Search Results

Search found 5389 results on 216 pages for 'bridge router'.

Page 102/216 | < Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >

• If I partition a drive connected via eSata will it show different partitions when connected via USB?

  - by jeffreypriebe

  I have an odd problem with an external drive. I'm formatting it connected to my laptop prior to connecting it to my router. The HDD enclosure has both an eSata and USB connections. Generally, I connect it via eSata to my laptop. I created my partitions and connected it to the router, but I see partition information that is different than what I created. After chasing leads concerning large HDD size, I mindlessly connected the HDD to my laptop with USB. Lo! I see the same partitions as the router. Attached are screenshots using the same program and the HDD in question. The only difference is the connection. For the first, I connected via eSata and hit "refresh" on the partition program. Then, turned off the HDD, disconnected the eSata cable, and connected via USB. Power and refresh. eSata: reports a total HDD size of 2328 GB, with four partitions (the third being 1.96TB) USB: reports a total HDD size of 280 GB, with three partitions (the third being 279 GB) Any idea why this is happening? It looks like it clearly is an issue of the 4K sector size and not playing nice with the USB enclosure. I tried it eSata and USB in Windows and Linux and it appears consistently that eSata is reporting correctly, USB incorrectly.

  Read the article

• Will a 2.4Ghz WAP intefere with a 5.0Ghz WAP if placed directly next to each other

  - by Dan

  This is mostly a curiosity question to people who know more about radio and wi-fi than I. The 2.4Ghz band is massively overpopulated near my house to the point of sometimes getting 1000ms pings to the router from only a few feet away. inSSIDer finds at least 10 broadcasting SSID's within around 15 seconds of starting, so this isn't a real surprise to me! Sometimes I can get good results by changing the channel to something like 3 or 8, but it's usually temporary as the others use Auto Channel and hop around. Now, the router I have is capable of 5.0Ghz, as is the laptop I type this on. Switching to 5.0Ghz gives superb results: I can download at ~90Mbps and get consistent 1ms pings. The problem is that only this laptop supports 5.0Ghz! My question: Would I still get decent 5.0Ghz performance if I place a 2.4Ghz access point directly next to my router? And, indeed, will 2.4Ghz continue working as 'normal'? Testing would be an obvious step, but I threw all my superfluous equipment out in a recent house move. My understanding is that I should get good performance, certainly in comparison to having two devices using the same frequency range, but I do believe there will be some impact by the virtue of them being directly next to each other. (Cabling is not an option due to it being a rented house)

  Read the article

• Slow Local Network, Windows 7, Snow Leopard, WiFi/Wired

  - by WerkkreW

  Hello - I am experiencing really poor local network performance in my home. I was recently using a Linksys WRT54G Router with DD-WRT on it, and a couple comparable Linksys-G PCI cards for connectivity but decided to upgrade hoping it would help with my performance issues. The computers in my house are connected as follows: Comcast Business Class Commercial 25mbps/10mbps (Verified with SpeakEasy and Speedtest.net) D-Link DGL-4500 Wireless N Router Windows 7x64 - D-Link DWA-552 Wireless-N Windows 7x64 - D-Link DWA-552 Wireless-N Mac Mini 10.6.2 - AirPort Extreme N Playstation 3, Hard Wired Xbox 360, Hard Wired Essentially the problem is very specific. Web browsing and uploading/downloading files from the internet is fine, more than fine. But if I want to say, Stream a video from one of my Windows 7 computers to my PS3, or copy a large video file between either of the PC's or the Mac, I get a consistent 500-900Kbps throughput at the high end. If I open my network browser, or try to browse my homegroup the response time is horrible. Both of my Windows computers are showing Strong wireless signals with a connection speed of 300Mbps. I know I can never expect to achieve anything near those speeds, but 500Kbps? Here is what I have tried so far: Enabled Single mode N-only and N/G Only on router WPA2 with AES Encrpytion Disabled "Remote Differential Compression" in Windows 7 Disabled TCP "Auto-Tuning" Used other software for file copies such as "Teracopy" I am at the end of my rope. Unfortunately I live in a 75 year old home with plaster walls, so hard-wiring my entire house isn't really an option I can handle right now. Any ideas to help me get decent speed when transferring files across my network would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• How to serve media across home network?

  - by TK Kocheran

  I'm looking to share my media across my home network. Router fully supports running a DLNA server, but I don't know if it'd be better to run the server from my main server computer instead of from the router, as the router would have to operate off of a network share and my server can operate directly off of the files. Here's what I need to serve, in order of importance: ISO 1:1 DVD rips (4-8GB files), MP4/H.264 encoded videos, MKV videos, MP3 files, JPEG/CR2 images. Maybe I'm completely ludicrous for wanting to push full DVD files across my network, but in reality, I would assume that only the parts of the actual file needed (ie: menu, main video payload for main title) would be served at any one time. Plus, encoding takes time and precious disk space, so why not stream it 1:1 ;) Does anyone know of the best way to accomplish this? Main goal is to serve it to Logitech Revue downstairs and secondary goal is to serve it to other computers in the house. For music, I assume I could run a DAAP server, but I don't think that the Revue supports that (and I can't exactly throw together an app that does it just yet).

  Read the article

• Nagios check_host_alive and check_ping not showing host as down

  - by Kyle

  I am using the check_host_alive command to send 5 packets every minute to all my routers at remote locations. I noticed today I received a notification from The AT&T Global Client Support Center that a router was down (which can take 5-30 minutes to send these notices out) and never received a notice from Nagios. I went onto Nagios and it is was showing the host as alive with a latency of 0ms. This tells me it is seeing the automated response from my router in the data center that, "TTL expired in transit" as a reply from the remote router. Is there anyway for me to tell nagios to check where the reply is comming from? I feel like other people have to of had this issue... I tested it with the check_ping command and it produced the same results. I have the command defined has %hostname% and the proper IP in the host definition, and it works fine for telling me the latency is high. Any ideas are welcome, I have already exercised my Google skills with no results. EDIT: root@IM-UBTU:/# /usr/local/nagios/libexec/check_ping -H 192.168.250.1 -w 100.0,10% -c 200.0,20% -vvv CMD: /bin/ping -n -U -w 10 -c 5 192.168.250.1 Output: PING 192.168.250.1 (192.168.250.1) 56(84) bytes of data. Output: From 10.69.10.2 icmp_seq=1 Time to live exceeded It knows something is wrong why doesn't it give me a warning?

  Read the article

• Route through site-to-site VPN not working

  - by Jonathan

  I'm trying to set up a site-to-site VPN using RRAS on two 2K8r2 servers since yesterday. The connection is working at this point, but I can't get it to send traffic from one site to the other one. Set up: the set up is the same on both sites: the server is connected to a router that's connected to a modem. The routers act like a DHCP-server and assign IP addresses from the range subnet.21-subnet-.100. Both servers use a static IP address, subnet.11, and are set up as DMZ. Configuration: the servers are configured using the wizard to set up a site-to-site connection. This works with a demand-dial interface and a PPTP VPN connection. As mentioned, the VPN connection work properly. Problem: I can't get the servers to send the traffic for the other site, to be sent through the VPN connection. I added a static route on both server (home, office 1) and I can see the result in the IP routing table (home, office 1). I did this because the route didn't show up automatically. My guess is that this last step isn't right, for example because the routing table states "non demand-dial", which seems not correct. Home: Subnet: 10.0.1.0/24 Router: 10.0.1.1 Server: 10.0.1.11 (DMZ) DHCP: 10.0.1.21-10.0.1.100 RRAS DHCP: 10.0.1.101-10.0.1.150 Office 1: Subnet: 10.0.2.0/24 Router: 10.0.2.1 Server: 10.0.2.11 (DMZ) DHCP: 10.0.2.21-10.0.2.100 RRAS DHCP: 10.0.2.101-10.0.2.150 I hope someone has an idea to get this route working!

  Read the article

• Slow Local Network, Windows 7, Snow Leopard, WiFi/Wired

  - by WerkkreW

  I am experiencing really poor local network performance in my home. I was recently using a Linksys WRT54G Router with DD-WRT on it, and a couple comparable Linksys-G PCI cards for connectivity but decided to upgrade hoping it would help with my performance issues. The computers in my house are connected as follows: Comcast Business Class Commercial 25mbps/10mbps (Verified) D-Link DGL-4500 Wireless N Router Windows 7x64 - D-Link DWA-552 Wireless-N Windows 7x64 - D-Link DWA-552 Wireless-N Mac Mini 10.6.2 - AirPort Extreme N Playstation 3, Hard Wired Xbox 360, Hard Wired Essentially the problem is very specific. Web browsing and uploading/downloading files from the internet is fine, more than fine. But if I want to say, Stream a video from one of my Windows 7 computers to my PS3, or copy a large video file between either of the PC's or the Mac, I get a consistent 500-900Kbps throughput at the high end. If I open my network browser, or try to browse my homegroup the response time is horrible. Both of my Windows computers are showing Strong wireless signals with a connection speed of 300Mbps. I know I can never expect to achieve anything near those speeds, but 500Kbps? Here is what I have tried so far: Enabled Single mode N-only and N/G Only on router WPA2 with AES Encrpytion Disabled "Remote Differential Compression" in Windows 7 Disabled TCP "Auto-Tuning" Used other software for file copies such as "Teracopy" I am at the end of my rope. Unfortunately I live in a 75 year old home with plaster walls, so hard-wiring my entire house isn't really an option I can handle right now. Any ideas to help me get decent speed when transferring files across my network would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Intermittently uncommunicative subnets

  - by mhd

  Last week proved me a veritable Cassandra: I've always said that it's a bad idea to have only one firewall/router, without a backup or failover. And thus our Cisco PIX went haywire, refusing to route properly. And of course, the only one available here on short notice is me, and while I'm quite grounded in Linux, I'm really a developer not a sysadmin (the fact that this hit me on sysadmin appreciation day is a bit ironic). Anyway, this weekend I tried to hack up a temporary solution: I used an old server with enough NICs (two built-in, four on a card) to serve as a gateway and firewall. Due to some problems with the raid controller, I got only two router distros running, and between Untangle and Ebox I decided for the latter. Now everything is quite okay. I've got all the different subnets we've got here (all with separate switches) talking to each other and even to the internet (Cisco 2800 router, T1 lines). But from time to time (20-60 minute intervals), I get a total routing failure. Our main, office subnet can't talk to our server subnet and can't connect to the internet. This is not the end of a gradual slowdown, either everything's working perfectly or I get a total lack of communication for about two minutes each time. Now I'm a bit at wits end what to check. At least with the default EBox setup, nothing in /var/log shows anything weird and it doesn't exactly have lots of built-in monitoring tools. So I'm hoping someone here could give me some pointers about what to look out for. I did change the ethernet cable from the office switch to the firewall, with no results. I might change switches, although within the switch it seems to work ok enough. Edit: I'm not sure whether this is the sole cause of the problem, but after I noticed a few DHCP entries just before the last drop of connectivity, I tried to reproduce that. And alas, whenever I renew a DHCP connection, I can't access other subnets anymore. Running ISC DHCPD 3.0.6.

  Read the article

• Switch to IPv6 and get rid of NAT? Are you kidding?

  - by Ernie

  So our ISP has set up IPv6 recently, and I've been studying what the transition should entail before jumping into the fray. I've noticed three very important issues: Our office NAT router (an old Linksys BEFSR41) does not support IPv6. Nor does any newer router, AFAICT. The book I'm reading about IPv6 tells me that it makes NAT "unnecessary" anyway. If we're supposed to just get rid of this router and plug everything directly to the Internet, I start to panic. There's no way in hell I'll put our billing database (With lots of credit card information!) on the internet for everyone to see. Even if I were to propose setting up Windows' firewall on it to allow only 6 addresses to have any access to it at all, I still break out in a cold sweat. I don't trust Windows, Windows' firewall, or the network at large enough to even be remotely comfortable with that. There's a few old hardware devices (ie, printers) that have absolutely no IPv6 capability at all. And likely a laundry list of security issues that date back to around 1998. And likely no way to actually patch them in any way. And no funding for new printers. I hear that IPv6 and IPSEC are supposed to make all this secure somehow, but without physically separated networks that make these devices invisible to the Internet, I really can't see how. I can likewise really see how any defences I create will be overrun in short order. I've been running servers on the Internet for years now and I'm quite familiar with the sort of things necessary to secure those, but putting something Private on the network like our billing database has always been completely out of the question. What should I be replacing NAT with, if we don't have physically separate networks?

  Read the article

• Routing for remote gateway over VPN in Vista/7 broken?

  - by Raymond

  Hi, Situation is as follows. Home computer running Windows 7, sets up VPN connection (LT2P + IPSec, "use remote gateway" disabled) to office. Subnet is 192.168.64.x Office has Draytek Vigor 2920 router, subnet is 192.168.32.x What happens? - VPN connection itself works fine - Can ping any machine on the remote network - When trying to open a webpage from a host in the remote network, the remote server logs the incoming request, but the browser hangs on "waiting for..." and eventually times out. I have observed this problem on Windows Vista and Windows 7. On Windows XP however there is no problem like described above. The only clue I have is that there is a difference in the routing between XP and Vista/7. The output of "route print" on Windows XP looks like this: (See www.latunyi.com/routing_xp.png) So here the gateway for the 192.168.32.x subnet is the IP address that the local computer has in the remote network. The output of "route print" on Windows 7 (and Windows Vista) looks like this: (See www.latunyi.com/routing_win7.png") Now the gateway for the 192.168.32.x subnet is the IP address of the VPN router (32.1). I don't know if that causes this trouble, but it seems a bit strange. Enabling "use default gateway on remote network" doesn't make a difference. Using the new option "Disable class based route addition" in Windows 7 only makes the route to the VPN router disappear. I am really puzzled here. I assume the VPN routing can't be broken in both Vista and Windows 7, and this should just work without manually adding routes. I hope someone has a solution for this problem :-). Thanks!

  Read the article

• Wifi antenna extension with F-connector/RG-6(RG-59) cable?

  - by rjz2000

  In an older house, the wire mesh in walls surrounding the furnace behave like a Faraday cage and block wifi signals. It is also difficult to lay new cable, however there is television cable to multiple locations due to there once having been a roof-installed, television antenna. It would be relatively trivial to install the wifi router at the center distribution point, then have the antenna broadcasting/receiving the signal plugged in at each of the old television outlets. I assume that it would not be too difficult to find an adapter for SMA <- F-type connectors. The cable is actually RG-59 rather than RG-6, but I assume that it still has relatively good RF isolation along its length, which is no more than a couple hundred feet in any direction. Does anyone know a problem with the idea? Will a router get confused if there is /too little/ interference between the two antenna? Is that length of cable (~100ft) too long for the signal a router broadcasts? I have seen that it is also possible to use old ~$30/each FiOS cable modems available on eBay to extend a network over television cable. However, that seems like a less elegant solution, and might interfere with upnp and dlna services I'd like to have work on a single network. Thanks if anyone has answers or suggestions before I try this project!

  Read the article

• Wifi antenna extension with F-connector/RG-6(RG-59) cable?

  - by rjz2000

  In an older house, the wire mesh in walls surrounding the furnace behave like a Faraday cage and block wifi signals. It is also difficult to lay new cable, however there is television cable to multiple locations due to there once having been a roof-installed, television antenna. It would be relatively trivial to install the wifi router at the center distribution point, then have the antenna broadcasting/receiving the signal plugged in at each of the old television outlets. I assume that it would not be too difficult to find an adapter for SMA <- F-type connectors. The cable is actually RG-59 rather than RG-6, but I assume that it still has relatively good RF isolation along its length, which is no more than a couple hundred feet in any direction. Does anyone know a problem with the idea? Will a router get confused if there is /too little/ interference between the two antenna? Is that length of cable (~100ft) too long for the signal a router broadcasts? I have seen that it is also possible to use old ~$30/each FiOS cable modems available on eBay to extend a network over television cable. However, that seems like a less elegant solution, and might interfere with upnp and dlna services I'd like to have work on a single network. Thanks if anyone has answers or suggestions before I try this project!

  Read the article

• Variable TTL inside a LAN

  - by user140783

  I recently discovered that ping my local router, returns different TTL values??. The ping 3 switch must pass through before reaching the router, there may be the problem? 192.168.1.99 is the IP of my router , a Cisco WRT120N Thank you! Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=190 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo=29ms TTL=3 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=117 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=131 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=66 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=66 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=66 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=111 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=240 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=66 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=66 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=66 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=51 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=190 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=66 Traceroute G:\Documents and Settings\Administrador>tracert 192.168.1.99 Traza a la dirección maxi2011 [192.168.1.99] sobre un máximo de 30 saltos: 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms maxi2011 [192.168.1.99] Traza completa. G:\Documents and Settings\Administradorping 192.168.1.99 Haciendo ping a 192.168.1.99 con 32 bytes de datos: Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=190 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=190 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=117 Respuesta desde 192.168.1.99: bytes=32 tiempo<1m TTL=117 Estadísticas de ping para 192.168.1.99: Paquetes: enviados = 4, recibidos = 4, perdidos = 0 (0% perdidos), Tiempos aproximados de ida y vuelta en milisegundos: Mínimo = 0ms, Máximo = 0ms, Media = 0ms G:\Documents and Settings\Administrador

  Read the article

• DHCP Relay setup in ubuntu server

  - by jerichorivera

  I have a network appliance (QNO) that works as traffic load balancer and dhcp server. I would like to add a linux server in between the network appliance and the client computers. The linux server will be used to monitor bandwidth usage. My problem is I still want DHCP to be served by the network appliance so that load balancing will still work efficiently. We are afraid that if we setup the linux server as the DHCP server the network appliance will not be able to load balance the traffic if it only sees the linux server as a single client connecting to it. I've been searching all over for a tutorial on how to setup DHCP relay but have not found any. How do I setup DHCP relay on my linux server given there are two NICs attached to it, one connects the linux server to the network appliance and the other connects the linux server to the client computers. EDIT Router (DHCP) ---- [eth0] Linux Server (Relay agent) [eth1] ----- PC (network) Router IP is 192.168.0.100 eth0 is on DHCP eth1 is static 192.168.2.11 (if I need to change this I can) Tried to do dhcrelay -i eth1 192.168.0.100, but the PC was not getting any DHCP lease from the DHCP router. I might be missing something here.

  Read the article

• Wake on Lan Remote not waking PC while the PC does receive the packet.

  - by Nycrea

  Over the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to set up WOL from a remote location. When I use my laptop to wake the machine locally, it works just fine. (for some reason, when I try to wake from my phone with an app called "WOL wake on lan" it does not work locally either, but I'll get to that later) Anyway, when the machine is turned on, and I let it 'listen' for incoming magic packets (with a program called "WOL magic packet sender") on my specified port, it does receive them, though when turned off, the machine does not wake. When sending from phone, either locally or via 3G remotely, it does receive but does not wake as well. Because the machine does receive them when turned on and listening, but does not wake when turned off, I am convinced the cause of the problem is my receiving PC, rather than the router or the sender. Some extra info: The receiving machine is a PC running Windows 7 64bit. My router is the Netgear JWNR2000v2. I have the port I use forwarded to my PC's static IP in the router. If anyone could help, or just share your own story with the same problem, maybe we can work this out. Thanks a lot in advance.

  Read the article

• Blocking of certain file downloads

  - by Philip Fourie

  I have a problem where I cannot completely download a certain file from a server. The file is 1.9MB in size but only 68% is downloaded and then it hangs. I tried and these cases, which failed: Downloaded the file with HTTP Downloaded the file with FTP Moved the file to different FTP and web servers behind the ISA firewall Tried with IIS 6.0 & IIS 7.0 Multiple download clients. Which included FireFox, FileZilla (on Windows) and wget (on Linux) This worked: Downloading other files from the same location on the server. Both bigger and smaller and in size than the original. FTP and HTTP worked. Earlier version of this file (.DLL) works. It is as if the content of this file has an influence on this file being served. Network architecture: Client Machine - Internet (ISP) - ISA Server - IIS 7.0 The only constants are the ISP, Cisco router and the ISA server. Is it possible that something is rejecting the download because of the contents of the file? I am hoping ISA is the culprit... I am not a ISA expert is there somewhere I can look to establish if it is indeed ISA causing this? Update: Splitting the file into two parts with a hex editor results in one half of the file being served correctly and the other part not. Zipping the file results in the file being downloaded successfully. However this is not an option for this particular scenario. Renaming the file and its extension also doesn't work. Update 2009/10/22: It does NOT seems to be ISA that is causing this problem. We connected a laptop (running IIS) on an available public IP and still the file download to 68% before it hanged. The two remaining components are the ISP and the Cisco 800 series router. Anyone knows about an issue on the router perhaps?

  Read the article

• Vmware Workstation, Win7 host, Ubuntu guests with Nat + Host-only networks but they cannot connect to the Internet

  - by Ikon

  I have a Win7 host machine with Vmware Workstation. In the workstation I have 3 Ubuntu installed. All 3 Ubuntu guests have a Nat network - to access the internet without asking the router for a local address - and a Host-only network - to connect all Ubuntu quests and the host in a private network for internal communication, without touching the router. When I try to make any of the Ubuntu quests to get data from the internet - assuming that they would figure out that the Nat-ed interface can access the requested data - they fail and report that there is no route to my query. If I disconnect the 2nd interface on the Ubuntu guests with the Host-only network and restart networking, they start to know the route to the internet. Odd, during the installation of the guests they asked which of the 2 given interfaces - with Nat and Host-only config - should be used to get updates during installation and they oddly managed to get the updates. Not so after the installation has finished and rebooted. I have checked the Virtual Network Editor that the Nat interface should use my real network card to access the net, so there should be no problem. I wish not to use the router's dhcp service to give the Ubuntu quests an address, and also I don't want the guests to be accessable from the local network directly, but only by the host - that's the Host-only network is for. Any suggestions? Edit: 192.168.189.0 is the Nat interface and 192.168.7.0 is the Host-only. $ route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.7.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.189.2 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0

  Read the article

• How to set a static route for an external IP address

  - by HorusKol

  Further to my earlier question about bridging different subnets - I now need to route requests for one particular IP address differently to all other traffic. I have the following routing in my iptables on our router: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.1.1.0/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.2.2.0/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two private connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT This configuration means that users will be forwarded through a modem/router with a public address - this is all well and good for most purposes, and in the main it doesn't matter that all computers are hidden behind the one public IP. However, some users need to be able to access a proxy at 192.111.222.111:8080 - and the proxy needs to identify this traffic as coming through a gateway at 129.2.2.126 - it won't respond otherwise. I tried adding a static route on our local gateway with: route add -host 192.111.222.111 gw 129.2.2.126 dev eth2 I can successfully ping 192.111.222.111 from the router. When I trace the route, it lists the 129.2.2.126 gateway, but I just get * on each of the following hops (I think this makes sense since this is just a web-proxy and requires authentication). When I try to ping this address from a host on the 129.2.2.0/25 network it fails. Should I do this in the iptables chain instead? How would I configure this routing?

  Read the article

• .htaccess with godaddy not working in subdomain

  - by explorex

  Hi, i have a site uploaded to shared subdomain (which is inside a folder). and htaccess is not working. please get details from here. EDIT::copied from stack overflow Hi, i uploaded as website to a subdomain, and every page is not working except the front page please check it here. what could be the possible reason? i shoud have 8 pages in front level and many more on admin level but i am getting 404 error as you can see, does anyone has idea or suggestion? UPDATE:: .htaccess file RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} -s [OR] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} -l [OR] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} -d RewriteRule ^.*$ - [NC,L] RewriteRule ^.*$ index.php [NC,L] UPDATE to url rounting i do have few url router like below BUT i dont have any default router $router->addRoute( 'get-destination', new Zend_Controller_Router_Route('destination/get/:id/:dest-name', array( 'controller' => 'destination', 'action' => 'get', 'id' => 'id', 'dest-name' => 'dest-name' )) ); just to make look cooler and on my navigation (which is loaded from xml i have) something like <nav> <home> <label>HOME</label> <controller>index</controller> <action>index</action> <route>default</route> </home> since i was getting url problem from where url was routed and please check phpinfo at http://websmartus.com/demo/globaltours/public_html/phpinfo.php

  Read the article

• Port(s) not forwarding?

  - by user11189

  I have cable internet service through Charter Communications and feed two desktop computers through a Linksys RP614v3 router. One system is my wife's running WinXP Home Edition and the other is mine, running Vista Home Premium (sp1). I have port forwarding configured in the Linksys so I can access the Vista system remotely using TightVNC. Initially, it worked great and I was able to remotely tend email and access local files while out of town for work. Lately, the cable internet service appears to flicker intermittently and upon return, my Mailwasher program loses ability to access the net and I've been unable to make the remote connection. When I reset the port forwarded for email in the router control panel, Mailwasher functionality returns but as I'm home when that happens, I have no easy way to check remote access until the next time I'm on the road or at work. I'm at my wit's end -- the TightVNC client accesses fine from my wife's system from behind the modem/router setup but I don't know how to maintain whatever gets reset when I fiddle with the control panel and the need to do so at all is new. I accessed it fine for a week off and on while out of town a month ago and now I can't leave home and access it from work an hour later.

  Read the article

• VMware Workstation Bridged Network Host UnReachable

  - by user2097818

  VMware Workstation 7 on Win7-64 (Home Premium). I have confirmed this on any guest running on this machine (from winxp to debian). I am using a bridged network connection for my guests (Automatic on VMnet0). All of the network configuration is done with DHCP (including on the host). Problem What I can not do: Ping my host machine from inside any VM. (either shows me "Destination Host Unreachable" or will just timeout) What I CAN do right after power up, with no problems at all. I can connect to the internet from inside the VM I can ping my router from inside the VM I can ping other machines on my network from inside the VM Other machines can ping the VM Other machines can ping the host My host machine can ping the VM (this one is important. read further) Details So I have my router assigned as 192.168.2.1/255.255.255.0, and the router provides the DHCP service (and it seems to be doing so successfully). There are no IP conflicts on the network that I am aware of. All Gateways and Subnet masks are appropriate and matching. My entire workshop is on one single subnet, with one single DHCP server and gateway. There is one method in which I can ping successfully, but it requires an active connection initiated from the host (I start pinging from host to VM). During the period of the active connection, I can successfully ping from VM to host, using explicit IP address. As soon as the host connection is closed, the VM ping starts hanging with the same old messages. My Thoughts This really feels like a firewall problem, but I have turned off all firewalls on host and VM, powered down the network, powered back up, and the problem still persists. And if it was firewall, why would only the IP address associated with bridged VM networks be blocked. I feel as though my host operating system (Win7) is somehow configured incorrectly, or, VMware Workstation is configured incorrectly from the host side. Although I have done my best to put everything in default, I feel like I am missing something silly.

  Read the article

• SBS 2008 - DNS Forwarders timing out.

  - by Moif Murphy

  Hello, We have an SBS 2008 server that keeps losing connection to the internet approx 2-3 times a day. It's a simple setup, BT Business Broadband ADSL to a Wireless Zyxel router to the server. Clients connect via WiFi from their laptops. Plugging ethernet in makes no difference, only a reboot of the router seems to bring everything back again. I'm looking at the forwarders on the DNS properties page and they're timing out when trying to resolve the IPs. Currently there are two IPs in there, 194.72.9.34 which has timed out and 194.72.9.38 which has finally resolved to ns8.bt.net We've been in there and replaced all media, installed a PCI NIC, have changed the router three times. There are no errors in the DNS event logs pertaining to what's going on. We've also been on to BT who are adamant that it's not their end. Could someone shed some light on what could be going on or where else to look in the configuration of the server? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Windows-7 Ultimate 64 bit wont connect to my wired/wireless networks.

  - by A302

  Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. Everything was working fine & then just stopped working. The nic card Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller is enabled but does not connect to my router (cables & router ports are good). Wireless Atheros AR5007EG is enabled but the connection is limited (encryption type / key have been verified). A laptop running XP can connect both wired / wireless. SSID is not being broadcast, connect to network if it is not broadcasting is checked. Have checked services.msc for Bonjour & did not see it listed. Network & sharing center does not list any active networks. Device manager lists both devices as functioning properly. Router configuration has not been changed. Virus scan has not found anything. I would like to fix this rather than using Acronis to do a system restore. Thanks in advance for any advice offered in solving this. 26 Jan, the nic card & wireless are working using PCLinux OS Live CD. It appears that the problem is Windows 7 related.

  Read the article

• Cant ping ip on LAN. Port forward works fine though.

  - by Anoop

  I have a Solaris 11 machine running inside the LAN. It is a default install. I can access the machine and ping it if I ssh into my router (if it matters, it is running dd-wrt). I cannot ping the Solaris machine using ip address from any other machine inside the LAN. But if I setup port forwarding everything works perfectly fine. I can also use the port forward from outside the LAN (from my office) - which is good and how I want it to be. I can SSH and ping and do pretty much everything else from outside as well as inside but only as long as I have the port forwarded from my router. Why would I not be able to ping or ssh or even access the Solaris 11 machine from within the LAN - I have checked and couldn't find any firewall running on the Solaris 11 box. I even tried disabling every known firewall on the router (dd-wrt, it had something like SPI firewall running). I even tried setting a static IP for my Solaris box but all in vain! Please help me understand how and why this happens!! Thanks.

  Read the article

• Servers - Buying New vs Buying Second-hand

  - by Django Reinhardt

  We're currently in the process of adding additional servers to our website. We have a pretty simple topology planned: A Firewall/Router Server infront of a Web Application Server and Database Server. Here's a simple (and technically incorrect) diagram that I used in a previous question to illustrate what I mean: We're now wondering about the specs of our two new machines (the Web App and Firewall servers) and whether we can get away with buying a couple of old servers. (Note: Both machines will be running Windows Server 2008 R2.) We're not too concerned about our Firewall/Router server as we're pretty sure it won't be taxed too heavily, but we are interested in our Web App server. I realise that answering this type of question is really difficult without a ton of specifics on users, bandwidth, concurrent sessions, etc, etc., so I just want to focus on the general wisdom on buying old versus new. I had originally specced a new Dell PowerEdge R300 (1U Rack) for our company. In short, because we're going to be caching as much data as possible, I focussed on Processor Speed and Memory: Quad-Core Intel Xeon X3323 2.5Ghz (2x3M Cache) 1333Mhz FSB 16GB DDR2 667Mhz But when I was looking for a cheap second-hand machine for our Firewall/Router, I came across several machines that made our engineer ask a very reasonable question: If we stuck a boat load of RAM in this thing, wouldn't it do for the Web App Server and save us a ton of money in the process? For example, what about a second-hand machine with the following specs: 2x Dual-Core AMD Opteron 2218 2.6Ghz (2MB Cache) 1000Mhz HT 16GB DDR2 667Mhz Would it really be comparable with the more expensive (new) server above? Our engineer postulated that the reason companies upgrade their servers to newer processors is often because they want to reduce their power costs, and that a 2.6Ghz processor was still a 2.6Ghz processor, no matter when it was made. Benchmarks on various sites don't really support this theory, but I was wondering what server admin thought. Thanks for any advice.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >