Search Results

Search found 173 results on 7 pages for 'gateways'.

Page 1/7 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • Character set issues with Oracle Gateways, SQL Server, and Application Express

    - by Brian Deterling
    I am migrating data from a Oracle on VMS that accesses data on SQL Server using heterogeneous services (over ODBC) to Oracle on AIX accessing the SQL Server via Oracle Gateways (dg4msql). The Oracle VMS database used the WE8ISO8859P1 character set. The AIX database uses WE8MSWIN1252. The SQL Server database uses "Latin1-General, case-insensitive, accent-sensitive, kanatype-insensitive, width-insensitive for Unicode Data, SQL Server Sort Order 52 on Code Page 1252 for non-Unicode Data" according to sp_helpsort. The SQL Server databases uses nchar/nvarchar or all string columns. In Application Express, extra characters are appearing in some cases, for example 123 shows up as %001%002%003. In sqlplus, things look ok but if I use Oracle functions like initcap, I see what appear as spaces between each letter of a string when I query the sql server database (using a database link). This did not occur under the old configuration. I'm assuming the issue is that an nchar has extra bytes in it and the character set in Oracle can't convert it. It appears that the ODBC solution didn't support nchars so must have just cast them back to char and they showed up ok. I only need to view the sql server data so I'm open to any solution such as casting, but I haven't found anything that works. Any ideas on how to deal with this? Should I be using a different character set in Oracle and if so, does that apply to all schemas since I only care about one of them.

    Read the article

  • 2 nics. 2 Defaults Gateways

    - by andre.dias
    Here is my scenario: i have this server with 2 nics, each one with different IPs, connected to differents routers. Almost everything is configured whe way i need. Traffic coming from eth0 exits using eth0, traffic coming from eth1 exits using eth1. And there is a default gateway configured. $route: default IP 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 With this configuration, the traffic generated in the server is going out using eth0 (lynx www.google.com for example). The problem is: the Internet link from eth0 went down today. The traffic coming from eth1 was ok...no problem. But the traffic generated in the server was a problem...the default gateway was out...no access do the Internet anymore (no more lynx www.google.com) So i added a new default gateway configuration, pointing to eth1. For 30 minutes i kept that way...2 default gateways, but just one was "working"...and everything was working just fine. But then i removed de eth0 gateway entry because, well, 2 default gateways is kind of weird. My question: is there any problem on keeping these 2 default gateways, one for each? So i don´t need to do nothing when one link go down again? $route: default IP1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 default IP2 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1

    Read the article

  • What payment gateways fit my website?

    - by Amr ElGarhy
    I am building an image hosting website and users will pay for extra storage, this means that for example: each 1GB over the first 3GB, I will charge the user for some money per GB. I want to integrate in my website a payment way so that I can let the users pay through and also let me to collect these money later either getting them through ATM or to get it in my bank account. I can't user paypal because it is not working in my country Egypt. Can you advice me with a service and some tips about how users will pay and how I will get the money from.

    Read the article

  • Internal+external interfaces with multiple default gateways on win2003

    - by fileitup
    Im trying to set up several web servers for a load balanced cluster and need to have each server connected to the internal network (for load balancing) as well as to an external network (internet - for administration). I have two NICs but since I cant set two default gateways I have the external gateway as default and the internal as a route rule. This setup only works half way - the internal network is fine but I cant log in from outside or see the web from the box. If I switch the gateways remote login/web will work, but the internal wont. Im sure someone encountered this before but wasnt able to find anything online. Any help will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Linux (Ubuntu 12.04) two gateways one nic

    - by David
    I have Ubuntu 12.04 Server edition Two gateways, both on 192.168.0. network, let's make them 192.168.0.1 and 192.168.0.2 I've read you should be able to add second gateway into /etc/network/interfaces, that it will build out all the routing automatically, but I get "duplicate option" error. So if I have one default gateway, let's say 0.1, and a connection comes through from the 0.2 gateway, my understanding is that it still tries to respond through 0.1 gateway. Can we change this behavior?

    Read the article

  • Configuring Cisco 3800 ISR Router with two default gateways for different subnets

    - by c0ldhand
    I am trying to configure two physical interfaces on a Cisco router to act as two separate gateways for two different subnets: gigabitEthernet0/0 gw 10.10.10.10 255.255.0.0 for network 10.10.0.0 gigabitEthernet0/1 gw 10.15.10.10 255.255.0.0 for network 10.15.0.0 Should I be using rip version 2 routing or can I just use static routing to do this?. If you can provide an example for doing this, I would be very appreciative.

    Read the article

  • How to Configure Different Gateways for Different VLANs

    - by Bryan
    I have around 10 VLANs, and two different internet gateways. I want traffic on some VLANs to use one gateway, and traffic on other VLANs to use another gateway. (e.g. I wish to route server traffic via one gateway and desktop internet traffic down another). Is it possible to configure different default routes for different VLANs on a Dell 6224 switch? Or is their a better way of doing what I'm trying to achieve? The core switch I am using is a Dell PowerConnect 6224 switch. Currently I'm using: ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.58.3.16 which creates the default gateway for all VLANs. I did consider adding multiple routes with equal metric, and setting ACLs between the VLANs to deny access to the 'wrong' gateway, but that idea just doesn't feel right to me.

    Read the article

  • Need to configure multiple default gateways for four seperate physical network ports for a FreeBSD Webserver

    - by user20010
    I need to configure default gateways for four separate physical network interfaces for a FreeBSD Webserver. Basically, this is a web server that needs to be accessed by multiple WANS. I've been using various online resources, and a combination of setfib, pf, and ipfw. This web server will be deployed in multiple sites where access to next hop router info is not available, so we can't use static routes. We've used setfib to successfully create multiple routing tables and can ping beyond every default gateway we've created. Using setfib # ping ip.addr.what.ever we can ping anything available on a wan and beyond the router. The problem is we can't get Apache web server (port 80) traffic to route out when external users access the server(box). Multiple people have examples of binding setfib to ipfw commands, but none of them seem to work.

    Read the article

  • Having two IP Routes/Gateways of last Resort on an HP Switch

    - by SteadH
    We have an HP Layer 3 Switch that is doing IP routing between vlans. The general set up is that the switch has an IP address on each VLAN and IP routing is enabled. On our servers VLAN, we have a firewall that has a connection to the outside world. To set a IP route on the HP router, we use IOS command ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 where 192.168.2.1 is the address of our firewall, and the zeros essentially mean to route all traffic that the switch doesn't know what to do with out the firewall as a gateway. We're in the middle of an ISP and firewall change. I set up the new firewall and ran the IOS command ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.254 (the address of the new firewall). Things started working nicely. When I reviewed the configuration of the switch though, I noticed that it did not replace the previous ip route command, but just added another route. Now, I know how to remove the old firewall route (no ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1), but what is the effect of having these two 0.0.0.0 routes? Is it switch implosion? Will a server just respond back over the route it receives the request from? I've read elsewhere that having two default gateways is an impossibility by definition, but I'm curious about this situation that our switch allowed. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Ping with explicit next-hop selection (aka Monitoring multiple default gateways)

    - by Michuelnik
    I have a linux (debian) router with two internet connections (A) and (B). (A) is preferred, (B) is fallback. I want to monitor the internet connection (and not only the availability of the gateways!) and change the default route appropriately. If (A) is not providing internet, switch to (B) If (A) is providing internet again, switch back to (A). Only problem I have is in case (2). My routing table points towards a working internet so I cannot easily detect whether internet is working over link (A) again. I am search for a ping or traceroute (or other diagnosis-tool) which can select the next-hop explicitly. ping -r looks promising, but can only ping a host on the lan. (It only has to write another destination address in the packet, damnit!) traceroute -g gateway looks even more promising and nearly does what I want - but sets source routing options which my next-hops deny. (Not within my administrative boundary...) I just want a $ping, that can: select a source interface (and address) select a next-hop on that interface ping any arbitrary ip address I could do evil trickery with policy-based routing but that would have production impact for all users. I would like to see a side-effect-free solution....

    Read the article

  • Linux: Three default gateways?

    - by Daniel
    My server has three default gateways, how can that be? Shouldn't there be one default gw? I have three NICs, each attached to a separate subnet: server1:~# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.5.0.0 * 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth3 localnet * 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.8.0 * 255.255.255.192 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 10.5.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth3 default 192.168.8.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 default 10.1.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Sometimes, I can't ping a host on the Internet, sometimes I can. What I want is traffic to the Internet (0.0.0.0) routed through a specific NIC. Can I just add a route for 0.0.0.0 and default gw to one of the eth0-3 interfaces? Will it break my connection? I'm using Debian, here is my /etc/network/interfaces: # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system # and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5). # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 10.1.0.4 netmask 255.255.255.224 network 10.1.0.0 broadcast 10.1.0.31 gateway 10.1.0.1 allow-hotplug eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.8.4 netmask 255.255.255.192 network 192.168.8.0 broadcast 192.168.8.63 gateway 192.168.8.1 allow-hotplug eth3 iface eth3 inet static address 10.5.0.4 netmask 255.255.255.224 network 10.5.0.0 broadcast 10.5.0.31 gateway 10.5.0.1

    Read the article

  • Payment Gateways for Mid-Sized Business?

    - by Eric
    My company is a bit unhappy with the support we've been getting from Cybersource and we're about to embark on a billing re-write so we're taking the opportunity to look at other gateways. Anyone have any positive or negative experiences they'd like to share? I'd rather not hear about small website gateways like paypal, we run tens of thousands of transactions and millions a year. If you know, I'd love to hear how much you're paying in transaction/gateway fees too. We're primarily a .NET shop if you'd like to speak to a particular API. Gateway must support the big 4 credit cards (mc, visa, disc, amex) and ACH. Thanks in advance for the help from the hive mind. :)

    Read the article

  • Load balancing with multiple gateways

    - by ttouch
    I have to different ISPs, each on each own network. The main connects via ethernet and the secondary via wifi. The two networks have no relation at all. I just connect to them simultaneously. The reason I want to load balance between them is to achieve higher Internet speeds. Note: I have no advanced network hardware. Just my pc and the two routers that I have no access... main network: if: eth0 gw: 192.168.178.1 my ip: 192.168.178.95 speed: 400 kbit/s secondary network: if: wlan0 gw: 192.168.1.1 my ip: 192.168.1.95 speed: 300 kbit/s A diagram to explain the situation: http://i.imgur.com/NZdsv.jpg I'm on Arch Linux x64. I use netcfg to configure the interfaces Configs: # /etc/network.d/main CONNECTION='ethernet' DESCRIPTION='A basic static ethernet connection using iproute' INTERFACE='eth0' IP='static' ADDR='192.168.178.95' # /etc/network.d/second CONNECTION='wireless' DESCRIPTION='A simple WEP encrypted wireless connection' INTERFACE='wlan0' SECURITY='wep' ESSID='wifi_essid' KEY='the_password' IP="static" ADDR='192.168.1.95' And I use iptables to load balance, rules: #!/bin/bash /usr/sbin/ip route flush table ISP1 2>/dev/null /usr/sbin/ip rule del fwmark 101 table ISP1 2>/dev/null /usr/sbin/ip route add table ISP1 192.168.178.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.178.95 metric 202 /usr/sbin/ip route add table ISP1 default via 192.168.178.1 dev eth0 /usr/sbin/ip rule add fwmark 101 table ISP1 /usr/sbin/ip route flush table ISP2 2>/dev/null /usr/sbin/ip rule del fwmark 102 table ISP2 2>/dev/null /usr/sbin/ip route add table ISP2 192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.95 metric 202 /usr/sbin/ip route add table ISP2 default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 /usr/sbin/ip rule add fwmark 102 table ISP2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -F /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -X /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -N MARK-gw1 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw1 -m comment --comment 'send via 192.168.178.1' -j MARK --set-mark 101 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw1 -j CONNMARK --save-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw1 -j RETURN /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -N MARK-gw2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw2 -m comment --comment 'send via 192.168.1.1' -j MARK --set-mark 102 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw2 -j CONNMARK --save-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A MARK-gw2 -j RETURN /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --restore-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m comment --comment "this stream is already marked; escape early" -m mark ! --mark 0 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m comment --comment 'prevent asynchronous routing' -i eth0 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j MARK-gw1 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m comment --comment 'prevent asynchronous routing' -i wlan0 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j MARK-gw2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -N DEF_POL /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'default balancing' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j CONNMARK --restore-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'default balancing' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j CONNMARK --restore-mark /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw1 tcp' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 0 -j MARK-gw1 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw1 tcp' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 0 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw2 tcp' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 1 -j MARK-gw2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw2 tcp' -p tcp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 1 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw1 udp' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 0 -j MARK-gw1 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw1 udp' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 0 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw2 udp' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 1 -j MARK-gw2 /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A DEF_POL -m comment --comment 'balance gw2 udp' -p udp -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m statistic --mode nth --every 2 --packet 1 -j ACCEPT /usr/sbin/iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j DEF_POL /usr/sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m comment --comment 'snat outbound eth0' -o eth0 -s 192.168.0.0/16 -m mark --mark 101 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.178.95 /usr/sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m comment --comment 'snat outbound wlan0' -o wlan0 -s 192.168.0.0/16 -m mark --mark 102 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.1.95 /usr/sbin/ip route flush cache (this script was made by fukawi2, I don't know how to use iptables) but I have no Internet connection... output of iptables -t mangle -nvL Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 1254K packets, 1519M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1278K 1535M CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 CONNMARK restore 21532 15M ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* this stream is already marked; escape early */ mark match ! 0x0 582 72579 MARK-gw1 all -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* prevent asynchronous routing */ ctstate NEW 2376 696K MARK-gw2 all -- wlan0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* prevent asynchronous routing */ ctstate NEW 1257K 1520M DEF_POL all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 1276K packets, 1535M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 870K packets, 97M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 870K packets, 97M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain DEF_POL (1 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1236K 1517M CONNMARK tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* default balancing */ ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED CONNMARK restore 15163 2041K CONNMARK udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* default balancing */ ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED CONNMARK restore 555 33176 MARK-gw1 tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw1 tcp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 555 33176 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw1 tcp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 277 16516 MARK-gw2 tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw2 tcp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 packet 1 277 16516 ACCEPT tcp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw2 tcp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 packet 1 1442 384K MARK-gw1 udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw1 udp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 1442 384K ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw1 udp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 720 189K MARK-gw2 udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw2 udp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 packet 1 720 189K ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* balance gw2 udp */ ctstate NEW statistic mode nth every 2 packet 1 Chain MARK-gw1 (3 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 2579 490K MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* send via 192.168.178.1 */ MARK set 0x65 2579 490K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 CONNMARK save 2579 490K RETURN all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain MARK-gw2 (3 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 3373 901K MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 /* send via 192.168.1.1 */ MARK set 0x66 3373 901K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 CONNMARK save 3373 901K RETURN all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0

    Read the article

  • How to setup Mac server to use two gateways

    - by Brady
    I recently asked this question: How to set Mac server to use different Gateway for internet bound traffic The answer given works but has presented me with another issue that I didnt make clear in that question. Here is my network layout as it stands: At the moment outside staff members use some services on the existing internet 1 link. Those services are hosted by the Mac server. If I change the gateway of the Mac server to the second modem those outside staff lose visabilty on those services. Now I dont know how to go about solving this issue. I want the second link to be used when the Mac server goes to rsync data offsite but everything else use link one. How do I do this? Thanks Scott EDIT: This has been resolved by setting the default gateway on the Mac server to 192.168.1.254 Thus leaving everything on the network as it was before. but to get the Mac server to use the other link for rsync I've added a route to the Mac server to route traffic to the rsync server through the second gateway. sudo route add -net {server IP's}/{Netmask} 192.168.1.1 I've awarded the answer to gravyface for pointing me to a post on how to make this route persistant in Mac

    Read the article

  • Firewalling gateways and IDS's

    - by Scott Davies
    Hi, For IDS, I plan to have a Win 2008 server running on the gateway with the majority of roles disabled. I plan to firewall the Internet connection, but I'd also like to install Snort to work as an IDS. However, I am guessing that regardless of the Snort install of the promiscuous Winpcap driver, I won't be able to monitor ports that the firewall blocks. My thinking is that chain of flow is: Internet-Firewall on Win 2008-Winpcap-Snort-internal network Is there a way to still monitor services that the firewall will block (i.e. TCP 445 SMB) ? Perhaps run the data through Snort and then through the firewall ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Multiple routers, subnets, gateways etc

    - by allentown
    My current setup is: Cable modem dishes out 13 static IP's (/28), a GB switch is plugged into the cable modem, and has access to those 13 static IP's, I have about 6 "servers" in use right now. The cable modem is also a firewall, DHCP server, and 3 port 10/100 switch. I am using it as a firewall, but not currently as a DHCP server. I have plugged into the cable modem, two network cables, one which goes to the WAN port of a Linksys Dual Band Wireless 10/100/1000 router/switch. Into the linksys are a few workstations, a few printers, and some laptops connecting to wifi. I set the Linksys to use take static IP, and enabled DHCP for the workstations, printers, etc in 192.168.1.1/24. The network for the Linksys is mostly self contained, backups go to a SAN, on that network, it all happens through that switch, over GB. But I also get internet access from it as well via the cable modem using one static IP. This all works, however, I can not "see" the static IP machines when I am on the Linksys. I can get to them via ssh and other protocols, and if I want to from "outside", I open holes, like 80, 25, 587, 143, 22, etc. The second wire, from the cable modem/fireall/switch just uplinks to the managed GB switch. What are the pros and cons of this? I do not like giving up the static IP to the Linksys. I basically have a mixed network of public servers, and internal workstations. I want the public servers on public IP's because I do not want to mess with port forwarding and mappings. Is it correct also, that if someone breaches the Linksys wifi, they still would have a hard time getting to the static IP range, just by nature of the network topology? Today, just for a test, I toggled on the DHCP in the firewall/cable modem at 10.1.10.1/24 range, the Linksys is n the 192.168.1.100/24 range. At that point, all the static IP machines still had in and out access, but Linksys was unreachable. The cable modem only has 10/100 ports, so I will not plug anything but the network drop into it, which is 50Mb/10Mb. Which makes me think this could be less than ideal, as transfers from the workstation network to the server network will be bottlenecked at 100Mb when I have 1000Mb available. I may not need to solve that, if isolation is better though. I do not move a lot of data, if any, from Linsys network to server network, so for it to pretend to be remote is ok. Should I approach this any different? I could enable DHCP on the cable modem/firewall, it should still send out the statics to the GB switch, but will also be a DHCP in 10.1.10.1/24 range? I can then plug the Linksys into the GB switch, which is now picking up statics and the 10.1.10.1/24 ranges, tell the Linksys to use 10.1.10.5 or so. Now, do I disable DHCP on the Linksys, and the cable modem/firewall will pass through the statics and 10.0.10.1/24 ranges as well? Or, could I open a second DHCP pool on the Linksys? I guess doing so gives me network isolation again, but it is just the reverse of what I have now. But I get out of the bottleneck, not that the Linksys could ever really touch real GB speeds anyway, but the managed switch certainly can. This is all because 13 statics are not that many. Right now, 6 "servers", the Linksys, a managed switch, a few SSL certs, and I am running out. I do not want to waste a static IP on the managed GB switch, or the Linksys, unless it provides me some type of benefit. Final question, under my current setup, if I am on a workstation, sitting at 192.168.1.109, the Linksys, with GB, and I send a file over ssh to the static IP machine, is that literally leaving the internet, and coming back in, or does it stay local? To me it seems like: Workstation (192.168.1.109) -> Linksys DHCP -> Linksys Static IP -> Cable Modem -> Server ( and it hits the 10/100 ports on the cable modem, slowing me down. But does it round trip the network, leave and come back in, limiting me to the 50/10 internet speeds? *These are all made up numbers, I do not use default router IP's as I will one day add a VPN, and do not want collisions. I need some recommendations, do I want one big network, or two isolated ones. Printers these days need an IP, everything does, I can not get autoconf/bonjour to be reliable on most printers. but I am also not sure I want the "server" side of my operation to be polluted by the workstation side of my operation. Unless there is some magic subetting I have not learned yet, here is what I am thinking: Cable modem 10/100, has 13 static IP, publicly accessible -> Enable DHCP on the cable modem -> Cable modem plugs into managed switch -> Managed switch gets 10.1.10.1 ssh, telnet, https admin management address -> Managed switch sends static IP's to to servers -> Plug Linksys into managed switch, giving it 10.1.10.2 static internally in Linksys admin -> Linksys gets assigned 10.1.10.x as its DHCP sending range -> Local printers, workstations, iPhones etc, connect to this -> ( Do I enable DHCP or disable it on the Linksys, just define a non over lapping range, or create an entirely new DHCP at 10.1.50.0/24, I think I am back isolated again with that method too? ) Thank you for any suggestions. This is the first time I have had to deal with less than a /24, and most are larger than that, but it is just a drop to a cabinet. Otherwise, it's a router, a few repeaters, and soho stuff that is simple, with one IP. I know a few may suggest going all DHCP on the servers, and I may one day, just not now, there has been too much moving of gear for me to be interested in that, and I would want something in the Catalyst series to deal with that.

    Read the article

  • pfSense router on a LAN with two gateways

    - by JohnCC
    I have a LAN with an ADSL modem/router on it. We have just gained an alternative high-speed internet connection at our location, and I want to connect the LAN to it, eventually dropping the ADSL. I've chosen to use a small PFSense box to connect the LAN to the new WAN connection. Two servers on the LAN run services accessible to the outside via NAT using the single ADSL WAN IP. We have DNS records which point to this IP. I want to do the same via the new connection, using the WAN IP there. That connection permits multiple IPs, so I have configured pfSense using virtual IP's, 1:1 NAT and appropriate firewall rules. When I change the servers' default gateway settings to the pfSense box, I can access the services via the new WAN IPs without a problem. However, I can no longer access them via the old WAN IP. If I set the servers' default gateway back to the ADSL router, then the opposite is true - I can access the services via the ADSL IP, but not via the new one. In the first case, I believe this is because an incoming SYN packet arrives at the ADSL WAN IP, and is NAT'd and sent to the internal IP of the server. The server responds with a SYN/ACK which it sends via its default gateway, the pfSense box. The pfSense box sees a SYN/ACK that it saw no SYN for and drops the packet. Is there any sensible way around this? I would like the services to be accessible via both IPs for a short period at least, since once I change the DNS it will take a while before everyone picks up the new address.

    Read the article

  • Chain Gateways on the LAN

    - by Black2night
    I installed m0n0wall in a virtualized environment, i have 10 PCs connected to a router ( 192.168.1.0/24) which connect them to the internet through PPPoE, the problem is that this router does not have a QoS so what i want to do is the following :- let all the PCs get their IP from the Router and the default gateway will be m0n0wall the moon wall will have 2 interface (Lan 192.168.1.20) and (Wan 192.168.1.21 and default gateway 192.168.1.1) now when any PC want to access the internet it should go through m0n0wall and then m0n0wall will forward the connection to the default gateway through the wan interface which is the PPPoE running on the router (192.168.1.1) the big question is this scenario possible or not and what do you suggest? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Utilize two gateways on the same network same interface with load balancing

    - by RushPL
    My setup is two ISPs on a single interface and single network. I can either set my default gateway to 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.250 and either work. My desire is to utilize both of them with some load balancing. I have tried to follow the advice given in here http://serverfault.com/a/96586 #!/bin/sh ip route show table main | grep -Ev '^default' \ | while read ROUTE ; do ip route add table ISP1 $ROUTE done ip route add default via 192.168.1.250 table ISP1 ip route add default via 192.168.0.1 table ISP2 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --restore-mark iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m mark ! --mark 0 -j ACCEPT iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j MARK --set-mark 10 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m statistic --mode random --probability 0.5 -j MARK --set-mark 20 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --save-mark Now then I do "traceroute somehost" repeatedly I can only get route through my default route which is 192.168.1.250. Shouldn't the packets change routes in a random manner? How to debug it?

    Read the article

  • Two DHCP interfaces asigned to two default gateways to OS

    - by user140600
    I have a Ubuntu box that has two networking interfaces (eth0 and wlan0). They are both configured for DHCP in /etc/network/interfaces, but they both assign a default gateway: /etc/network/interfaces auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp auto wlan0 iface wlan0 inet dhcp wireless-essid test Result of route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 172.16.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 wlan0 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 How can I set up /etc/network/interfaces to have only one default gateway, on the interface I want? Worst case scenario, how can I at least control which one gets on top on the route -n command, each boot? Note: This box will travel a lot, and will be connected to different networks, so I don´t know in advance the IP addresses/ranges it will have. Sometimes the default gw interface will be eth0. Sometimes it will be wlan0 ... So, this needs to be kind of automatic ...

    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

  • 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

  • How Do SMS Gateways Work?

    - by Nick
    I've been looking at systems such as txtlocal, esendex and clickatell. I need to send out a very large number of messages and ideally would like to go in at a lower level then using systems like these. Does anyone know how these SMS gateways like I've listed work in terms of actually sending out the messages? Will they have agreements with different carriers and be sending them out programmatically? I've tried contacting some UK carriers directly but as of yet haven't had any success getting any information from them.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >