Search Results

Search found 8366 results on 335 pages for 'admin routing'.

Page 62/335 | < Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >

  • Packets marked INVALID in FORWARD rule

    - by Raphink
    I have a firewall that has 3 IP aliases on 1 physical interface. Packets get dropped between these 3 interfaces (either ICMP, HTTP, or anything else). We tracked it down to these packets being marked INVALID in the FORWARD rule and dropped due to the this rule: chain FORWARD { policy DROP; # connection tracking mod state state INVALID LOG log-prefix 'INVALID FORWARD DROP: '; mod state state INVALID DROP; mod state state (ESTABLISHED RELATED) ACCEPT; } (That is, we see the INVALID FORWARD DROP logs in dmesg) What could be causing this?

    Read the article

  • Hopping a VPN Tunnel

    - by lellouch
    My central office and remote offices are connected to each other over site to site ipsec vpn. We use Fortigate firewalls and everything is working fine. On the other hand, only central office is also connected to another company's network over ipsec vpn as well. In this situation, everything is also fine and employees at the central office is able to reach the other company's resources without problem. Now i want the employees working on our remote office can reach the other company's network over central office without creating new vpn tunnels. http://imgur.com/ozrXfGv How can i do that? Thanks for your answers in advance.

    Read the article

  • Remote network traffic not passing through VPN

    - by John Virgolino
    We have the following topology: LAN A LAN B LAN C 10.14.0.0/16 <-VPN-> 10.18.0.0/16 --- SONICWALL <-VPN-> M0N0WALL --- 10.32.0.0/16 Traffic between LAN A and LAN B works perfectly. Traffic between LAN C and LAN B works perfectly. Traffic between LAN A and LAN C, not so much. LAN A's gateway has a route to LAN C that points to the Sonicwall. The Sonicwall has a route to LAN A pointing to the VPN gateway connecting LAN B to LAN A. Tracing packets on the Sonicwall shows the LAN C destined traffic to arrive on the Sonicwall, but it does not forward the traffic, it dies there. Traffic from LAN B gets forwarded. Tracing packets on the Sonicwall while sending traffic from LAN C destined for LAN A shows nothing. This tells me that the M0N0WALL is not forwarding traffic for the 10.14.0.0 network and the Sonicwall is not forwarding from 10.14.0.0. The SA on the Sonicwall terminates on the WAN ZONE and is defined to use an address group that incorporates both the 10.14.0.0 and 10.18.0.0 networks. The M0N0WALL is configured for the 10.18.0.0 network and I have tried with both a static route to 10.14.0.0 and without on the M0N0WALL. I tried manually adding the 10.14.0.0 network to the SA on the M0N0WALL, but that really aggravated it and the SA never came up, so I reverted. I have checked all the firewall rules to make sure nothing is blocked. All of the Sonicwall auto-added rules look right. Specs: Sonicwall TZ200, Enhanced OS M0N0WALL v1.32 I'm at a loss at this point. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to route traffic from one subnet through a specific SOCKS proxy in other subnet?

    - by Yegor Razumovsky
    Here is my network map: Internet | | Router (192.168.1.1) | | (192.168.1.100) (wireless) MacBook ( mac os x / windows 7 / ubuntu. It doesn't matter ) (192.168.2.1) (wired) | | TargetComputer (192.168.2.2) I want to route all traffic from TargetComputer 192.168.2.2 through socks proxy running on my macbook. On target computer i can only change IP settings ( ip address, subnetmask, gateway, dns ).

    Read the article

  • how can i get list of created and deleted files on the server?

    - by max
    i have a image sharing website , users log and upload image last night i've lost about 30 newly-consecutive uploaded images ... i mean they have been uploaded ... apparently ... they are in the database but the actual image on the server is gone ! error log doesn't show anything ... so i thought my best option is to check list of created and deleted files ... if there is any ! is there a log file for created and deleted files on the server ? i'm using directadmin

    Read the article

  • NAT Policy Inbound Source Problem on SonicWall TZ-210 with Multiple DSL Lines

    - by HK1
    We recently added three more DSL connections to our SonicWall TZ-210. My NAT Policies work fine as long as I leave them set with an inbound interface of X1, which hosts our original DSL connection. However, I'd like to change some of the NAT Policies to use inbound source/interface X2, X3, X4 or Any. In my initial tests, when I change one of the policies to use an inbound interface of X2, that port forward policy does not work at all. Traffic never makes it to the internal destination. What could be the problem?

