic ip'.

Page 276/691 | < Previous Page | 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283  | Next Page >

  • Trouble with port 80 nating (XenServer to WebServer VM)

    - by Lain92
    I have a rent server running XenServer 6.2 I only have 1 public IP so i did some NAT to redirect ports 22 and 80 to my WebServer VM. I have a problem with the port 80 redirection. When i use this redirection, i can get in the WebServer's Apache but this server lose Web access. I get this kind of error : W: Failed to fetch http://http.debian.net/debian/dists/wheezy/main/source/Sources 404 Not Found [IP: 46.4.205.44 80] but i can ping anywhere. XenserverIP:80 redirected to 10.0.0.2:80 (WebServer). This is the port 80 redirection part of my XenServer iptables : -A PREROUTING -i xenbr1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.0.0 .2:80 -A INPUT -i xenbr1 -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT COMMIT What is wrong in my configuration? Is there a problem with XenServer? Thanks for your help ! Edit : Here is my iptables full content : *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [51:4060] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [9:588] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [9:588] -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m tcp --dport 1234 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.0.0.2:22 -A PREROUTING -i xenbr1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.0.0 .2:80 -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/255.255.255.0 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [5434:4284996] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [5014:6004729] -A INPUT -i xenbr1 -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT COMMIT Update : I have a second server with 10.0.0.3 as IP and it has the same problem that 10.0.0.2 has.

    Read the article

  • Managing persistent data on an Amazon EC2 web server

    - by Derek
    I've just started trying out Amazon's EC2 service for running an asp.net web app which uses a SQL Server 2005 Express database. I have some questions about how to configure and operate it best for reliability, and I'm hoping to tap into some collective wisdom here as this is my first foray into EC2. Here's how I have it configured currently: OS: Windows 2003 SQL Server Express 2005 Web content stored on an EBS Volume (E Drive) Database Data stored on an EBS Volume (E Drive) Database backups to "C Drive" and then copied off to S3. Elastic IP Address attached to the production instance. Now when I make a change to the OS configuration, I make a new AMI using the bundle feature. Unfortunately, I found that this results in significant downtime. While the bundle is created and the new instance is started. It seems that when I'm ready to make a new AMI, I should: Start up a new temporary instance. Detach the EBS volume from the production instance. Detach the IP Address from the production instance. Attach the IP Address to the temporary instance. Attach the EBS volume to the temporary instance. Create an AMI from the production instance. After the production instance restarts, reverse the attach/detach steps to put it back in production. Is this the right order of events to prevent any chance to corrupt the EBS volume? Will the EBS volume become corrupt if I detach it while a database Write is taking place? Should I snapshot the EBS volume of the production instance and attach it to the temporary instance instead? Or could taking a snapshot of the EBS volume while it's in use cause corruption? Any suggestions to improve the reliability and operations?

    Read the article

  • Only tunnel certain applications via OpenVPN

    - by jinjin
    Hi, I've purchased a VPN solution, it works correctly when I have "redirect-gateway def1" in the configuration file (routing all traffic through the VPN). However when I remove that line from the configuration file, I am still able to ping-out of the machine (ping -I tap0), however I cannot ping the IP assigned to the machine (it's a public ip), i get the error: Destination Host Unreachable. I only want to have certain applications sending traffic through the VPN tunnel (eg: ZNC, irssi), all of which i can select which IP they use. However they can't recieve any data, making the tunnel essentially useless to me when disabling redirect-gateway. Any ideas on how to allow specific applications use the tunnel, without of forcing everything to go through it? My configuration file is as follows: dev tap remote #.#.#.# float #.#.#.# port 5129 comp-lzo ifconfig #.#.#.# 255.255.255.128 route-gateway #.#.#.# #redirect-gateway def1 secret key.txt cipher AES-128-CBC The output of ifconfig -a when the tunnel is connected: tap0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:ff:47:d3:6d:f3 inet addr:#.#.#.# Bcast:#.#.#.# Mask:255.255.255.255 inet6 addr: <snip> Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:612 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:35 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:25704 (25.1 KiB) TX bytes:6427 (6.2 KiB) EDIT: the Bcast:#.#.#.# (ifconfig) is different from route-gateway #.#.#.# (openvpn) if that makes any difference.

    Read the article

  • connecting to server with multiple nics in other vlan

    - by Thierry
    I have a windows 2003 server with 3 nics on 3 vlan's (this is in domain 1). nic 1 has a default gateway to my router/firewall (sonicwall). In nic 2 and 3 I have left it empty, because it is advised like that everywhere. Within this domain and VLAN's 1-3 everything works fine. BUT... I have a second domain (domain 2) with a 4th Vlan (all 4 VLAN's connected to the same router/firewall) from which my clients need to access the 2003 server in domain 1 (it's my antivirus management console for both domains). when i ping the server from my vlan4 by it's FQDN, it randomly chooses ip from nic 1, 2 or 3 from my 2003 server. (logically because that server is know in DNS with it's 3 IP-addresses. And that is needed for my VLAN's 1-3) I don't really have a problem with that. BUT, I only get an answer of NIC1 (which sounds logically to me, because it's the only one with a gateway). It is not a router problem, because I'm testing in this phase and ping from vlan4 to any machine in vlan1, 2 or 3 that has 1 nic works just fine. If i add a gateway to nic2 and nic3, I get answer from all 3 nics and this works fine. But I know it's adviced to not do that. Can anyone give me advice in this particular case? Would it really be a problem to add a gateway to nic 2 and 3? They would be pointing to the same router/firewall (only with different ip-address, based on the vlan). Or is there another good solution to fix this problem? Thank's in advance, Thierry.

    Read the article

  • Setup windows 2012 AD in Hyper-V for a Test environment

    - by hub
    Im trying to setup a Windos 2012 R2 test environment on my work computer (a laptop). I have a AD, DHCP and DNS server on server A, and a client connecting to the doman and that works. The client can ping the AD server and gets a valid IP adress. If I ping google.com from the client I get the IP adress but I dont get any responses (request time out). If i ping google.com from server A it works as it should. Server A have a connection to the Internet through a "external network switch" in hyper-v, which gets its internet from a router and the client is connected to a "internal network switch". May the poblem be that server A is behind a router? Can I make this solution to work regadless the network my laptop is connected to? At home i have one IP adress, at work its a totally different range. What I would like is to use my laptops internet connection, regardless wifi or wired, to act as incomming internet, is this possible?

    Read the article

  • What's going on with traceroute?

    - by Kevin
    The following is what happens when I run traceroute from a certain location: # traceroute google.com traceroute to google.com (74.125.227.39), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 gateway.local.enactpc.com (10.0.0.1) 0.138 ms 0.101 ms 0.084 ms 2 * * * 3 * * * 4 * * * 5 * * * 6 * * * 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * Absolutely nothing of interest... Now, originally I thought this was just a fact of the location's network set up. (I assume they block pings or something...) However, watch what happens when I use nmap to run a traceroute... # nmap -sP --traceroute google.com Starting Nmap 5.21 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2012-09-25 22:18 CDT Nmap scan report for google.com (74.125.227.40) Host is up (0.034s latency). Hostname google.com resolves to 11 IPs. Only scanned 74.125.227.40 rDNS record for 74.125.227.40: dfw06s06-in-f8.1e100.net TRACEROUTE (using proto 1/icmp) HOP RTT ADDRESS 1 0.19 ms gateway.local.enactpc.com (10.0.0.1) 2 1.93 ms 99-20-92-1.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net (99.20.92.1) 3 25.61 ms 99-20-92-2.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net (99.20.92.2) 4 ... 6 7 23.68 ms 12.83.68.137 8 31.30 ms gar23.dlstx.ip.att.net (12.122.85.73) 9 ... 10 31.82 ms 72.14.233.65 11 32.27 ms 209.85.250.77 12 32.98 ms dfw06s06-in-f8.1e100.net (74.125.227.40) Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 3.29 seconds When using nmap I get A LOT more results than with traceroute, why? Note, I checked, and the difference in target IP addresses is not related...

    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

  • How can I redirect/forward all the UDP/TCP traffic on one interface to another interface in OpenWrt

    - by Sina Sou
    I am new to networking and I have a measurement device (D) that periodically sends all its readings over few UDP multicast sockets (with different multicast IP addresses and different port numbers). That device even listens to a TCP socket simultaneously to modify its configuration on port 7234. Since the device has just a Ethernet interface for communication and I want to make it work wireless, I decided to use a very small wireless open-wrt based router that attaches to the device (D) and redirect/forward all the network traffic(Both UDP/TCP) to the router wireless interface. In order to simplify the problem assume that the Device (D) establishes following sockets (at the same time) UM_SOCK1: UDP mcast socket on 239.1.2.3 port# 50620 UM_SOCK2: UDP mcast socket on 239.1.2.4 port# 50640 TC_SOCK3: TCP DHCP/STATIC ip address 192.168.1.200 port 7234 And (D) is connected to Open-Wrt router (R) via interface en01 (Ethernet) the router has it own wireless interface on (wlan0) I want all the traffic from interface pass through wlan01 and vice versa (bi-directional) en01 <---- wlan01 What would be the minimum iptables or ... commands that I need to make this possible? Even I am wondering if traffic directing can be made easier like if the direction is not going to be based on IP addresses(not desired if the device is connected via DHCP) I would rather redirection to be Interface(en0) based or on MAC address (The best solution since my device has unique MAC address)? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Switch Before Firewall / Router - Multiple public IPs

    - by rii
    I currently Have a 10Mbit Full duplex circuit connected to a small unmanaged switch which then connects to a Sonicwall Firewall / Router. I have several public IP addresses (/28) that are assigned to several devices in my setup. Now the problem is the small switch I have was lent to me and needs to be returned, I have replaced this switch with several other switches but for some reason any other switch I use causes the network to become extremely slow. I believe this is a problem with the autonegotiation of theses hubs, so I am thinking of purchasing a small managed switch (cisco 300 series) and making the receiving port on the swith Explicitly 10Mbit Full Duplex and see if this works. My question is, being that this is a managed switch and needs an IP, will I still be able to run my public ips through it? Say the circuit has 70.80.4.1 - 7 will I still be able to assign 70.80.4.2 to my firewall and 70.80.4.3 to my router connected to some other port in the switch? Will I have to assign the switch a public IP address in this range as well for it to "route" to those other devices or does the switch does not care what IPs goes through it while operating as a Layer 2 Switch? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advanced!

    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

  • Netgear router is not resolving hostnames

    - by Thomas Clayson
    Not sure what the problem is, but I am used to being able to access other clients on my LAN via their hostname. We got a new router from plusnet (Netgear WNR1000v3) and now this has stopped working. For instance, if I were to run a web server from one computer with the hostname TomPC usually I could go into a browser and type http://TomPC and I would get the web server front page. I can access it by using the LAN ip of the machine. e.g. http://192.168.1.1 works fine. I thought it would be a simple option in the admin panel of the router - possibly I had to turn on DNS/DCHP or something. But I can't see anything, and my searches on the internet seem to turn up ridiculous solutions involving setting up a dedicated DNS server on my LAN. This is just a small home network - really I just want to be able to access my Raspberry PI on the network without having to work out the IP address every time. (I know I could just set a static IP address for it, but using its hostname would be much easier). DCHP is enabled in the LAN settings part, although RIP is disabled (I don't know what the latter is) I don't know if this has anything to do with it? Many thanks!

    Read the article

  • Are there any viable DNS or LDAP alternatives for distributed key/value storage and retrieval?

    - by makerofthings7
    I'm working on a software app that needs distributed decentralized name resolution, and isn't bound to TCP/IP. Or more precisely, I need to store a "key" and look up it's value, and the key may be a string, a number, or any other realistic data type. Examples: With a phone number, look up a name. (or with an area code, redirect to the server that handles that exchange) With an IP Address get a DNS name, or a Whois contact (string value) With a string, get an IP, ( like a DNS TXT or SRV record). I'm thinking out of the box here and looking for any software that allows for this. (more info below) Are there any secure, scalable DNS alternatives that have gained notoriety? I could ask on StackOverflow, but think the infrastructure groups would have better insight on this. Edit More info: I'm looking at "Namecoin" the DNS version of Bitcoin, and since that project is faltering, I'm looking at alternative ways to store name-value pairs, with an optional qualifier. I think a name value pair is of global interest is useful, but on a limited scale. Namecoin tried to be too much, and ended up becoming nothing. I'm trying to solve that problem in researching alternatives and applying distributed technologies where applicable. Bitcoin/Namecoin offers a Distributed Hash Table, which has some positive aspects, but not useful for DNS, except for root servers.

    Read the article

  • Virtual IPv6 Network between VirtualBox VMs

    - by Ben
    I'm trying to create a virtual IPv6 network as a test environment. I have 5 VirtualBox VMs (Ubuntu Server) with network adapters using host-only networking. You can imagine them being connected in series and every machine connects 2 subnets. I want to ping the last machine from the first one: On: 2001:db8:aaaa::100 I want to ping 2001:db8:dddd::101 (Note: there is no cccc network in between) Only static configuration and routes are used: /etc/network/interfaces auto eth0 iface eth0 inet6 static address 2001:db8:aaaa::100 netmask 64 /etc/network/interfaces auto eth0 iface eth0 inet6 static address 2001:db8:aaaa::101 netmask 64 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet6 static address 2001:db8:bbbb::100 netmask 64 up ip -6 route add 2001:db8:dddd::/64 via 2001:db8:bbbb::101 dev eth1 down ip -6 route del 2001:db8:dddd::/64 via 2001:db8:bbbb::101 dev eth1 I thought there might be some automatic route discovery going on. Anyway, ping6 2001:db8:dddd::100 will not work from aaaa::100 When I add the route: ip -6 route add 2001:db8:dddd::/64 via 2001:db8:aaaa::101 it will work. But the next interface in the same network dddd::101 is not reachable. How could that be? There is a machine with an interface bbbb::101 and another dddd::100 and I can ping the latter one, but the machine connected to it, dddd::101 not?? I also have also turned on forwarding. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • System and Router configuration for setting up a home firewall based on Zentyal

    - by Ako
    I am not much of a system administrator, so please be patient if this looks too simple for you. I have a several computers at home, and all of them connect using an ADSL modem/router (and Wireless AP). I have been attacked several times (mainly from Russia and Ukraine), so I thought I should have some kind of firewall, besides the ESET firewall on my Windows 7. So now I have these (new) configuration: I have a small ADSL modem (Zyxel brand) which has only one Ethernet port. This modem is used to connect to internet and is configured in NAT mode. The interface has is configured with IP address 192.168.1.1. I have an old PC and I have installed zentyal on it. It has two Ethernet ports, eth0 and eth1. Eth0 is connected to the Zyxel modem with IP 192.168.1.2 and is checked as the WAN interface (external). I have another ADSL modem which is also a router with 4 Ethernet ports and Wireless AP. One of the Ethernet ports is connected to eth1 on Zentyal box. The Ethernet port's IP is 192.168.2.1 and Zentyal's eth1 is 192.168.2.2. Now, I want to enable other computers to connect to internet through the router both using Wireless and Ethernet. The problem is that I don't know how to configure the router so it routes connections to the Zentyal box. Does anyone have any clue? Again I am sorry if this looks stupid. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Remote Desktop fails after VPN connection

    - by Samet Sorgut
    The local computer (comp 1) is connected to a remote computer (comp 2) with Remote Desktop. On the remote computer (comp 2), I try to establish an VPN connection to a different remote computer (comp 3). Once I try to establish the VPN connection from the remote computer (comp 2) to the second remote computer (comp 3), Remote Desktop freezes on comp 1. It is not possible to connect to comp 2 again via Remote Desktop. What can be done to connect to this remote computer (comp 2) after it establishes a VPN connection? The only thing that comes to my mind is to install a second NIC and configure Remote Desktop to accept connection from this NIC while VPN is working from the other... What do you suggest? EDIT: I want to use the internet connection of the VPN, so all traffic should go over the VPN but still RDP working. My IP: 100.0.0.1 The IP where I'm connecting via RDP: 200.0.0.20 (Mask: 255.255.255.192, Gateway: 200.0.0.193) Where the 200.0.0.1 connects to VPN the IP of the VPN is: 65.254.61.250 Will routing like this help (Command is issued in 200.0.0.20, the RDP location): route ADD 65.254.61.250 MASK 255.255.255.192 200.0.0.193 Couldn't add gives the error: The route addition failed: The parameter is incorrect. I tried before connecting to VPN.

    Read the article

  • Configure linux machine as bridge/switch and end device

    - by leemes
    At my home, I have two desktop PCs in two rooms. The router / DSL modem is in one of these rooms. Now I want to configure a home server (having 2 LAN ports, running 24/7) in the corridor between the two rooms, using only one LAN cable at each door. This gives me the following physical configuration: (door) (door) .----/-/----. .-----/-/----------._ FritzBox | | | .----´´ DSL Router PC1 Server | PC2 As just said, the server has 2 network interfaces and is running Ubuntu. What I need now is a network configuration which enables both the server and PC1 to connect to the router. I think the server needs to serve as a bridge or switch. Currently, all computers are configured having static IP addresses. If I'm understanding it correctly, a bridge / switch doesn't have its own IP address, but as the server needs to be configured as an own end device, it needs to have one. My first question is, do I have to configure both interfaces separately, giving both the same static IP address? My next question is, how do I bridge the two physical networks into one? I have basic understanding (but am always confused again and again) of bridges and switches, but I don't know how to configure it in software. I only know that it's possible to do so :) The third question is: Is it possible to configure this in a way that network packets from/to PC1 to/from the router only go through hardware or only consume low CPU in the server? Can you help me? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • VMWare use of Gratuitous ARP REPLY

    - by trs80
    I have an ESXi cluster that hosts several Windows Server VMs and around 30 Windows workstation VMs. Packet captures show a high number of ARP replies of the form: -sender_ip: VM IP -sender_mac: VM virtual MAC -target_ip: 0.0.0.0 -target_mac: Switch interface MAC The specific addresses aren't really a concern -- they're all legitimate and we're not having any problems with communications (most of the questions surrounding GARP and VMWare have to do with ping issues, a problem we don't have). I'm looking for an explanation of the traffic pattern in an environment that functions as expected. So the question is why would I see a high number of unsolicited ARP replies? Is this a mechanism VMWare uses for some purpose? What is it? Is there an alternative? EDIT: Quick diagram: [esxi]--[switch vlan]--[inline IDS]--[fw]--(rest of network) The IDS is complaining about these unsolicited ARPs. Several IDS vendors trigger on ARP replies without a prior request, or for ARP replies that have a target IP of 0.0.0.0. The target MAC in these replies is the VLAN interface on the switch. Capture points: -The IDS grabs the offending packets -The FW can see the same ones -A VM on the ESXi host does not see these, although there is an ARP request for a specific IP on the ESXi host that has source_ip=0.0.0.0 and source_mac=[switch vlan interface]. I can't share the captures, unfortunately. Really I'm interested in finding out if this is normal for an ESXi deployment.

    Read the article

  • xen + debian network after upgrade squeeze to wheeze

    - by rush
    I've got a Debian + Xen server. After a system upgrade to the stable version the network doesn't come up after boot. Every time after reboot I need to bring it up manually. The network configuration was not changed during upgrade. Here is /etc/network/interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 11.22.33.44 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 11.22.33.1 nameserver 8.8.8.8 After boot ip r shows no route and eth0 has no ip address. Manually ip and route setup goes fine and network starts working. Messages from dmesg about network I've found (looks like nothing interesting) [ 3.894401] ACPI: Fan [FAN3] (off) [ 3.894444] ACPI: Fan [FAN4] (off) [ 4.178348] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: eth0: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x1) 00:1e:67:14:66:c9 [ 4.178351] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection [ 4.178392] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: eth0: MAC: 10, PHY: 11, PBA No: 0100FF-0FF [ 4.178413] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: Disabling ASPM L0s L1 [ 4.178432] xen: registering gsi 16 triggering 0 polarity 1 -- [ 4.223667] ata5: DUMMY [ 4.223668] ata6: DUMMY [ 4.289153] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: eth1: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x1) 00:1e:67:14:66:c8 [ 4.289155] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: eth1: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection [ 4.289245] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: eth1: MAC: 3, PHY: 8, PBA No: 1000FF-0FF [ 4.506908] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci_hcd [ 4.542920] ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) -- [ 10.362999] EXT4-fs (dm-23): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) [ 10.419103] EXT4-fs (dm-3): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) [ 10.988255] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth1: link is not ready [ 13.175533] Event-channel device installed. [ 13.287555] XENBUS: Unable to read cpu state -- [ 13.288670] XENBUS: Unable to read cpu state [ 13.965939] Bridge firewalling registered [ 14.134048] e1000e: eth1 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx [ 14.283862] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): peth0: link is not ready [ 14.284543] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth1: link becomes ready [ 17.800627] e1000e: peth0 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx [ 17.801377] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): peth0: link becomes ready [ 18.307278] device peth0 entered promiscuous mode [ 24.538899] eth1: no IPv6 routers present [ 28.570902] peth0: no IPv6 routers present I've upgraded two servers and I've such behaviour on two of them. How to fix this and get network starts automatically on boot?

    Read the article

  • Trying to communicate between virtual servers on the same host through ipv6

    - by Daniele Testa
    I am running KVM on a host with 2 virtual servers. Each virtual server has a own bridge interface on the host VPS1 has br1 VPS2 has br2 Each virtual server has a own ipv4 and a ipv6. The virtual servers has no problem communicating with internet or with eachother through ipv4. However, with ipv6, they can only communicate with internet and NOT with eachother. The host can ping the 2 virtual servers without any problems, but they cannot ping eachother. iptables has been set to ACCEPT on all chains, so it is not the problem. VPS1 has ipv6 = 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::10 VPS2 has ipv6 = 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::5 the host has the following routes set: ip route add 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::10 dev br1 ip route add 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::5 dev br2 When I do a ping from VPS2 to VPS1, I see the following on the host: tcpdump -i br1 15:32:27.704404 IP6 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::10 > ff02::1:ff00:5: ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, who has 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::5, length 32 So it seems like the host is seeing the request coming from VPS1 on br1. But for some reason, it does not forward it to br2. Instead it is asking where the destination IP is through ipv6 multicast. Anyone has a clue what is going on? I find this very strange, as it is working fine with ipv4 with the exact same settings and routes.

    Read the article

  • Assign individual NIC to KVM guest

    - by Bin S
    I have a server with 6 NICs installed and is running Ubuntu 12.04LTS. I want to setup 4 guest VMs using kvm. Now I want to assign 2 NICs for the host(1 Public IP and 1 private IP), and 1 NIC each to 4 guest VM(all private IP). How do I do this? /etc/network/interfaces I am having trouble with my configuration file shown below: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.1.109 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.5 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.1.117 netmask 255.255.255.0 auto eth2 iface eth2 inet manual auto br0 iface br0 inet static address 192.168.1.118 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth2 bridge_fd 9 bridge_hello 2 bridge_maxage 12 bridge_stp off auto eth3 iface eth3 inet manual auto br1 iface br1 inet static address 192.168.1.119 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth3 bridge_fd 9 bridge_hello 2 bridge_maxage 12 bridge_stp off auto eth4 iface eth4 inet manual auto br2 iface br2 inet static address 192.168.1.123 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth4 bridge_fd 9 bridge_hello 2 bridge_maxage 12 bridge_stp off auto eth5 iface eth5 inet manual auto br3 iface br3 inet static address 192.168.1.124 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth5 bridge_fd 9 bridge_hello 2 bridge_maxage 12 bridge_stp off

    Read the article

  • BIND: forward 1st level zone

    - by raven
    First of all: sorry for the language, English is not my primary language. I have star-like DNS structure with many filials (more that 2): ^ | v filialNS_1.filial_1.city.local <---- ns.main.city.local <---- filialNS_2.filial_2.city.local ^ | v ns.mail.city.local is slave of all filials zones filialNS_1 is master of filial_1.city.local filialNS_2 is master of filial_2.city.local filialNS_N is master of filial_N.city.local I want to: serve DNS queries for xxx.filial_N.city.local with filialNS_N.filial_N.city.local forward all queries for xxx.xxx.xxx.local from filialNS_N to ns.main.city.local forward other queries to our provider's DNS on filial (or google-public-dns or anything else) FILIAL CONFIG named.conf zone "filial_1.city.local" { type master; file "/etc/namedb/dynamic/filial_1.city.local"; allow-update { key DHCP_UPDATER; }; allow-transfer { <ns.main.city.local IP address> }; }; zone "2.76.10.in-addr.arpa" { type master; file "/etc/namedb/dynamic/2.76.10.in-addr.arpa"; allow-update { key DHCP_UPDATER; }; allow-transfer { <ns.main.city.local IP address> }; }; zone "local." { type forward; forward only; forwarders { <ns.main.city.local IP address> }; }; nslookup server.filial_1.city.local - works fine nslookup server.main.city.local Server: 127.0.0.1 Address: 127.0.0.1#53 ** server can't find server.main.city.local: NXDOMAIN Where am I going wrong?

    Read the article

  • VMware Workstation Bridged Network Host UnReachable

    - by user2097818
    VMware Workstation 7 on Win7-64 (Home Premium). I have confirmed this on any guest running on this machine (from winxp to debian). I am using a bridged network connection for my guests (Automatic on VMnet0). All of the network configuration is done with DHCP (including on the host). Problem What I can not do: Ping my host machine from inside any VM. (either shows me "Destination Host Unreachable" or will just timeout) What I CAN do right after power up, with no problems at all. I can connect to the internet from inside the VM I can ping my router from inside the VM I can ping other machines on my network from inside the VM Other machines can ping the VM Other machines can ping the host My host machine can ping the VM (this one is important. read further) Details So I have my router assigned as 192.168.2.1/255.255.255.0, and the router provides the DHCP service (and it seems to be doing so successfully). There are no IP conflicts on the network that I am aware of. All Gateways and Subnet masks are appropriate and matching. My entire workshop is on one single subnet, with one single DHCP server and gateway. There is one method in which I can ping successfully, but it requires an active connection initiated from the host (I start pinging from host to VM). During the period of the active connection, I can successfully ping from VM to host, using explicit IP address. As soon as the host connection is closed, the VM ping starts hanging with the same old messages. My Thoughts This really feels like a firewall problem, but I have turned off all firewalls on host and VM, powered down the network, powered back up, and the problem still persists. And if it was firewall, why would only the IP address associated with bridged VM networks be blocked. I feel as though my host operating system (Win7) is somehow configured incorrectly, or, VMware Workstation is configured incorrectly from the host side. Although I have done my best to put everything in default, I feel like I am missing something silly.

    Read the article

  • Puppet write hosts using api call

    - by Ben Smith
    I'm trying to write a puppet function that calls my hosting environment (rackspace cloud atm) to list servers, then update my hosts file. My get_hosts function is currently this: require 'rubygems' require 'cloudservers' module Puppet::Parser::Functions newfunction(:get_hosts, :type => :rvalue) do |args| unless args.length == 1 raise Puppet::ParseError, "Must provide the datacenter" end DC = args[0] USERNAME = DC == "us" ? "..." : "..." API_KEY = DC == "us" ? "..." : "..." AUTH_URL = DC == "us" ? CloudServers::AUTH_USA : CloudServers::AUTH_UK DOMAIN = "..." cs = CloudServers::Connection.new(:username => USERNAME, :api_key => API_KEY, :auth_url => AUTH_URL) cs.list_servers_detail.map {|server| server.map {|s| { s[:name] + "." + DC + DOMAIN => { :ip => s[:addresses][:private][0], :aliases => s[:name] }}} } end end And I have a hosts.pp that calls this and 'should' write it to /etc/hosts. class hosts::us { $hosts = get_hosts("us") hostentry { $hosts: } } define hostentry() { host{ $name: ip => $name[ip], host_aliases => $name[aliases] } } As you can imagine, this isn't currently working and I'm getting a 'Symbol as array index at /etc/puppet/manifests/hosts.pp:2' error. I imagine, once I've realised what I'm currently doing wrong there will be more errors to come. Is this a good idea? Can someone help me work out how to do this?

    Read the article

  • DNS resolve .com domain on local domain

    - by Joost Verdaasdonk
    I'm building a local 2008 R2 domain as a test case to be able to write a roadmap for the real new domain that needs to be created soon. What I would like to know if I'm able to make a record in DNS that will point the domain name: www.example.com and example.com to one of the servers in my network. I tried creating an a-record for it but that doesn't work. To be honest I'm not even sure if this is possible? So can I do this? That way I would be able to fully test all our services (and webb app) offline before I build the real domain and switch the DNS records at the provider. Some advice if possible and where to start is appreciated. The solution (Thanks Brent): Create new Forward lookup zone pointing to example.com Create empty A record pointing to IP of the webserver you are targeting If www is needed create A record with Name: www and IP of your webserver sub domains repeat the process but then with names for example: sub or www.sub (and ip your webserver) Be aware of the DNS Cache while you are in this process. Things can take time or do the following: Right click the server and choose clear cache in CMD: ipconfig /flushdns (to flush the client cache)

    Read the article

  • Can't access site internally, but DNS works

    - by BloodyIron
    1) I have apache2 running a vhost for a website. 2) This apache2 instance is already successfuly setup for other websites on it to be accessible internally and externally. 3) I am using an internal bind9 server to resolve the new website's domain internally to the private IP. This bind9 server is not public facing, nor is it the master server on the internet. 4) The DNS internally resolves to the right IP. 5) Firefox reports "server not found". 6) I have copied the config almost identically to other configs that are known to work (adjusting for proper paths of course). In turn I have reloaded and restarted apache2 repeatedly. 7) I have an entry to forward .org .info .net alternative TLDs to .com in the vhost config for this domain, and my browser goes from .org to .com despite note #5. 8) /var/log/apache2/access.log shows when someone externally tries to access the site, but no activity is observed when someone tries to access internally. Changing the log level does not appear to improve the situation. 9) I am out of ideas, nothing appears to be wrong. Please help? To be explicit. Why is this new site unreachable internally? I would like to clarify on something, even though I have already outlined this. YES I know this system is in a private network. NO it is not going through a router. YES I am using an internal DNS server (bind9) to resolve, and YES it does resolve to the proper internal IP. YES other websites on the same server setup in the same way with internal resolution work right now and have done for a while. Everything for this domain is setup the same as the other working domains as far as I can tell. The other working domains are internally AND externally accessible. This domain I am working with is only currently externally accessible. When I go to it internally firefox tells me "Server not found".

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283  | Next Page >