Search Results

Search found 4834 results on 194 pages for 'zend route'.

Page 100/194 | < Previous Page | 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107  | Next Page >

• How to subnet hosted VMs

  - by bwizzy

  I have a network of VMs each having a LAN IP address and a public IP address. They each have a 1:1 NAT map for public access via the public IP for HTTP, SSH etc. I'm trying to figure out a way to restrict the LAN IPs from talking to each other, but there are some cases where a group of LAN IPs will need to communicate. I'm using pfSense as a firewall / router on a 192.168.0.0/24 configuration. It seems like I could assign each VM it's own subnet and add a static route to the firewall for that VM to get back to the firewall for internet access / other fw rules. Is that right? I assigned 1 VM with: address 192.168.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.254 gateway 192.168.1.1 Then added a static route on the FW's LAN interface using 192.168.1.0/30 as the destination network and 192.168.1.1 as the gateway. Nothing appears to be working, anyone have any ideas? Please be aware I'm not that familiar with subnets. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Cisco ASA 8.2 ACL For NAT

  - by javano

  Sadly I have gone back in time to ASA 8.2(5)33 which I am not so familiar with. I have configured NAT between two interfaces but traffic isn't passing becasue I can't get the ACL to work; (The full config which isn't very big is here but to keep this post tidy I have just pasted the important parts below); interface Ethernet0/0 switchport access vlan 108 ! interface Ethernet0/6 switchport access vlan 104 ! interface Ethernet0/7 switchport access vlan 105 ! interface Vlan104 description BUILDING2 nameif BUILDING2 security-level 0 ip address 10.104.0.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Vlan105 description BUILDING1 nameif BUILDING1 security-level 0 ip address 10.105.0.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Vlan108 description Main LAN VLAN nameif lan security-level 0 ip address 172.22.0.215 255.255.255.0 ! object-group network obj_net_Remote_Hosts network-object host 111.111.111.3 network-object host 111.111.111.65 object-group network obj_host_pc1_eth1 network-object host 10.104.0.111 object-group network obj_host_pc2_eth1 network-object host 10.104.0.112 object-group network obj_host_pc3_eth1 network-object host 10.104.0.106 object-group network obj_host_pc4_eth1 network-object host 10.104.0.107 object-group network obj_net_PCs description IPs of PCs group-object obj_host_pc1_eth1 group-object obj_host_pc2_eth1 group-object obj_host_pc3_eth1 group-object obj_host_pc4_eth1 access-list acl_NAT_pc1_91 extended permit tcp host 10.104.0.111 host 111.111.111.3 eq 8101 access-list acl_Permit_PCs extended permit tcp object-group obj_net_PCs object-group obj_net_Remote_Hosts eq 8101 ! global (BUILDING1) 11 111.111.222.91 netmask 255.255.255.255 nat (BUILDING2) 11 access-list acl_NAT_pc1_91 access-group acl_Permit_PCs in interface BUILDING2 route BUILDING1 111.111.111.3 255.255.255.255 10.105.0.2 1 route BUILDING1 111.111.111.65 255.255.255.255 10.105.0.2 1 When I try and connect from PC1 to ip 111.111.111.3 I see the following error logged on the ASA console; %ASA-2-106001: Inbound TCP connection denied from 10.104.0.111/38495 to 111.111.111.3/8101 flags SYN on interface blades What the duce!

  Read the article

• Using public interfaces on a server connected through a GRE tunnel

  - by Evan

  I'm pretty new to networking so please forgive any terminology mistakes. I have 2 servers connected with a GRE tunnel. Server1 (10.0.0.1) ---- Server2 (10.0.0.2) I want to be able to bind to the public IPs on Server2 using Server1. To do this, I setup virtual interfaces with Server2's public IPs on Server1 and then used routing rules on Server1 to route the packets through the GRE tunnel. On Server1: ip rule add from [Server2's first public IP] table gre ip rule add from [Server2's second public IP] table gre ip route add default via 10.0.0.2 dev gre1 table gre This works great and I can see the packets arriving via GRE on Server2. I can see the packet exiting the tunnel on Server2's gre1 device as shown: From Server1: ping -I [Server2's public ip] google.com tcpdump from Server2's GRE tunnel device: 12:07:17.029160 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) [Server2's public ip] > 74.125.225.38: ICMP echo request, id 6378, seq 50, length 64 This is exactly the packet I want. However, I'm not seeing it go out at all on eth0:0 (where Server2's public IP is bound to). I've tried to use routing rules to get packets coming from Server2's public IP (which would be coming out of dev gre1) to go through dev eth0 on the public default gateway and that doesn't work either. I'm at a loss, thank you to anyone who can help.

  Read the article

• Assistance on setup to Connect an offsite server to the LAN via RRAS VPN - Server 2008 R2

  - by Paul D'Ambra

  I have an office LAN protected using a Zyxel Zywall USG 300. I've set up an L2TP/ipsec VPN on that which accepts connections using a shared secret and I've tested this from multiple clients. I have a server offsite and want to set up RRAS to use a persistent connection to the VPN so that it can carry out network jobs even with no one logged in (I'm using it for Micorosft DPM secondary backup). If I create a vpn as if I were setting up a users laptop it can dial in no problem but if I set up a demand dial interface in RRAS it errors. I enable RRAS ticking only demand dial interface (branch office routing) Select network interfaces, right click and choose new demand dial interface Name the VPN ToCompany Select connect using VPN And then L2TP as the vpn type enter the IP address (double-checked for typos!) select Route IP packets on this interface specify static route to remote network as 10.0.0.0/24 with metric of 1 add dial out credentials (again double checked for typos and confirmed with other vpn connections click finish now I right-click on the new interface and choose properties and then the security tab I change Data encryption to optional select only PAP for Authentication (both as per manufacturer of Zywall) click advanced settings against type of vpn and set shared secret then I select the new interface, right-click and choose connect this dials and then errors with either 720 or 811 as the error codes. However, if I create a VPN by going to Network & Sharing center and setting up as if I was creating a VPN from my laptop to the office (say) it dials successfully so I know the VPN settings are correct and the machine can connect to the VPN. Suggests very strongly the problem is how I'm setting up RRAS. Can anyone help?

  Read the article

• Debian/Ubuntu - No network connection

  - by leviathanus

  I have a very weird situation on my Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Server. I can not access (ping) my gateway, although I believe my config is ok - I attach the outputs. Any hints where to look? (I changed the beginning of the IP to something different, just obfuscation) ping 5.9.10.129 PING 5.9.10.129 (5.9.10.129) 56(84) bytes of data. From 5.9.10.129 (5.9.10.129) icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 5.9.10.129 (5.9.10.129) icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable From 5.9.10.129 (5.9.10.129) icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable uname -r 3.2.0-29-generic ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 3c:97:0e:0e:54:d7 inet addr:5.9.10.142 Bcast:5.9.10.159 Mask:255.255.255.224 inet6 addr: fe80::8e70:5aff:feda:c4ac/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1216 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:490 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:107470 (107.4 KB) TX bytes:34344 (34.3 KB) Interrupt:17 Memory:d2500000-d2520000 ip route default via 5.9.10.129 dev eth0 metric 100 5.9.10.128/27 via 5.9.10.129 dev eth0 5.9.10.128/27 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 5.9.10.142 route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 5.9.10.129 0.0.0.0 UG 1000 0 0 eth0 5.9.10.128 5.9.10.129 255.255.255.224 UG 0 0 0 eth0 5.9.10.128 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth0 iptables -L Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination UPD: Eric, this is how routing information looks on a working server: 0.0.0.0 78.47.198.49 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 78.47.198.48 78.47.198.49 255.255.255.240 UG 0 0 0 eth0 78.47.198.48 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth0 As I understand it, Hetzner tries to ensure security by this, so I can not take over an IP by changing my MAC. But this is another server, which has another netmask (255.255.255.240) UPD2: BatchyX, on the working server: 78.47.198.49 dev eth0 src 78.47.198.60 cache on the broken: 5.9.10.129 dev eth0 src 5.9.10.142 cache

  Read the article

• IPSec Tunnel to Amazon EC2 - Netkey, NAT, and routing issue

  - by Ernest Mueller

  I'm working on getting an IPSec VPN working between Amazon EC2 and my on-premise. The goal is to be able to safely administer stuff, up/download data, etc. over that tunnel. I have gotten the tunnel up in openswan between a Fedora 12 instance with an elastic IP and a Cisco router that's also NATted. I think the ipsec part is OK, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to route traffic that way; there's no "ipsec0" virutal interface because on Amazon you have to use netkey and not KLIPS for the vpn. I hear iptables may be required and I'm an iptables noob. On the left (Amazon), I have a 10. network. Box 1 is privately 10.254.110.A, publically IP 184.73.168.B. Netkey tunnel is up. Box 2 is publically 130.164.26.C, privately 130.164.0.D And my .conf is: conn ni type= tunnel authby= secret left= 10.254.110.A leftid= 184.73.168.B leftnexthop= %defaultroute leftsubnet= 10.254.0.0/32 right= 130.164.26.C rightid= 130.164.0.D rightnexthop= %defaultroute rightsubnet= 130.164.0.0/18 keyexchange= ike pfs= no auto= start keyingtries= 3 disablearrivalcheck=no ikelifetime= 240m auth= esp compress= no keylife= 60m forceencaps= yes esp= 3des-md5 I added a route to box 1 (130.164.0.0/18 via 10.254.110.A dev eth0) but that doesn't do it for predictable reasons, when I traceroute the traffic's still going "around" and not through the vpn. Routing table: 10.254.110.0/23 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.254.110.A 130.164.0.0/18 via 10.254.110.178 dev eth0 src 10.254.110.A 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1002 Anyone know how to do the routing with a netkey ipsec tunnel where both sides are NATted? Thanks...

  Read the article

• IPv6 Routing / Subnetting

  - by nappo

  Recently I have installed Citrix Xen Server 6.2 on a machine. My Provider (Hetzner) gave me the IPv6 Subnet 2a01:4f8:200:xxxx::/64. Followed an article in the providers wiki (1) i got it working and can assign IPs to my guests (CentOS). However i can't assign a second IP to a single guest - it will result in a timeout. I'm not very familiar with IPv6 routing / subnetting - any help or tips for further troubleshooting is welcome! My Setup: XenServer 6.2 IPv6: 2a01:4f8:200:xxxx::2/112 ip -6 route: 2a01:4f8:200:xxxx::/112 dev xenbr0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 0 fe80::1 dev xenbr0 metric 1024 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 0 default via fe80::1 dev xenbr0 metric 1024 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 0 Guest 1 IPv6: 2a01:4f8:200:xxxx::3/64 IPv6: 2a01:4f8:200:xxxx::4/64 ip -6 route: 2a01:4f8:200:xxxx::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 default via fe80::1 dev eth0 metric 1 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 Guest 2 IPv6: 2a01:4f8:200:xxxx::5/64 Guest 1 IPv6 is working fine, Guest 2 too. As suggested by the wiki article (1) i split my /64 network into a /112. Is it right to set the host /112 and the guests /64? Why is that?

  Read the article

• Exim4 Smart Host Relay

  - by ColinM

  I am running Exim 4.71. I want to: Route all email from A.com through mail.A.com Route all email from [B-E].com through mail.B.com Send all other email directly. Here is the configuration I have that doesn't work like I hoped: domainlist a_domains = a.com domainlist b_domains = b.com : c.com : d.com : e.com begin routers smart_route_a: driver = manualroute domains = +a_domains transport = remote_smtp route_list = +a_domains mail.a.com no_more smart_route_b: driver = manualroute domains = +b_domains transport = remote_smtp route_list = +b_domains mail.mollenhour.com no_more dnslookup: driver = dnslookup domains = ! +local_domains transport = remote_smtp ignore_target_hosts = 0.0.0.0 : 127.0.0.0/8 no_more When I send an email e.g. with PHP's mail() or Zend_Mail_Transport_Smtp setting both From: and Return-Path: as [email protected], the smart_route_a router is not used, the dnslookup is used instead. Disabling dnslookup results in no mail being sent. From the logs it appears that email sent to [email protected] uses smart_route_a, but the same email sent from [email protected] to [email protected] is sent using dnslookup. How do I make email from [email protected] be relayed via mail.a.com?

  Read the article

• Enabling NAT forwarding using a second WAN interface and a second gateway on ubuntu

  - by nixnotwin

  I have 3 interfaces: eth0 192.168.0.50/24 eth1 10.0.0.200/24 eth2 225.228.123.211 The default gateway is 192.168.0.1 which I want to keep as it is in the changes I want to make. I want to masquerade eth1 10.0.0.200/24 and enable NAT forwarding to eth2. So I have done this: ip route add 225.228.123.208/29 dev eth2 src 225.228.123.211 table t1 ip route add default via 225.228.123.209 dev eth2 table t1 ip rule add from 225.228.123.211 table t1 ip rule add to 225.228.123.211 table t1 Now I can receive ping replies from any internet host if I did: ping -I eth2 8.8.8.8 To enable NAT forwarding I did this: sudo iptables -A FORWARD -o eth2 -i eth1 -s 10.0.0.0/24 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -A FORWARD -m conntrack --ctstate ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT sudo iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE But it isn't working. To test I used a client pc and put it on 10.0.0.0/24 network and gateway was set as 10.0.0.200. I want to have 192.168.0.1 as default gateway. And the traffic that comes in via eth1 10.0.0.200/24 should be forwarded to eth2 225.228.123.211. I have enabled forwarding on ubuntua also.

  Read the article

• Why can't I bind to 127.0.0.1 on Mac OS X?

  - by Noah Lavine

  Hello, I'm trying to set up a simple web server on Mac OS X, and I keep getting an error when I run bind. Here's what I'm running (this transcript uses GNU Guile, but just as a convenient interface to posix). (define addr (inet-aton "127.0.0.1")) ; get internal representation of 127.0.0.1 (define sockaddr (make-socket-address AF_INET addr 8080)) ; make a struct sockaddr (define sock (socket PF_INET SOCK_STREAM 0)) ; make a socket (bind sock sockaddr) ; bind the socket to the address That gives me the error In procedure bind: can't assign requested address. So I tried it again allowing any address. (define anyaddr (make-socket-address AF_INET INADDR_ANY 8080)) ; allow any address (bind sock anyaddr) And that works fine. But it's weird, because ifconfig lo0 says lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 So the loopback device is assigned to 127.0.0.1. So my question is, why can't I bind to that address? Thanks. Update: the output of route get 127.0.0.1 is route to: localhost destination: localhost interface: lo0 flags: <UP,HOST,DONE,LOCAL> recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec rttvar hopcount mtu expire 49152 49152 0 0 0 0 16384 0

  Read the article

• Change the order of IP addresses returned by ifconfig?

  - by erikcw

  I have an Ubuntu server with several IP addresses attached to it. 127.0.0.1 is listed as venet0 by ifconfig. I'm using Chef to configure the server. The problem is that chef is listing 127.0.0.1 as the IP address for the server instead of one of the server's "real" IPs. (apparent "ohai ipaddress" uses the first IP listed by ifconfig to determine the server's IP). How can I change the order so the servers main IP is listed first instead of the 127.0.0.1? Can venet0 be deleted and venet0:0 be "promoted" to take its place since 127.0.0.1 is already listed in the "lo" interface? lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:334 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:334 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:16700 (16.7 KB) TX bytes:16700 (16.7 KB) venet0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:127.0.0.1 P-t-P:127.0.0.1 Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:7622207 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:8183436 errors:0 dropped:1 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:2102750761 (2.1 GB) TX bytes:2795213667 (2.7 GB) venet0:0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:XXX.XXX.XXX.XX1 P-t-P:XXX.XXX.XXX.XX1 Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 venet0:1 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:XXX.XXX.XXX.XX2 P-t-P:XXX.XXX.XXX.XX2 Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 route -n route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.0.2.1 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 venet0 0.0.0.0 192.0.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 venet0

  Read the article

• About to go live: virtual dedicated server or cloud?

  - by morpheous

  I am about to launch my startup company, and we will be going live in a few weeks time. We have really tight budgetary constraints, since we are bootstrapping - and would prefer not to raise external capital. I cant use shared hosting because I need more control of the server machine (for technical reasons - e.g. using proprietary extensions to PHP, Apache and in the database layer as well) - but want to control costs and dont want to go fully private server route, until we have determined the market size etc. So the only real alternatives AFAIK is between virtual server and the cloud. At the moment, cloud services seem a bit "vague" to me. My understanding is that they allow an entity to outsource its IT infrastructure, which in my mind (at least), is indistinguishable from what a hosting provider provides (at least from a functional point of view) - I would like to seek some clarification on exactly what the difference between the two is. Back to my original question, my requirements are: IT infrastructure that can scale with growth Ability to have control of the machine (for e.g. to install our internally developed libraries etc) Backup software that is flexible and comprehensive enough (yet simple to use), that allows a (secured) backup strategy to be implemented. On this issue, I have always wondered where the actual backed up data was stored (since the physical machines are remote, and one cant get access to any actual tapes etc backed onto). I would also like some advice and recommendations in this area. Regarding data size, I am expecting the dataset to be increasing by a few megabytes of data (originally, say 10Mb, in about a years time, possibly 50Mb) every day. As an aside, I have decided to deploy on a Debian server (most of my additional libraries etc were compiled and built on a Debian machine). Mindful of all of the above, I would like some advice (and reason) as to which route to take. I would also like some advice on which backup software to use, from people who have walked a similar path.

  Read the article

• How to use Cisco AnyConnect VPN Client?

  - by ktm5124

  I wrote a related question earlier, which is still unresolved. This question is much more specific. So I installed Cisco AnyConnect VPN Client on Snow Leopard. I connect to my work VPN. Once connected, I can't ping my work machine. I don't see any computers on the network. If the client were not running, I wouldn't believe myself to be connected to the VPN. Is there something that I am doing wrong? Do I have to route my network traffic through the tunnel manually? (ifconfig route comes to mind) Is the POST request that I am about to submit going to go through the tunnel created by my VPN? I guess the main question is: why do I feel so in the dark? Cisco says I am connected to my VPN, but for all I know it is invisible. N.B. I do have the up-to-date Cisco VPN Client: version 2.3.2016. I installed it about a week ago.

  Read the article

• Network Load Balancing and AnyCast Routing

  - by user126917

  Hi All can anyone advise on problems with the following? I am planning on installing the following setup on my estate: I have 2 sites that both have a large amount of users. Goals are to keep things simple for the users and to have automatic failover above the database level. Our Database will exist at the primary site and be async mirrored to the secondary site with manual failover procedures.The database generate sequential ID's so distributing it is not an option. I plan to site IIS boxes at both sites with all of the business logic on them and heavy operations. The connections to SQL will be lightweight and DB reads will be cached on IIS. On this layer I plan to use Windows network load balancing and have the same IP or IPs across all IIS boxes at both sites. This way there will be automatic failover and no single point of failure. Also users can have one web address regardless of which site they are in automatically be network load balanced to their local IIS. This is great but obviously our two sites are on different subnets and as this will be one IP address with most of our traffic we can't go broadcasting everything across the link between the sites. To solve this problem we plan to use AnyCast routing over our network layer to route the traffic to the most local box that is listening which will be defined by the network load balancing. Has anyone used this setup before? Can anyone think of any issues with this? Also some specifics I can't find anywhere at the moment. If my Windows box is assigned an IP and listening on that IP but network load balancing is not accepting specific traffic then will AnyCast route away from that? Also can I AnyCast on a socket level?

  Read the article

• WWNs,WWPNs and Fibre Channel addresses

  - by user238230

  Lots of contradictory on these subjects and I don't know why. My first question is about the 64 bit WWN. One reference claims the terms WWN and WWPN are synonymous. An online source seems to refute this. They say: A WWPN (world wide port name) is the unique identifier for a fibre channel port where a WWN (world wide name) the unique identifier for the node itself. A good example is a dual port HBA. There will be two WWPN's (one for each port) and only a single WWN for the card itself. Question #1: Which is correct? I’m almost positive I read that every “Port” has a WWN. My next question is about the 24 bit FC address that is dynamically allocated to a port when it is introduced to the switch. The Domain ID field is defined as: "a unique number provided to each switch in the fabric." Question #2: Do Domain IDs only apply to switch ports? For example what would the Domain ID be for a HBA? None? The same as the switch port it is connected to? Question #3: My last question is about the Name Server of a switch. A book example shows the routing of a message through the switch. It uses the WWNs of the source and destination ports to route the message. I am assuming that the Name Server must associate the WWN and the FC address in some way in order to route the message, correct?

  Read the article

• iptables to block non-VPN-traffic if not through tun0

  - by dacrow

  I have a dedicated Webserver running Debian 6 and some Apache, Tomcat, Asterisk and Mail-stuff. Now we needed to add VPN support for a special program. We installed OpenVPN and registered with a VPN provider. The connection works well and we have a virtual tun0 interface for tunneling. To archive the goal for only tunneling a single program through VPN, we start the program with sudo -u username -g groupname command and added a iptables rule to mark all traffic coming from groupname iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -j MARK --set-mark 42 Afterwards we tell iptables to to some SNAT and tell ip route to use special routing table for marked traffic packets. Problem: if the VPN failes, there is a chance that the special to-be-tunneled program communicates over the normal eth0 interface. Desired solution: All marked traffic should not be allowed to go directly through eth0, it has to go through tun0 first. I tried the following commands which didn't work: iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname ! -o tun0 -j REJECT iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -o eth0 -j REJECT It might be the problem, that the above iptable-rules didn't work due to the fact, that the packets are first marked, then put into tun0 and then transmitted by eth0 while they are still marked.. I don't know how to de-mark them after in tun0 or to tell iptables, that all marked packet may pass eth0, if they where in tun0 before or if they going to the gateway of my VPN provider. Does someone has any idea to a solution? Some config infos: iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t mangle Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 11M packets, 9798M bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 591K 50M MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 MARK set 0x2a 2 82812 6938K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 CONNMARK save iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t nat Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 393 packets, 23908 bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 15 1052 SNAT all -- * tun0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 mark match 0x2a to:VPN_IP ip rule add from all fwmark 42 lookup 42 ip route show table 42 default via VPN_IP dev tun0

  Read the article

• SharePoint, Exchange and Incoming Emails Without Directory Management Services

  - by Nariman

  Trying to keep this as simple as possible. We've already created the email accounts that we need (e.g. account[1-20]@domain.com) on Exchange/AD. We'd like to now enable incoming emails on SharePoint 2007 lists corresponding to these accounts. My thinking is we don’t need to configure Directory Management Services [2] – the architecture will be simpler without it and the application doesn’t require these services. However, we still need to route messages from Exchange to either local SMTP services (via the connector described in the articles below) or by user-specific drop-folder settings (if permitted by Exchange). So the question is: can we instruct Exchange to use a drop folder just for accounts account[1-20]@domain.com? or do we need to change the accounts to account[1-20]@sharepointsmtp.domain.com and re-route those message to the local SMTP service that will drop them on disk? I've read the material below. [1] - http://www.combined-knowledge.com/Downloads/2007/How%20to%20configure%20Email%20Enabled%20Lists%20in%20Moss2007%20RTM%20using%20Exchange%202007.pdf http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en/sharepointdevelopment/thread/91e0c3d2-afe6-469d-b1bc-6ae7a9aa287e http://gj80blogtech.blogspot.com/2009/12/configure-incoming-email-setting-in.html http://www.jasonslater.co.uk/2007/08/10/configuring-incoming-mail-on-moss-2007-and-exchange-2007/ http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262947%28office.12%29.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc263260%28office.12%29.aspx [2] – http://graycloud.com/sharepoint/incoming-mail-configuration-what-permissions-are-require-t39483.html

  Read the article

• Default /server-status location not inheriting in Apache

  - by rmalayter

  I'm having a problem getting /server-status to work Apache 2.2.14 on Ubuntu Server 10.04.1. The default symlinks for status.load and status.conf are present in /etc/apache2/mods-enabled. The status.conf does include the location /server-status and appropriate allow/deny directives. However, the only vhost I have in sites-enabled looks like this. The idea is to proxy anything with a Tomcat URL to a cluster of tomcats, and anything else to an IIS box. However, this seems to result in requests to /server-status being sent to IIS. Copying the /server-status in explicitly to the Vhost configuration doesn't seem to help, no matter what order I use. Is it possible to include /server-status do this within a vhost configuration that has a "default" proxy rule?: <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin webmaster@localhost DocumentRoot /var/www Header add Set-Cookie "ROUTEID=.%{BALANCER_WORKER_ROUTE}e; path=/" env=BALANCER_ROUTE_CHANGED <Proxy balancer://tomcatCluster> BalancerMember ajp://qa-app1:8009 route=1 BalancerMember ajp://qa-app2:8009 route=2 ProxySet stickysession=ROUTEID </Proxy> <ProxyMatch "^/(mytomcatappA|mytomcatappB)/(.*)" > ProxyPassMatch balancer://tomcatCluster/$1/$2 </ProxyMatch> #proxy anything that's not a tomcat URL to IIS on port 80 <Proxy /> ProxyPass http://qa-web1/ </Proxy>

  Read the article

• fwbuilder/iptables manually scripted + autogenerated rules at startup?

  - by Jakobud

  Fedora 11 Our previous IT-guy setup iptable rules on our firewall in a way that is confusing me and he didn't document any of it. I was hoping someone could help me make some sense of it. The iptables service is obviously starting at startup, but the /etc/sysconfig/iptables file was untouched (default values). I found in /etc/rc.local he was doing this: # We have multiple ISP connections on our network. # The following is about 50+ rules to route incoming and outgoing # information. For example, certain internal hosts are specified here # to use ISP A connection while everyone else on the network uses # ISP B connection when access the internet. ip rule add from 99.99.99.99 table Whatever_0 ip rule add from 99.99.99.98 table Whatever_0 ip rule add from 99.99.99.97 table Whatever_0 ip rule add from 99.99.99.96 table Whatever_0 ip rule add from 99.99.99.95 table Whatever_0 ip rule add from 192.168.1.103 table ISB_A ip rule add from 192.168.1.105 table ISB_A ip route add 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 table ISB_B # etc... and then near the end of the file, AFTER all the ip rules he just declared, he has this: /root/fw/firewall-rules.fw He's executing the firewall rules file that was auto-generated by fwbuilder. Some questions Why is he declaring all these ip rules in rc.local instead of declaring them in fwbuilder like all the other rules? Any advantage or necessity to this? Or is this just a poorly organized way to implement firewall rules? Why is he declaring ip rules BEFORE executing the fwbuilder script? I would assume that one of the first things the fwbuilder script does it get rid of any existing rules before declaring all the new ones. Am I wrong about this? If that was the case, the fwbuilder script would basically just delete all the ip rules that were defined in rc.local. Does this make any sense? Why is he executing all this stuff at startup in rc.local instead of just using iptables-save to keep the firewall settings at /etc/sysconfig/iptables that will get implemented at runtime?

  Read the article

• iptables to block VPN-traffic if not through tun0

  - by dacrow

  I have a dedicated Webserver running Debian 6 and some Apache, Tomcat, Asterisk and Mail-stuff. Now we needed to add VPN support for a special program. We installed OpenVPN and registered with a VPN provider. The connection works well and we have a virtual tun0 interface for tunneling. To archive the goal for only tunneling a single program through VPN, we start the program with sudo -u username -g groupname command and added a iptables rule to mark all traffic coming from groupname iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -j MARK --set-mark 42 Afterwards we tell iptables to to some SNAT and tell ip route to use special routing table for marked traffic packets. Problem: if the VPN failes, there is a chance that the special to-be-tunneled program communicates over the normal eth0 interface. Desired solution: All marked traffic should not be allowed to go directly through eth0, it has to go through tun0 first. I tried the following commands which didn't work: iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname ! -o tun0 -j REJECT iptables -A OUTPUT -m owner --gid-owner groupname -o eth0 -j REJECT It might be the problem, that the above iptable-rules didn't work due to the fact, that the packets are first marked, then put into tun0 and then transmitted by eth0 while they are still marked.. I don't know how to de-mark them after in tun0 or to tell iptables, that all marked packet may pass eth0, if they where in tun0 before or if they going to the gateway of my VPN provider. Does someone has any idea to a solution? Some config infos: iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t mangle Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 11M packets, 9798M bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 591K 50M MARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 MARK set 0x2a 2 82812 6938K CONNMARK all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 owner GID match 1005 CONNMARK save iptables -nL -v --line-numbers -t nat Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 393 packets, 23908 bytes) num pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 1 15 1052 SNAT all -- * tun0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 mark match 0x2a to:VPN_IP ip rule add from all fwmark 42 lookup 42 ip route show table 42 default via VPN_IP dev tun0

  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

• Only tunnel certain applications via OpenVPN

  - by jinjin

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

  Read the article

• Java website on Tomcat PHP website on Apache - how to get PHP web pages into Java web pages?

  - by Venkat

  We have a Java web application deployed on Tomcat. We also setup Apache and mod_proxy_ajp to route web requests (port 80/443) to Tomcat. We would like to deploy a PHP application on the same Apache server - probably under a subdirectory (/var/www/ourapp). Now we would like to access & display web pages from PHP application within web pages generated by Java application. Planning to implement Single Sign-on as well. Example: Web page from java has (JQuery Tabs) and we like to display the PHP web page within a tab while all other HTML comes from java application. Can you please give a overall picture of how to proceed about this? Mainly 1. how we should install/setup our PHP application on same Apache server which is used to route web requests to Tomcat? i.e. either setup sub domain or install in sub directory 2. How to bring PHP pages into present web pages (generated by java). Can we use AJAX requests or should go for Java PHP Bridge/ Querces such applications? Thank you for your time in advance. Regards.

  Read the article

• Why do I need a managed switch and which one should I buy?

  - by ascanio1

  I bought a 2nd router and I want both routers to have direct WAN access to the modem. One of the 2 routers directs VOIP traffic to a telephone line port. This VOIP service is provided by the cable carrier which also leases the modem & the router. The cable company technician told me that this VOIP line uses IPv6 addressing and therefore I must employ an IPv6 capable/compliant Giga Hub/Switch or my telephone line won't work anymore. Pls advise me (brand/model) an IPv6 compliant, 2 port, switch to purchase. Pls educate me: By reading this forum I thought that hubs broadcast traffic to all ports, regardless of which input/output is being used and so, theoretically, they have nothing to do with IP. Correct? Same story for unmanaged switches, where the only difference is that these latter devices route traffic only to those ports which are detected to be in use. Correct? I also understood that unmanaged switches route traffic simply by detecting hardware use and not by selecting specific IP traffic. Correct? Finally, there are managed switches which DO select traffic based on IP and, therefore, only these managed switches are involved with IPv6... Why would my cable company explicitly tell me, over and over, that I must use an IPv6 compliant switch? Why would they need a managed switch instead of an unmanaged one? Thanks in advance for helping me understand!

  Read the article

• IPTABLE & IP-routed netwok solution for HOST net and VM's subnet

  - by Daniel

  I've got ProxmoxVE2.1 ruled KVM node on Debian and bunch of VM's guests machine. That is how my networking looks like: # network interface settings auto lo iface lo inet loopback # device: eth0 auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 175.219.59.209 gateway 175.219.59.193 netmask 255.255.255.224 post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/proxy_arp And I've got two working subnet solution auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 10.10.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 post-up ip route add 10.10.0.1/24 dev vmbr0 This way I can reach internet, to resolve outside hosts, update and download everything I need but can't reach one guest VM out of any other VM's inside my network. The second solution allows me to communicate between VM's: auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet static address 10.10.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward post-up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s '10.10.0.0/24' -o vmbr1 -j MASQUERADE post-down iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -s '10.10.0.0/24' -o vmbr1 -j MASQUERADE I can even NAT internal addresses: -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 789 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.10.0.220:345 My inexperienced mind is ready to double VM's net adapters: one for the first solution and another - for second (with slightly different adresses) but I'm pretty sure that it's a dumb way to resolve the problem and everything can be resolved via iptables/ip route rules that I can't create. I've tried a dozen of "wizard manuals" and "howto's" to mix both solution but without success. Looking for an advice (and good reading links for networking begginers).

  Read the article

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