    Read the article

  • IPTABLES route, redirect, forwardc traffic

    - by Anthony
    I am trying to redirect traffic from one IP reached on a specific port to a website. For example I have two external ips, lets say 194.145.63.1 and 194.145.63.2 set on one network card as 194.145.63.1 - eth0 and 194.145.63.2 -eth0:1 mywebsite.com allows access only from 194.145.63.1 and I want to set my rules like if I hit http://194.145.63.2:8080 to open mywebsite.com trough 194.145.63.1. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Share the same subnet between Internal network and VPN Clients

    - by Pascal
    I would like to set up a configuration where VPN clients connecting to my Forefront TMG can access all the resources of my Internal network without having the to use the option "Use default gateway on remote network" on the VPN's TCP/IP Ipv4 Advanced Settings. This is important to me, since they can use their own internet while accessing my network through VPN (the security implications of this are acceptable on my cenario) My Internal network runs on 10.50.75.x, and I set up Forefront TMG to relay the DHCP of my Internal network to the VPN clients, so they get IPs from the same range as the Internal network. This setup initially works, and the VPN clients use their own internet, and can access anything that is on the internal network. However, after a while, HTTP Proxy Traffic from the Internal network starts getting routed to the IP of the RRAS Dial In Interface, instead of the IP of the Internal's network gateway. When this happens, the HTTP Proxy starts getting denied for obvious reasons. My first question is: does this happen because Forefront TMG wasn't designed to handle a cenario that I described above, and it "loses itself"? My second question is: Is there any way to solve this problem, either through configuration or firewall policies? My third question is: If there's no way that it can work with the cenario above, is there another cenario that will solve my problem, and do what I'd like it to do properly? Below are my network routes: 1 => Local Host Access => Route => Local Host => All Networks 2 => VPN Clients to Internal Network => Route => VPN Clients => Internal 3 => Internet Access => NAT => Internal, Perimeter, VPN Clients => External 4 => Internal to Perimeter => Route => Internal, VPN Clients => Perimeter Tks!

    Read the article

  • Fresh install CentOS 6.4 64b with directadmin slowly consumes all memory and crashes

    - by Coen Ponsen
    Dear server fault community, This is my first question on server fault, i'm new to server (mis)configuration so please forgive me for asking something stupid :) I'm running Directadmin on a CentOS 6.4 64b with 4GB memory and over 10000Gh virtual machine. I migrated my websites because my former vps couldn't keep up anymore. Only half of the websites from this 1GB machine were migrated jet. So the migration is still in progress and already my server crashes every day. The server performance up until that moment is perfect. The directadmin log files show nothing out of the ordinary. Yesterday only the mysql server crashed but it also crashed the entire machine before. The memory usage in DA seems to be normal: directadmin directadmin (pid 3923 22158 22159 22160 22161 22162 )8.75 MB dovecot dovecot (pid 3851 ) 47.8 MB exim exim (pid 1350 ) 1.29 MB httpd (pid 21525 21528 21529 21530 21531 21532 21546 21571 21742 21743 21744 )490.4 MB mysqld mysqld (pid 1299 ) 287.8 MB named named (pid 3807 ) 16.3 MB proftpd proftpd (pid 1481 ) 1.91 MB sshd sshd (pid 1173 21494 ) 5.16 MB Restarting services immediately frees up memory, but slowly over time the memory usage increases(about 24 hours to crash). The commands: # sync # echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches Will free al memory correct. I could just create a cronjob but it seems the wrong way around to me. I can't seem to pinpoint the cause. Any advices, references or tips are highly appreciated! Greetings, Coen edit: free -m : after drop_caches: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 3830 735 3095 0 0 21 -/+ buffers/cache: 712 3117 Swap: 991 0 991 I'll post another one this evening.

    Read the article

  • Linux as a router for public networks

    - by nixnotwin
    My ISP had given me a /30 network. Later, when I wanted more public ips, I requested for a /29 network. I was told to keep using my earlier /30 network on the interface which is facing ISP, and the newly given /29 network should be used on the other interface which connects to my NAT router and servers. This is what I got from the isp: WAN IP: 179.xxx.4.128/30 CUSTOMER IP : 179.xxx.4.130 ISP GATEWAY IP:179.xxx.4.129 SUBNET : 255.255.255.252 LAN IPS: 179.xxx.139.224/29 GATEWAY IP :179.xxx.139.225 SUBNET : 255.255.255.248 I have a Ubuntu pc which has two interfaces. So I am planning to do the following: eth0 will be given 179.xxx.4.130/30 gateway 179.xxx.4.129 eth1 will be given 179.xxx.139.225/29 And I will have the following in the /etc/sysctl.conf: net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 These will be iptables rules: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT My clients which have the ips 179.xxx.139.226/29 and 179.xxx.139.227/29 will be made to use 179.xxx.139.225/29 as gateway. Will this configuration work for me? Any comments? If it works, what iptables rules can I use to have a bit of security? P.S. Both networks are non-private and there is no NATing.

    Read the article

  • A can ping B, B can ping C but A cant ping C. How do i connect A to C (ethernet)?

    - by user16654
    I have a computer at home with ip 192.168.221.xxx I have another computer at work that I can ping and it has 2 ip addresses: 192.168.1.xxx and 192.168.0.xxx. Those last 2 addresses have the same gateway ie 192.168.1.1 . The computer at work is connected to a hub. That hub also has an embedded device connected to it with address 192.168.0.xxx Now from my home computer I cannot ping this embedded device. How would I connect to it without changing the subnetwork it connects to? I can ping the embedded device from my work computer and I can ping the work computer from my home computer. So I am trying to connect to the embedded device from my home computer through my work computer. Port forwarding? how would I establish that on Ubuntu?

    Read the article

  • route to vpn based on destination

    - by inquam
    I have a VPN connection on a Windows 7 machine. It's set up to connect to a server in US. Is it possible, and if so how, to setup so that .com destinations uses the vpn interface and .se destinations uses the "normal" connection? Edit (clarification): This is for outbound connections. I.e. the machine conencts to a server on foo.com and uses the VPN and the machine connects to bar.se and uses the "normal" interface. Let's say foo.com has an IP filter that ensures users are located in USA, if I go through the VPN I get a US ip and everything is fine. But tif all traffic goes this way the bar.se server that has a IP filter ensuring users are in Sweden will complain. So I want to route the traffic depending on server location. US servers through VPN and others through the normal interface.

    Read the article

  • ip route add HOMEIP via SERVERIP disconnects me from ssh

    - by Arya
    I want to use a vpn connection on my Debian server but I get disconnected from ssh if I connect to the vpn. I thought by using the "ip route add" I can prevent getting disconnected from my server and it will continue to use the main connection for communication between my computer and the server, and the vpn for communication with other ips. This is the command I use ip route add PUBLICHOMEIP via PUBLICSERVERIP But I get disconnected after the "ip route add" command too. Am I making a mistake anywhere?

    Read the article

  • How do I route traffic to website using a spcified network connection on Windows 7

    - by rwetzeler
    I want to route all traffic to a website over my wireless connection while the rest of the traffic using my lan. What I tried was first finding out the IP address of the website I want to go to. For example, lets say pandora.com. I found it resolves to 208.85.40.20. I have entered that entry into my hosts file. I then added that route using route add 208.85.40.20 mask 255.255.255.255 WirelessIP. It doesn't seem to work however. Instead of using the IP address, is there a way that I can just say.. this URL to route over that connection? Does anyone know of a program that I can install that will do this.. possibly some sort of proxy or a software load balancer that can do this?

    Read the article

  • Ping reply not getting to LAN machines but getting in Linux router Gateway

    - by Kevin Parker
    I have configured Ubuntu 12.04 as Gateway machine.its having two interfaces eth0 with ip 192.168.122.39(Static) and eth1 connected to modem with ip address 192.168.2.3(through DHCP). ip-forwarding is enabled in router box. Client machine is configured as: ip address 192.168.122.5 and gateway 192.168.122.39 Client machines can ping router box(192.168.122.39).but when pinged 8.8.8.8 reply is not reaching Client machines but in the tcpdump output on gateway i can see echo request for 8.8.8.8 but never echo reply.Is this because of 122.5 not forwarding request to 2.0 network.Can u please help me in fixing this.

    Read the article

  • Are neighbors formed in EIGRP and OSPF always directly connectly?

    - by xczzhh
    I always thought that neighbors formed in EIGRP were not necessarily directly connected because the only requirement for two routers to be neighbors is that they share the same Autonomous System and K-values, but it seems that I was wrong. I have looked up several books, they do not seem to give a clear answer. And I am even more confused with OSPF... Please, give me some light here. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Python: how to calculate data received and send between two ipaddresses and ports [closed]

    - by ramdaz
    I guess it's socket programming. But I have never done socket programming expect for running the tutorial examples while learning Python. I need some more ideas to implement this. What I specifically need is to run a monitoring program of a server which will poll or listen to traffic being exchange from different IPs across different popular ports. For example, how do I get data received and sent through port 80 of 192.168.1.10 and 192.168.1.1 ( which is the gateway). I checked out a number of ready made tools like MRTG, Bwmon, Ntop etc but since we are looking at doing some specific pattern studies, we need to do data capturing within the program. Idea is to monitor some popular ports and do a study of network traffic across some periods and compare them with some other data. We would like to figure a way to do all this with Python....

    Read the article

  • Linux router with diffent gateways for incomming and outgoing connections

    - by nkout
    I have the following topology: LAN Users:192.168.1.2 - 254 (192.168.1.0/24) gateway1: 192.168.2.2/24 used for all outgoing connections of LAN users (default gateway) gateway2: 192.168.3.2/24 used for incoming services (destination NAT, ports 80,443 are forwarded to 192.168.2.1) linux router-server R eth0 192.168.1.1/24: LAN eth1 192.168.2.1/24: WWAN1 eth2 192.168.3.1/24: WWAN2 I want to: route all outgoing traffic coming from LAN and R via 192.168.2.2 route the responses to incoming connections via 192.168.3.2 My config: ifconfig eth0 up 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig eth1 up 192.168.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig eth2 up 192.168.3.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward route add default gw 192.168.2.2 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d !192.168.0.0/16 -j MASQUERADE I want to add iptables rule to mark incoming traffic from WWAN2 and send back the responses to WWAN2, while keeping default gateway on WWAN1

    Read the article

  • Multiple network cards, controlling where my traffic goes

    - by thefinn93
    This is an Ubuntu 12.04 server install. I have multiple network cards, eth0 and eth1 lets call them. eth0 is connected to the internet, and all of my traffic goes through it, until eth1 gets plugged in. Then the machine tries to send everything through eth1, which for various and sundry reasons does not go out to the Interent. The only traffic it doesn't send through eth1 is traffic on eth0's subnet. It also will not accept inbound connections on eth0 from outside of eth0's subnet. I'd like all outbound traffic to go out eth0, but I'd like incoming connections from to either card from any subnet to work.

    Read the article

  • Access to a network server without port forwarding

    - by SdevDavid
    I have a network with the following structure. The server in PC2 is simple socket server TCP in 8080 port. I need to access to PC2 from other external network by socket client. This socket client knows the public IP (85.xxx.xxx.x), the private IP (192.168.0.21) and the port. How I can access PC2 without port forwarding on the router? If possible, I would like to have a reference in any programming language of this case.

    Read the article

  • Route a specific user's traffic via VPN but still allow local networking

    - by wbg
    So, I want to route certain traffic via a VPN connection and the rest via my normal Internet connection. I want to run several different programs and most of them don't support binding to a specific network interface (tun0 in my case). I've managed to send a specific user's traffic via the VPN following the answers given here: iptables - Target to route packet to specific interface? But unfortunately, when I run a server that connects to the Internet and has a web interface running on a local IP (127.0.0.1/192.168.0.*), all the Internet traffic correctly goes via tun0, but I'm unable to connect to the web interface from a local IP as a different user. When I log in as the VPN-ified user, I can access services running on local IPs, but other users/machines can't access any servers I start. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

    Read the article

  • Where route to 169.254.0.0 comes from?

    - by jackhab
    Running CentOS 5.4 Why do I have route to 169.254.0.0 although it does not appear in Network Ethernet Device Route configuration dialog? Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 default 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth2 Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to configure OpenVPN server to use custom default gateway?

    - by Arenim
    I have a vpn server at address 10.1.0.2 and the server have another ip in it's network -- 10.0.0.2 in his subnet (it's a tun2socks router). But default server's gateway is NOT 10.0.0.2 (and it's ok) but another external IP. I want all the client's traffic to be forwarded through this ip address -- 10.0.0.2. Here is part of my server's config: dev tap0 server-bridge 10.1.0.1 255.255.255.0 10.1.0.50 10.1.0.100 push "route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" ; now client can ping 10.0.0.2 push "redirect-gateway def1 bypass-dhcp" push "dhcp-option DNS 10.1.0.1" push "dhcp-option WINS 10.1.0.1" in fact i want some like push "redirect-gateway 10.0.0.2" How can I achieve this?

    Read the article

  • Configure server on network to analyze traffic

    - by Strajan Sebastian
    I have the following network: http://i.stack.imgur.com/rapkH.jpg I want to send all the traffic from the devices that connect to the 192.168.0.1 router to the 192.168.10.1 router(and eventually to the Internet), by passing through the server and an additional router. Almost 2 days have passed and I can't figure what is wrong. While searching on the Internet for some similar configuration I found some articles that are somehow related to my needs, but the proposed solutions don't seem to work for me. This is a similar article: iptables forwarding between two interface I done the following steps for the configuration process: Set static IP address 192.168.1.90 for the eth0 on the server from the 192.168.1.1 router Set static IP address 192.168.0.90 for the eth1 on the server from the 192.168.0.1 router Forwarded all the traffic from 192.168.0.1 router to the server on eth1 interface witch seems to be working. The router firmware has some option to redirect all the traffic from all the ports to a specified address. Added the following rules on the server(Only the following, there aren't any additional rules): iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -m state -–state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT I also tried changing iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -m state -–state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT into iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT but still is not working. After adding the following to enable the packet forwarding for the server that is running CentOS: echo 1 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 After a server restart and extra an extra check to see that all the configuration from above are still available I tried to see again if I can ping from a computer connected to 192.168.0.1/24 LAN the router from 192.168.1.1 but it didn't worked. The server has tshark(console wireshark) installed and I found that while sending a ping from a computer connected to 192.168.0.1 router to 192.168.1.1 the 192.168.0.90(eth1) receives the ping but it doesn't forward it to the eth0 interface as the rule tells: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT and don't now why this is happening. Questions: The iptables seem that don't work as I am expecting. Is there a need to add in the NAT table from iptables rules to redirect the traffic to the proper location, or is something else wrong with what I've done? I want to use tshark to view the traffic on the server because I think that is the best at doing this. Do you know something better that tshark to capture the traffic and maybe analyze it?

    Read the article

  • How to setup an Openvpn server with two gateways to internet

    - by fourat
    I have an openvpn server behind two wan interfaces: eth1 and eth2 where eth1 is the default gw and eth2 is where openvpn binds to. The problems my ovpn server is replying back to ovpn client via the default gw (through eth1) and the tcp negociation is lost before establishing any tunnel. Here's what's happening: wan client -----> eth2 ----> openvpn -----> eth1 ----> lost and not delivered back to client Is there a way to tell ovpn to stick on eth2 and consider it for all traffic ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >