Search Results

Search found 11 results on 1 pages for 'm0n0wall'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Using m0n0wall in a VM for testing.

  - by tombull89

  I'd like to use m0n0wall inside a (VirtualBox) VM to play about with and see what it can do. Ultimately the goal is to have a number of virtual machines connected to a internal virtual network which goes through to the m0n0wall VM, and then the m0n0wall box connected to the internet through NAT or a bridged addaptor on my host machine. I can find out how to set the LAN and WAN addresses, but this seems to be only for using m0n0wall as a router intead of attached to another router. Let's see if I can diagram this: [Virtual Machine]---Internal (VM Only) Network ---[m0n0wall VM]---Bridged/NAT Addaptor---["real" router]---Internet. Can anybody suggest how I should do this or am I thinking m0n0wall isn't meant to be used like this?

  Read the article

• Single m0n0wall - Two LAN Subnets - How To Setup

  - by SnAzBaZ

  I have two LAN subnets that I need to link together they are 192.168.4.0/24 and 192.168.5.0/24 There is a m0n0wall running on 192.168.4.1. It's LAN connection goes out to our network switch, and it's WAN port goes out to our ADSL modem. WAN is connected via PPPoE. The 192.168.4.0 subnet contains all of our office workstations. The 192.168.5.0 subnet contains development servers and test machines that need to obtain internet access and be "managed" by computers on the 192.168.4.0 subnet, but need to be on their own subnet as well. I have a Draytek 2820N configured on 192.168.5.1 with it's WAN2 port configured as 192.168.4.25 and a default gateway of 192.168.4.1. Machines on the 5.0 subnet can connect to the internet via the m0n0wall just fine. I configured a static route on the m0n0wall LAN interface, Network 192.168.5.0/24 and Gateway 192.168.4.25. Machines on the 5.0 subnet can ping machines on the 4.0 network but the reverse does not work. I configured a new firewall rule on the m0n0wall that allows any traffic on the LAN interface with a source IP of 192.168.4.25 to be allowed. The DrayTek firewall is currently configured to pass all traffic regardless. When I try to ping a machine in the 5.0 subnet from 4.0 I see this in my m0n0wall log: BLOCK 14:45:27.888157 LAN 192.168.4.25 192.168.4.37, type echoreply/0 ICMP So the reply is being sent from the 5.0 subnet but is not being allowed to reach my workstation because the firewall is blocking it. Why is the firewall blocking it ? I hope the explanation of my network is clear, please ask if you require further clarification. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Simplest DNS solution for remote offices

  - by dunxd

  I look after a bunch of remote offices that connect via VPN - a Cisco ASA 5505 in each office acts as Firewall and VPN end point. Beyond that we keep things as simple as possible in the offices to minimise the support burden. We don't have any kind of server except in offices large enough to justify having someone dedicated to IT. Basically there is the ASA, some computers, a network printer and a switch. One of the problems I am seeing in a lot of offices is that DNS requests looking up hosts inside our network often fail - I'm assuming timeouts due to the offices internet connection (they are all in developing world countries) having some sub-optimal qualities (e.g. high latency caused by VSAT segments, or packet loss. The obvious solution to this is to have some sort of local DNS service that can serve local requests - so I think it would need to do zone transfers from our Microsoft Windows 2008 R2 DNS servers at HQ. However, simply installing Windows Servers in each office is both expensive, and creates a support burden. This got me thinking about pfsense/m0n0wall on embedded devices - those can act as a DNS server, and could be configured at HQ and sent out as just something that needs to be plugged into the network and can then be forgotten about by the staff locally. Maybe there are some alternatives to the ASA 5505 that include some DNS functionality. Has anyone here dealt with the problem, either using some kind of embedded device, or found some other solution? Any gotchas or reasons to avoid what I have suggested?

  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

• 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

• How to set WAN side buffers for WRT54GL running Tomato Firmware

  - by Vickash

  I've recently set up a machine running m0n0wall to try and fight buffer bloat and do some traffic shaping. It was more convenient (geographically speaking) to connect the cable modem directly to my old WRT54GL, then pass everything to the m0n0wall machine and have that do the real routing work. It took a bit of work, but it's working pretty well. I have a cable connection. I have m0n0wall set up to utilize only 90% of the specified speed of my subscription, which is fine. But I've noticed that at certain times of the day (possibly when my true bandwidth drops below that 90%), there's more latency if the connection is used heavily, and traffic shaping doesn't seem to work as well. I suspect this is caused by the buffers on the WRT54GL still being unnecessarily large. If the connection is working as expected, they won't get filled, but in times of reduced bandwidth they would. Does anyone know the command I need to execute, on the WRT54GL running Tomato Firmware, to reduce the buffers on the WAN interface to the minimum size possible?

  Read the article

• Help with routing table

  - by user68752

  I have tried to find the answer to my question but not really found a clean and easy solution. I have a box (Ubuntu headless 10.04.1 server, with one Ethernet port) on LAN behind a router (running m0n0wall), that I have successfully installed a PPTP device (ppp0) on, this is working flawlessly (following this link) The thing is I want this box to route all it's internet traffic through the VPN tunnel (ppp0 device) but also being able to access the local LAN on 192.168.1.* subnet. I've succeeded a bit with this, but my problem right now is that I have port forwards (e.g. SSH) done in the m0n0wall pointing to this specific box which forces me to do "add routes" to all boxes that want to access this machine through this specific port. For instance a machine with ip xyz.xyz.xyz.xyz needs to have a static route setup in the routing table on the box to be able to access the box. This is the result of route -n xxx.xxx.137.2 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth0 xxx.xxx.137.2 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 yyy.yyy.0.0 192.168.1.1 255.255.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 ppp0 Where xxx is the IPs provided from VPN server. yyy.yyy.0.0 is a net that i want to have access to the box, without this I can't access the box from outside the LAN (via port-forwards done in router software, m0n0wall) is there away round this ugly solution?

  Read the article

• DNS resolution over DHCP

  - by Eric

  I have a m0n0wall router a VMWare workstation running ubuntu a windows 7 workstation running the VM The ubuntu hostname is "renraku" From the windows machine I can't resolve dns automatically for this host. For example, when I ping renraku Ping request could not find host renraku. Please check the name and try again. However nslookup seems to work nslookup renraku Server: m0n0wall.local Address: 192.168.123.254 Name: renraku Address: 192.168.123.248 I don't get how to have ping to work with hostnames. The main goal behind this is to have my web server to work with hostnames instead of ip addresses EDIT : ping 192.168.123.248 works

  Read the article

• Any hardware/software routers that support Full Cone NAT?

  - by Ian Boyd

  i'm trying to get Teredo to function on my machine. Most routers, it seems, refuse to forward packets from any host other than the one i specifically connected to first. Teredo requires full Cone NAT in order to function. Does any router, hardware or software, allow full cone NAT? Is this an oversight by the designers of Teredo that nobody, in practice, can use it? i've tried m0n0wall pfsense D-Link Linksys SMC

  Read the article

• PFSense CSR Generation

  - by ErnieTheGeek

  I'm trying to figure out how to generate a CSR so I can generate and install a SSL cert. Here's a LINK to what I've what tried. Granted that post was for m0n0wall, but I figured openssl is openssl. Heres where I get stuck. When I run this: /usr/bin/openssl req -new -key mykey.key -out mycsr.csr -config /usr/local/ssl/openssl.cnf I get this: error on line -1 of /usr/local/ssl/openssl.cnf 54934:error:02001002:system library:fopen:No such file or directory:/usr/src/secure/lib/libcrypto/../../../crypto/openssl /crypto/bio/bss_file.c:122:fopen('/usr/local/ssl/openssl.cnf','rb') 54934:error:2006D080:BIO routines:BIO_new_file:no such file:/usr/src/secure/lib/libcrypto/../../../crypto/openssl/crypto/ bio/bss_file.c:125: 54934:error:0E078072:configuration file routines:DEF_LOAD:no such file:/usr/src/secure/lib/libcrypto/../../../crypto/open ssl/crypto/conf/conf_def.c:197:

  Read the article

• Why are people trying to connect to me network on TCP port 445?

  - by Solignis

  I was playing with my new syslog server and had my m0n0wall firewall logs forwarded as a test, I noticed a bunch of recent firewall log entries that say that it blocked other WAN IPs from my ISP (I checked) from connecting to me on TCP port 445. Why would a random computer be trying to connect to me on a port apperently used for Windows SMB shares? Just internet garbage? A port scan? I am just curious. here is what I am seeing Mar 15 23:38:41 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:38:40.614422 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.82.198.238,60653 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx,445 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN broadcast Mar 15 23:38:42 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:38:41.665571 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.82.198.238,60665 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx,445 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN Mar 15 23:38:43 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:38:43.165622 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.82.198.238,60670 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx,445 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN broadcast Mar 15 23:38:44 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:38:43.614524 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.82.198.238,60653 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx,445 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN broadcast Mar 15 23:38:44 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:38:43.808856 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.82.198.238,60665 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx,445 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN Mar 15 23:38:44 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:38:43.836313 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.82.198.238,60670 -> 98.103.xxx,xxx,445 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN broadcast Mar 15 23:38:48 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:38:48.305633 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.103.22.25 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx PR icmp len 20 92 icmp echo/0 IN broadcast Mar 15 23:38:48 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:38:48.490778 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.103.22.25 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx PR icmp len 20 92 icmp echo/0 IN Mar 15 23:38:48 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:38:48.550230 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.103.22.25 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx PR icmp len 20 92 icmp echo/0 IN broadcast Mar 15 23:43:33 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:43:33.185836 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.86.34.225,64060 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx,445 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN broadcast Mar 15 23:43:34 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:43:33.405137 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.86.34.225,64081 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx,445 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN Mar 15 23:43:34 gateway/gateway ipmon[121]: 23:43:33.454384 fxp0 @0:19 b 98.86.34.225,64089 -> 98.103.xxx.xxx,445 PR tcp len 20 48 -S IN broadcast I blacked out part of my IP address for my own safety.

  Read the article

1