Search Results

Search found 25974 results on 1039 pages for 'source routing'.

Page 100/1039 | < Previous Page | 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 | Next Page >

open source solution to a gateway for a network of a housing cooperative of 150 people

- by SirDinosaur

i just inherited a barely functioning network for a student housing cooperative of about 150 people. in it's current state, as i understand it from the previous person in charge of the network, we have working wireless access points and working ethernet cords going to working gigabit switches going to a barely functioning gateway (right now a simple home router) to one of three possible outbound connections. it is possible to connect to the network through the wireless or ethernet, but especially during peak hours, packets / connections are likely dropped or otherwise get no response. my intuition tells me to replace the gateway with something that can handle multiple outbound connections (WAN) and one inbound connection (LAN), while the rest of the network seems suitable for now. i'm somewhat knowledgable in Linux (been using Debian after first Arch Linux) and i want to use as much open source as possible, but i'm confused whether or not a simple server that i could easily understand will work for this situation. do i need specialized hardware to handle the switching more effectively? if so, what are my options? (i found this, thoughts?) or if a Debian server would work, anything else i should about the specs required for this type of server? also links to any useful information on using open source to maintain this type of network would be most appreciated. <3 P.S. crossposted http://redd.it/yybp2.

Read the article
How to configure 2 LAN Cards

- by PatDiazJr

How do we configure two (2) LAN cards on one computer. One LAN card is connected to the internet via the DSL through a router, configured as DHCP. The other LAN card is to be connected via our office's IP/VPN (for email and other office online processes). I know it could be done, but I do not know how. By the way, the operating system is Windows XP.

Read the article
RFC 1918 address on open internet?

- by longneck

In trying to diagnose a failover problem with my Cisco ASA 5520 firewalls, I ran a traceroute to www.btfl.com and, much to my surprise, some of the hops came back as RFC 1918 addresses. Just to be clear, this host is not behind my firewall and there is no VPN involved. I have to connect across the open internet to get there. How/why is this possible? asa# traceroute www.btfl.com Tracing the route to 157.56.176.94 1 <redacted> 2 <redacted> 3 <redacted> 4 <redacted> 5 nap-edge-04.inet.qwest.net (67.14.29.170) 0 msec 10 msec 10 msec 6 65.122.166.30 0 msec 0 msec 10 msec 7 207.46.34.23 10 msec 0 msec 10 msec 8 * * * 9 207.46.37.235 30 msec 30 msec 50 msec 10 10.22.112.221 30 msec 10.22.112.219 30 msec 10.22.112.223 30 msec 11 10.175.9.193 30 msec 30 msec 10.175.9.67 30 msec 12 100.94.68.79 40 msec 100.94.70.79 30 msec 100.94.71.73 30 msec 13 100.94.80.39 30 msec 100.94.80.205 40 msec 100.94.80.137 40 msec 14 10.215.80.2 30 msec 10.215.68.16 30 msec 10.175.244.2 30 msec 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * and it does the same thing from my FiOS connection at home: C:\>tracert www.btfl.com Tracing route to www.btfl.com [157.56.176.94] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms myrouter.home [192.168.1.1] 2 8 ms 7 ms 8 ms <redacted> 3 10 ms 13 ms 11 ms <redacted> 4 12 ms 10 ms 10 ms ae2-0.TPA01-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.199.82] 5 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 0.ae4.XL2.MIA19.ALTER.NET [152.63.8.117] 6 14 ms 16 ms 16 ms 0.xe-11-0-0.GW1.MIA19.ALTER.NET [152.63.85.94] 7 19 ms 16 ms 16 ms microsoft-gw.customer.alter.net [63.65.188.170] 8 27 ms 33 ms * ge-5-3-0-0.ash-64cb-1a.ntwk.msn.net [207.46.46.177] 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms 207.46.37.235 11 42 ms 41 ms 40 ms 10.22.112.225 12 42 ms 43 ms 43 ms 10.175.9.1 13 42 ms 41 ms 42 ms 100.94.68.79 14 40 ms 40 ms 41 ms 100.94.80.193 15 * * * Request timed out.

Read the article
Can a Linksys Router be the cause of bad speeds on a 1.5 mbps link.

- by gramware

We use a Linksys 5-port router at a smal organization with about 20 employees. We recently acquired a 1.5 mbps fibre link, but sometimes the link goes down and speeds are still low. On enquirey from the ISP, this was part of the response, However there maybe throttling due to the router in place. A Linksys is a low end router and may be unable to carried traffic of up to 1536Kbps. We are in a position to deploy a Cisco 871 router on test for 2 wks to eliminate that possibility. Also kindly advise the destination of the ping results they look to high. How true is that about the router throttling the network and need for a bigger one.

Read the article
How to configure remote access to multiple subnets behind a SonicWALL NSA 2400

- by Kyle Noland

I have a client that uses a SonicWALL NSA 2400 as their firewall. I need to setup a second LAN subnet for a handful of PC. Management has decided that there should be a second subnet even though intend to allow access across the two subnets - I know... I'm having trouble getting communication across the 2 subnets. I can ping each gateway, but I cannot ping or seem to route traffic fron subnet A to subnet B. Here is my current setup: X0 Interface: LAN zone with IP addres 192.168.1.1 X1 Interface: WAN zone with WAN IP address X2 Interface: LAN zone with IP address 192.168.75.1 I have configured ARP and routes for the secondar subnet (X2) according to this SonicWALL KB article: http://www.sonicwall.com/downloads/supporting_multiple_firewalled_subnets_on_sonicos_enhanced.pdf using "Example 1". At this point I don't minding if I have to throw the SonicWALL GVC software VPN client into the mix to make it work. It feel like I have an Access Rule issue, but for testing I made LAN LAN, WAN LAN and VPN LAN rules wide open with the same results.

Read the article
When would a persistent route not be an active route?

- by alnorth29

I've added a persistent route to our Windows Server 2003 box using "route -p add". After a reboot the "route print" gave this: Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.91.131.1 10.91.131.9 20 10.88.0.0 255.255.255.252 10.88.0.1 10.88.0.1 30 10.88.0.1 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 30 10.91.131.0 255.255.255.0 10.91.131.9 10.91.131.9 20 10.91.131.9 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 20 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.88.0.1 10.88.0.1 30 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.91.131.9 10.91.131.9 20 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.88.0.1 10.88.0.1 30 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.91.131.9 10.91.131.9 20 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.88.0.1 10.88.0.1 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.91.131.9 10.91.131.9 1 Default Gateway: 10.91.131.1 =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric 10.88.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.88.0.2 1 The route I added is listed as a persistent route, but not an active one. Why might this be the case? The route in question is for an OpenVPN connection, would that have anything to do with it?

Read the article
IP Phone over VPN - one way calls unless default route?

- by dannymcc

I have come across a strange problem with our VPN and BCM 50 (Nortel/Avaya) phone system. As you can tell by my other questions I have been doing some work on setting a VPN up from one location to another and it's all working well. With one exception. We have an IP phone that is connected at the remote location, straight to a router which has a VPN tunnel to our main practice. The phone works mostly, but every few calls it turns into a one way call. As in, the caller (from the remote phone) can't hear the receiver- but the receiver can hear the caller. This is fixed by setting the VPN tunnel to be the default route for all traffic. The problem with fixing it that way is that all traffic then goes through the tunnel which slows internet access etc. down considerably. The router is set to send the following over the VPN: 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.4.0/24 The IP of the remote location is: 192.168.3.0/24 The remote router (where the phone is) is a Draytek 2830n, and the local router (at the main practice) is a Draytek 2820. We are using an IPSec tunnel with AES encryption <- as a result of a previous answer pointing to the incompatibility in the hardware encryption. Any advice would be appreciated!

Read the article
Using iptables to selectively route outgoing requests?

- by Olivier

Hello, I'd like to set up my Dd-WRT firewall so that it uses the VPN service from a VPN provider to access a bunch of destinations and normal route foe all other requests. In detail: giganews.com would be accessed thru VPN VyprVPN normal web sites such as amazon, ebay, et al thru transparent firewall. I've run nito reading SOOOO many tutorials but I can't get to understand what the different entities are. Any help? Thxs

Read the article
Route traffic on vpn to another interface on an ASA 5510

- by Dave

I have a ASA 5510 that has about 60-70 vpn tunnels. I have four interfaces on the device: 1)External, 2)192.168.1.0, 3)192.168.2.0, 4) 192.168.3.0 A VPN tunnel is configured from the remote site (192.168.200.0) to the 192.168.2.0 subnet on the ASA. I have remote applications I would like the users at the remote site to be able to access which are hosted on the 192.168.3.0 subnet. I can route traffic between the subnets that are located on the ASA. Any way I can route traffic from the remote site to the 192.168.3.0?

Read the article
Multicast in private LAN with different subnets

- by Gobliins

after i read Multicast IP Addresses and Multicast accross the subnets I am confused. Configuration: I have two devices in the same network. They may not be in the same Subnet, but always in the same physical network (beyond the same router, switch etc.) I want to communicate across IP multicast either 224.x.x.x or 239.x.x.x may be more fitting because we want it local, not beyond of forward through the router. Can one machine be the receiver and the other machine sender of the same multicast address? and can the receiving machine send an answer to the sending machine?

Read the article
Always use one slow connection in preference of a "faster" one

- by billc.cn

In Windows, there's this automatic metric thing where the metric is selected according to the declared speed of the link. I now have a gigabit LAN routed to a 2MB DSL service and a HSDPA mobile broadband connection. The former is always chosen for Internet packets even though the latter is actually faster. I tried setting the mobile broadband's interface metric to 1 and raising its priority in the advanced settings of the adapter settings, but this does not seem to affect the metric of the default route. The default route to the Ethernet interface always have a lower metric than the mobile broadband interface. Am I missing something here?

Read the article
IP assignment in a /28 block

- by mks

Need help on setting up firewall router. My config is as below: Public static network ID: x.x.x.48/28 gateway: x.x.x.49 available IP for the hosts: x.x.x.52 to 62 gw_eth0 <-- fw_eth0 - fw_eth1 <-- dmz_switch Four servers are connected on dmz_switch (say s1, s2, s3, s4) all have to use public static IP address from the above block. Any recommendation on IP assignment and route setup? Do I need to subnet the above block further or simply use /32 netmask and point-to-point static routes in the above setup?

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
What kind of router do I need to handle multiple external I.P addresses?

- by user1308743

I have 3 dedicated I.P addresses going to a location with a few servers, and 1 RVS4000 router. Right now, only one I.P is being used. I would like a router that can use all 3 I.P addresses and I can make rules like this: IP1:80 goes to ServerA IP2:80 goes to ServerB What kind of router/device with what features do I need to handle this? I will need to set 30-40 rules to forward certain ports to certain servers. Only a couple ports will need to go to IP2 or IP3. Thanks

Read the article
Blocking ports on the public IP assigned to lo interface in GNU/Linux

- by nixnotwin

I have setup my Ubuntu server as a router and webserver by following the answer given here. My ISP facing interface eth0 has a private 172.16.x.x/30 ip and my lo interface has a public IP as mentioned in the answer to the question linked above. The setup is working well. The only snag I have experienced is that I could not find a way to block the ports exposed by the public IP on the lo interface. I tried doing iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -j DROP, and my server lost connectivity to the public network (internet). I could not ping any public ips. What I want is a way to block ports that are exposed by the public ip on the lo interface. And also I require iptables rules that can expose ports like 80 or openvpn port to the public network.

Read the article
Private IP getting routed over Internet

- by WernerCD

We are setting up an internal program, on an internal server that uses the private 172.30.x.x subnet... when we ping the address 172.30.138.2, it routes across the internet: C:\>tracert 172.30.138.2 Tracing route to 172.30.138.2 over a maximum of 30 hops 1 6 ms 1 ms 1 ms xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.org [192.168.28.1] 2 * * * Request timed out. 3 12 ms 13 ms 9 ms xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xx.xxx.xxxxxxx.net [68.85.xx.xx] 4 15 ms 11 ms 55 ms te-7-3-ar01.salisbury.md.bad.comcast.net [68.87.xx.xx] 5 13 ms 14 ms 18 ms xe-11-0-3-0-ar04.capitolhghts.md.bad.comcast.net [68.85.xx.xx] 6 19 ms 18 ms 14 ms te-1-0-0-4-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.xx.xx] 7 28 ms 30 ms 30 ms pos-4-12-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.xx.xx] 8 30 ms 43 ms 30 ms 68.86.xx.xx 9 30 ms 29 ms 31 ms 172.30.138.2 Trace complete. This has a number of us confused. If we had a VPN setup, it wouldn't show up as being routed across the internet. If it hit an internet server, Private IP's (such as 192.168) shouldn't get routed. What would let a private IP address get routed across servers? would the fact that it's all comcast mean that they have their routers setup wrong?

Read the article
Exchange 2010 Cannot send email to myself

- by durilai

We have began using Exchange 2010 in production, with no issues until now. I tried to email my self a link and it does not get received. I get no error or NDA. If I track the message is shows as successfully delivered, but it has not. This happens in OWA and Outlook Anywhere. Any help is appreciated. Thanks

Read the article
Blocking ICMP outgoing requests only in eth1

- by Raj

I am creating a NAT with iptables: Computer A: eth0 (dhcp) + eth1 (static ip 192.168.0.1 - gateway) Computer B: eth1 (static ip 192.168.0.2, using Computer A as gateway) I know how to block ICMP outgoing requests (-A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type echo-request -j DROP), but that would block ICMP requests from Computer A, but not from Computer B (in fact, only for Computer A - Computer B can keep doing those). I tried with the same command, but adding -o eth1, but that does not block at all. Any idea?

Read the article
Multi-WAN bonding across different media

- by Tom O'Connor

I've recently been thinking again about a product that Viprinet provide, basically they've got a pair of routers, one that lives in a datacentre, Their VPN Multichannel Hub and the on-site hardware, their VPN multichannel routers They've also got a bunch of interface cards (like HWICs) for 3G, UMTS, Ethernet, ADSL and ISDN adapters. Their main spiel seems to be bonding across different media. It's something that I'd really like to use for a couple of projects, but their pricing is really quite extreme, the hub is about 1-2k, the routers are 2-6k, and the interface modules are 200-600 each. So, what I'd like to know is, is it possible with a couple of stock Cisco routers, 28xx or 18xx series, to do something similar, and basically connect a bunch of different WAN ports, but have it all presented neatly as one channel back to the internet, with seamless (or nearly) failover if one of the WAN interfaces should fail. Basically, If i got 3x 3G to ethernet modems, and each on a different network, I'd like to be able to loadbalance/bond across all of them, without having to pay Viprinet for the privilege. Does anyone know how I'd go about configuring something for myself, based around standard protocols (or vendor specific ones), but without actually having to buy the Viprinet hardware?

Read the article
pix 501, static route to d-link router (different subnet)

- by ra170

I have pix 501 cisco firewall with internal ip 192.168.10.1. I have connected d-link router (dir-655) to pix 501. The d-link router has internal ip 192.168.0.1 The picture would like something like that: |pix 501| has 192.168.10.1 ip |DIR-655| has 192.168.0.1 ip 1. |cable modem|----|pix 501|-------|DIR-655|-----PC 2. PC--------|pix 501|---------|DIR-655| | | |cable modem| When I'm on the wireless network (dir-655) with assigned ip of 192.168.0.x I can cross the subnet and connect to my firewall 192.168.10.1. (pic. 1) The problem is that if I'm on the 192.168.10.x network I can't connect to anything over at 192.168.0.x network. (pic.2) I've tried entering a static route like this: `route inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.1 1` I also tried assigning static ip to wan interface on DIR-655 to 192.168.10.30 and then tried this: route inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.30 1 But still, can't connect to 192.168.0.1 or anything on that subnet. Is there a way to setup a static route? Would adding a separate router between PIX 501 and DIR-655 help? I would think that static route like this should take care of it, but it doesn't. This is my route config and nat: (config)# sh route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 (outside_IP) 1 DHCP static outside (outside_IP) 255.255.248.0 (outside_IP) 1 CONNECT static inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.1 1 OTHER static inside 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.1 1 CONNECT static or (route inside 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.30 1) (config)# sh nat nat (inside) 1 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 0 0 nat (inside) 1 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 0 0 nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 0 I ended up turning DIR-655 into an Access Point (turning off DHCP and pluging cable from PIX lan interface into one of the LAN interfaces on DIR-655, and leaving WAN port empty), that works as far as DIR-655 being on the same subnet now, and I can access every machine. However the question is, why can't I simply route between those two? would router between these two help? One of the reasons is, that the PIX 501 has only 10 licences, so now I'm using almost all of them. (I have few computers, iphones, ps3, print server, etc.) I would really appreciate some help! Thanks.

Read the article
Linksys router with multiple external IP's

- by Adrian Mester

In an office I've got a network connection with 5 external IPs and a Linksys router (I'm not 100% percent sure of the model). I need 4 of those 5 IPs to be routed to a server, and the fifth to be shared between the other computers at the office. This can probably be done using a switch in front of the router. Connect the server and the router to the switch, and let the router handle the rest of the network. Is there a way to configure the router to route the 4 IPs to the server, and create an internal network the the other computers at the same time?

Read the article
centos 6.3 kvm external ip forwarding to guests

- by user1111702

I have a centos 6.3 server with kvm installed. The server has 4 external ips and one NIC. 176.9.xxx.xx1 176.9.xxx.xx2 176.9.xxx.xx3 176.9.xxx.xx4 I use the following configuration ifcfg-eth0 as slave to ifcfg-br0 the configuration in ifcfg-eth0 is DEVICE=eth0 ONBOOT=yes BRIDGE=br0 HWADDR=14:da:e9:b3:8b:99 and in the ifcfg-br0 DEVICE=br0 TYPE=Bridge BOOTPROTO=static BROADCAST=176.9.xxx.xxx IPADDR=176.9.xxx.xx1 NETMASK=255.255.255.0 SCOPE="peer 176.9.xxx.xxx" and I have 3 more aliases for br0 , br0:1 to get the trafic from the second external ip DEVICE=br0:1 IPADDR=176.9.xxx.xx2 NETMASK=255.255.255.248 ONBOOT=yes br0:2 to get the trafic from the third external ip DEVICE=br0:1 IPADDR=176.9.xxx.xx3 NETMASK=255.255.255.248 ONBOOT=yes br0:3 to get the trafic from the second external ip DEVICE=br0:1 IPADDR=176.9.xxx.xx4 NETMASK=255.255.255.248 ONBOOT=yes The above settings work fine and I recieve the trafic from all the external ips. My problem is that I want to pass the trafic from external ip to specific virtual guest on my server. ie trafic that comes from 176.9.xxx.xxx2 must pass to virtual machine 1 176.9.xxx.xxx3 must pass to virtual machine 2 176.9.xxx.xxx4 must pass to virtual machine 3 Can you please help me how to achieve this ? What are the settings on the host and what should I do to the guests. Thank you in advance

Read the article
SharePoint 2007: Moving main site, to be a subsite - How can urls be redirected/changed?

- by program247365

The setup: SharePoint 2007 (MOSS Enterprise) on WINSVR03/IIS6 One site collection, with one access mapping (http://mainsite) currently I'm moving the main SharePoint site, in our one site collection, to be a subsite in a new site collection. I'm using SharePoint Content Deployment Wizard to complete this task (http://spdeploymentwizard.codeplex.com/). The Question So the main site http://mainsite being moved has many subsites, etc. I want to be sure that urls like this: http://mainsite/subsite/doclib/doc1.docx map to and redirect to the new url: http://newsite/mainsite/subsite/doclib/doc1.docx ? And furthermore: I'm aware of this - http://rdacollaboration.codeplex.com/releases/view/28073 , however is it IIS7 only? That'd wouldn't work for me. Looking at this question - http://serverfault.com/questions/107537/dealing-with-moved-documents-and-sites-in-sharepoint is the only one I see that is similar. Would an IIS redirect of http://mainsite to http://newsite/mainsite work only for the root url?

Read the article
Isolate clients on same subnet?

- by stefan.at.wpf

Given n (e.g. 200) clients in a /24 subnet and the following network structure: client 1 \ . \ . switch -- firewall . / client n / (in words: all clients connected to one switch and the switch connected to the firewall) Now by default, e.g. client 1 and client n can communicate directly using the switch, without any packets ever arriving the firewall. Therefore none of those packets could be filtered. However I would like to filter the packets between the clients, therefore I want to disallow any direct communication between the clients. I know this is possible using vlans, but then - according to my understanding - I would have to put all clients in their own network. However I don't even have that much IP addresses: I have about 200 clients, only a /24 subnet and all clients shall have public ip addresses, therefore I can't just create a private network for each of them (well, maybe using some NAT, but I'd like to avoid that). So, is there any way to tell the switch: Forward all packets to the firewall, don't allow direct communication between clients? Thanks for any hint!

Read the article
Route an IP from WAN to a host on LAN on OpenWRT

- by Zsub

EDIT: I know how to use NAT, I specifically want the server to be reachable on two IP's, one private, one public, with the firewall of the OpenWRT in between, if feasible. At the office we have recieved a /29 from our ISP. The first address is reserved for their endpoint, so I'm free to use five addresses. We run a local network, so of course there is a router in between running OpenWRT to provide all hosts with (W)LAN (dhcp from a private range). However, we also have a server running OS X Server 10.6 (Snow Leopard) and I'd like that server to be accessible both from the LAN using a private IP as well as from the WAN on it's own public IP. Point of note is that the server only has one network port, so multiple NICs is not an option, unfortunately. How would I go about doing this?

Read the article

< Previous Page | 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 | Next Page >