Search Results

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

Page 103/1039 | < Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >

• OpenVZ multiple networks on CTs

  - by user6733

  I have Hardware Node (HN) which has 2 physical interfaces (eth0, eth1). I'm playing with OpenVZ and want to let my containers (CTs) have access to both of those interfaces. I'm using basic configuration - venet. CTs are fine to access eth0 (public interface). But I can't get CTs to get access to eth1 (private network). I tried: # on HN vzctl set 101 --ipadd 192.168.1.101 --save vzctl enter 101 ping 192.168.1.2 # no response here ifconfig # on CT returns lo (127.0.0.1), venet0 (127.0.0.1), venet0:0 (95.168.xxx.xxx), venet0:1 (192.168.1.101) I believe that the main problem is that all packets flows through eth0 on HN (figured out using tcpdump). So the problem might be in routes on HN. Or is my logic here all wrong? I just need access to both interfaces (networks) on HN from CTs. Nothing complicated.

  Read the article

• Network topology for both direct and routed traffic between two nodes

  - by IndigoFire

  Despite it's small size, this is the most difficult network design problem I've faced. There are three nodes in this network: PC running Windows XP with an internal WiFi adapter.Base station with both WiFi and a Wireless Modem (WiModem)Mobile device with both WiFi and WiModem The modem is a low-bandwidth but high-reliability connection. We'd like to use WiFi for high-bandwidth stuff like file transfers when the mobile is nearby, and the modem for control information. Here's the tricky part: we'd like the wifi traffic to go directly from the mobile to the PC, as rebroadcasting packets on the same WiFi channel takes up double the bandwidth. We can do that with a manual configuration by giving the both the PC and the base station two IP addresses for their WiFi interfaces: one on a subnet shared with the mobile, and one on their own subnet. The routes on the PC are set up so that any traffic going to the mobile via WiModem goes through the secondary IP address so that return traffic from the mobile also goes through the WiModem. Here's what that looks like: PC WiFi 1: 192.168.2.10/24 WiFi 2: 192.168.3.10/24 Default route: 192.168.2.1 Base Station WiFi 1: 192.168.2.1/24 WiFi 2: 192.168.3.1/24 WiModem: 192.168.4.1/24 Mobile WiFi: 192.168.3.20/24 WiModem: 192.168.4.20/24 We'd like to move to having the base station automatically configure the mobile and PC, as the manual setup is problematic when you start having multiple mobiles and PCs. This means that the PC can only have 1 IP address and needs to be treated as being pretty simple. Is it possible to have a setup driven by DHCP on the base station that is efficient with bandwidth?

  Read the article

• OpenVPN access to a private network

  - by Gior312

  There are many similar topics about my issue, however I cannot figure out a solution for myself. There are three hosts. A without a routable address but with an Internet access. Server S with a routable Internet address and host B behind NAT in a private network. What I've managed to do is a OpenVPN connection between A and B via S. Everything works fine so far according to this manual VPN Setup What I want to do is to connect A to Bs private network 10.A.B.x I tried this manual but had no luck. So A has a vpn address 10.9.0.10, B's vpn address is 10.9.0.6 and B's private network is 10.20.20.0/24. When at the Server I try to make a route to Bs private network like this sudo route add 10.20.20.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.9.0.6 dev tun0 it says "route: netmask 000000ff doesn't make sense with host route" but I don't know how to tell Server to look for a private network in a different way. Do you know how can I make it right ?

  Read the article

• How to find the source of a cryptic event viewer log

  - by mlsteeves

  I'm looking at the eventviewer logs, and I see a bunch Error entries in the Application log. (Windows Server 2008 R1). There is an error written to the logs about every 4 seconds. I need to find out which application is causing these events, is there anyway to find this out? Here is what each look like: Error 12/2/2010 12:00:09 PM Application 0 None The details for each error: Log Name: Application Source: Application Date: 12/2/2010 12:00:09 PM Event ID: 0 Task Category: None Level: Error Keywords: Classic User: N/A Computer: computer.domain Description: The description for Event ID 0 from source Application cannot be found. Either the component that raises this event is not installed on your local computer or the installation is corrupted. You can install or repair the component on the local computer. If the event originated on another computer, the display information had to be saved with the event. The following information was included with the event: the message resource is present but the message is not found in the string/message table Event Xml: <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event"> <System> <Provider Name="Application" /> <EventID Qualifiers="0">0</EventID> <Level>2</Level> <Task>0</Task> <Keywords>0x80000000000000</Keywords> <TimeCreated SystemTime="2010-12-02T20:00:09.000Z" /> <EventRecordID>237167</EventRecordID> <Channel>Application</Channel> <Computer>computer.domain</Computer> <Security /> </System> <EventData> <Binary>534F434B...</Binary> </EventData> </Event>

  Read the article

• Share the same subnet between Internal network and VPN Clients

  - by Pascal

  I would like to set up a configuration where VPN clients connecting to my Forefront TMG can access all the resources of my Internal network without having the to use the option "Use default gateway on remote network" on the VPN's TCP/IP Ipv4 Advanced Settings. This is important to me, since they can use their own internet while accessing my network through VPN (the security implications of this are acceptable on my cenario) My Internal network runs on 10.50.75.x, and I set up Forefront TMG to relay the DHCP of my Internal network to the VPN clients, so they get IPs from the same range as the Internal network. This setup initially works, and the VPN clients use their own internet, and can access anything that is on the internal network. However, after a while, HTTP Proxy Traffic from the Internal network starts getting routed to the IP of the RRAS Dial In Interface, instead of the IP of the Internal's network gateway. When this happens, the HTTP Proxy starts getting denied for obvious reasons. My first question is: does this happen because Forefront TMG wasn't designed to handle a cenario that I described above, and it "loses itself"? My second question is: Is there any way to solve this problem, either through configuration or firewall policies? My third question is: If there's no way that it can work with the cenario above, is there another cenario that will solve my problem, and do what I'd like it to do properly? Below are my network routes: 1 => Local Host Access => Route => Local Host => All Networks 2 => VPN Clients to Internal Network => Route => VPN Clients => Internal 3 => Internet Access => NAT => Internal, Perimeter, VPN Clients => External 4 => Internal to Perimeter => Route => Internal, VPN Clients => Perimeter Tks!

  Read the article

• Linux as a router for public networks

  - by nixnotwin

  My ISP had given me a /30 network. Later, when I wanted more public ips, I requested for a /29 network. I was told to keep using my earlier /30 network on the interface which is facing ISP, and the newly given /29 network should be used on the other interface which connects to my NAT router and servers. This is what I got from the isp: WAN IP: 179.xxx.4.128/30 CUSTOMER IP : 179.xxx.4.130 ISP GATEWAY IP:179.xxx.4.129 SUBNET : 255.255.255.252 LAN IPS: 179.xxx.139.224/29 GATEWAY IP :179.xxx.139.225 SUBNET : 255.255.255.248 I have a Ubuntu pc which has two interfaces. So I am planning to do the following: eth0 will be given 179.xxx.4.130/30 gateway 179.xxx.4.129 eth1 will be given 179.xxx.139.225/29 And I will have the following in the /etc/sysctl.conf: net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 These will be iptables rules: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT My clients which have the ips 179.xxx.139.226/29 and 179.xxx.139.227/29 will be made to use 179.xxx.139.225/29 as gateway. Will this configuration work for me? Any comments? If it works, what iptables rules can I use to have a bit of security? P.S. Both networks are non-private and there is no NATing.

  Read the article

• Hopping a VPN Tunnel

  - by lellouch

  My central office and remote offices are connected to each other over site to site ipsec vpn. We use Fortigate firewalls and everything is working fine. On the other hand, only central office is also connected to another company's network over ipsec vpn as well. In this situation, everything is also fine and employees at the central office is able to reach the other company's resources without problem. Now i want the employees working on our remote office can reach the other company's network over central office without creating new vpn tunnels. http://imgur.com/ozrXfGv How can i do that? Thanks for your answers in advance.

  Read the article

• Python: how to calculate data received and send between two ipaddresses and ports [closed]

  - by ramdaz

  I guess it's socket programming. But I have never done socket programming expect for running the tutorial examples while learning Python. I need some more ideas to implement this. What I specifically need is to run a monitoring program of a server which will poll or listen to traffic being exchange from different IPs across different popular ports. For example, how do I get data received and sent through port 80 of 192.168.1.10 and 192.168.1.1 ( which is the gateway). I checked out a number of ready made tools like MRTG, Bwmon, Ntop etc but since we are looking at doing some specific pattern studies, we need to do data capturing within the program. Idea is to monitor some popular ports and do a study of network traffic across some periods and compare them with some other data. We would like to figure a way to do all this with Python....

  Read the article

• Prevent Linux from processing incoming ICMP Host unreachable packets

  - by bbc

  I have a test setup with one host on a network (10.1.0.0/16) talking via TCP to another one on another network (10.2.0.0/16) and a gateway in the middle. Sometimes, the TCP connection is lost and while scanning the trace (pcap), I looks like it's because of just one ICMP Host unreachable message sent by the gateway to 10.1.0.1 at some point. 10.1.0.1 then sends a TCP RST to 10.2.0.1. In my opinion, the gateway (pfSense) is broken or not configured correctly but anyway, for testing purposes, I'd like to block this kind of ICMP on the host (10.1.0.1) before it has an influence on my TCP connection (or does it? I'm not even sure). I've tried iptables: iptables -I INPUT -i eth0 -p icmp --icmp-type host-unreachable -j DROP but while it does a good job at preventing userpace applications like ping from receiving these ICMP messages, my TCP connection still comes to an end when the alleged "killer ICMP packet" is sent by the gateway. Am I right about how it is processed? If yes, then what can I do to achieve my goal?

  Read the article

• one of my web hostings is down - only for me - why ?

  - by Thomas Traub

  My first post here, I am reading / learning a lot, thanks ;). I've got a mysterious issue (for me) and would really appreciate to get it solved. I've rent a reseller package with bibihost.com and it's now the second time that all my domaines the hoster's site are unavailable from my connection (my Mac and my iPhone), (in browser, per FTP, ping, ab, and traceroute) This has never before happened to me with other web addresses. traceroute get's always stuck at a specific server 40g.vss-1-6k.routers.chtix.eu (91.121.131.29) The sites are all up for everyone else, I've checked with downforeveryoneorjustme.com, a homegrown script loaded to another server and montastic.com My question(s) : Why am I blocked ? Is there anything I can do about it ? If I cannot solve this issue I have to change the hoster, but I really would like to know what's going on. my domaines on this server : tienstiens.fr tomlegrand.com

  Read the article

• rsync --remove-source-files but only those that match a pattern

  - by Daniel

  Is this possible with rsync? Transfer everything from src:path/to/dir to dest:/path/to/other/dir and delete some of the source files in src:path/to/dir that match a pattern (or size limit) but keep all other files. I couldn't find a way to limit --remove-source-files with a regexp or size limit. Update1 (clarification): I'd like all files in src:path/to/dir to be copied to dest:/path/to/other/dir. Once this is done, I'd like to have some files (those that match a regexp or size limit) in src:path/to/dir deleted but don't want to have anything deleted in dest:/path/to/other/dir. Update2 (more clarification): Unfortunately, I can't simply rsync everything and then manually delete the files matching my regexp from src:. The files to be deleted are continuously created. So let's say there are N files of the type I'd like to delete after the transfer in src: when rsync starts. By the time rsync finishes there will be N+M such files there. If I now delete them manually, I'll lose the M files that were created while rsync was running. Hence I'd like to have a solution that guarantees that the only files deleted from src: are those known to be successfully copied over to dest:. I could fetch a file list from dest: after the rsync is complete, and compare that list of files with what I have in src:, and then do the removal manually. But I was wondering if rsync can do this by itself.

  Read the article

• Problem with connecting two different networks

  - by tanascius

  I have two networks: 192.168.13.0/24 (blue) and 192.168.15.0/24 (green). Computer A is connected to the 13-net, only. Computer B has two interfaces, one in each network. There is third computer that acts like a router and connects the 13-net to the 15-net (only in this direction). Now, I'd like to ping 192.168.15.100 from computer A to B. Unfortunately there is never a reply. But when I use a hub instead of a switch it works. In my opinion the ping packet travels through the switch to the router (which is the default route/gateway for A). The router sends the packet back to the switch to B. Probably B receives it on its 15-net interface but answers with it's 15th interface? Is this possible? The problem is, that B may have only a gateway 192.168.13.50 - but I am not really sure of it (B is a embedded system with limited configuration possibilities). Can anyone explain what happens here? Thank you!

  Read the article

• Packets marked INVALID in FORWARD rule

  - by Raphink

  I have a firewall that has 3 IP aliases on 1 physical interface. Packets get dropped between these 3 interfaces (either ICMP, HTTP, or anything else). We tracked it down to these packets being marked INVALID in the FORWARD rule and dropped due to the this rule: chain FORWARD { policy DROP; # connection tracking mod state state INVALID LOG log-prefix 'INVALID FORWARD DROP: '; mod state state INVALID DROP; mod state state (ESTABLISHED RELATED) ACCEPT; } (That is, we see the INVALID FORWARD DROP logs in dmesg) What could be causing this?

  Read the article

• How to open a server port outside of an OpenVPN tunnel with a pf firewall on OSX (BSD)

  - by Timbo

  I have a Mac mini that I use as a media server running XBMC and serves media from my NAS to my stereo and TV (which has been color calibrated with a Spyder3Express, happy). The Mac runs OSX 10.8.2 and the internet connection is tunneled for general privacy over OpenVPN through Tunnelblick. I believe my anonymous VPN provider pushes "redirect_gateway" to OpenVPN/Tunnelblick because when on it effectively tunnels all non-LAN traffic in- and outbound. As an unwanted side effect that also opens the boxes server ports unprotected to the outside world and bypasses my firewall-router (Netgear SRX5308). I have run nmap from outside the LAN on the VPN IP and the server ports on the mini are clearly visible and connectable. The mini has the following ports open: ssh/22, ARD/5900 and 8080+9090 for the XBMC iOS client Constellation. I also have Synology NAS which apart from LAN file serving over AFP and WebDAV only serves up an OpenVPN/1194 and a PPTP/1732 server. When outside of the LAN I connect to this from my laptop over OpenVPN and over PPTP from my iPhone. I only want to connect through AFP/548 from the mini to the NAS. The border firewall (SRX5308) just works excellently, stable and with a very high throughput when streaming from various VOD services. My connection is a 100/10 with a close to theoretical max throughput. The ruleset is as follows Inbound: PPTP/1723 Allow always to 10.0.0.40 (NAS/VPN server) from a restricted IP range >corresponding to possible cell provider range OpenVPN/1194 Allow always to 10.0.0.40 (NAS/VPN server) from any Outbound: Default outbound policy: Allow Always OpenVPN/1194 TCP Allow always from 10.0.0.40 (NAS) to a.b.8.1-a.b.8.254 (VPN provider) OpenVPN/1194 UDP Allow always to 10.0.0.40 (NAS) to a.b.8.1-a.b.8.254 (VPN provider) Block always from NAS to any On the Mini I have disabled the OSX Application Level Firewall because it throws popups which don't remember my choices from one time to another and that's annoying on a media server. Instead I run Little Snitch which controls outgoing connections nicely on an application level. I have configured the excellent OSX builtin firewall pf (from BSD) as follows pf.conf (Apple App firewall tie-ins removed) (# replaced with % to avoid formatting errors) ### macro name for external interface. eth_if = "en0" vpn_if = "tap0" ### wifi_if = "en1" ### %usb_if = "en3" ext_if = $eth_if LAN="{10.0.0.0/24}" ### General housekeeping rules ### ### Drop all blocked packets silently set block-policy drop ### all incoming traffic on external interface is normalized and fragmented ### packets are reassembled. scrub in on $ext_if all fragment reassemble scrub in on $vpn_if all fragment reassemble scrub out all ### exercise antispoofing on the external interface, but add the local ### loopback interface as an exception, to prevent services utilizing the ### local loop from being blocked accidentally. ### set skip on lo0 antispoof for $ext_if inet antispoof for $vpn_if inet ### spoofing protection for all interfaces block in quick from urpf-failed ############################# block all ### Access to the mini server over ssh/22 and remote desktop/5900 from LAN/en0 only pass in on $eth_if proto tcp from $LAN to any port {22, 5900, 8080, 9090} ### Allow all udp and icmp also, necessary for Constellation. Could be tightened. pass on $eth_if proto {udp, icmp} from $LAN to any ### Allow AFP to 10.0.0.40 (NAS) pass out on $eth_if proto tcp from any to 10.0.0.40 port 548 ### Allow OpenVPN tunnel setup over unprotected link (en0) only to VPN provider IPs ### and port ranges pass on $eth_if proto tcp from any to a.b.8.0/24 port 1194:1201 ### OpenVPN Tunnel rules. All traffic allowed out, only in to ports 4100-4110 ### Outgoing pings ok pass in on $vpn_if proto {tcp, udp} from any to any port 4100:4110 pass out on $vpn_if proto {tcp, udp, icmp} from any to any So what are my goals and what does the above setup achieve? (until you tell me otherwise :) 1) Full LAN access to the above ports on the mini/media server (including through my own VPN server) 2) All internet traffic from the mini/media server is anonymized and tunneled over VPN 3) If OpenVPN/Tunnelblick on the mini drops the connection, nothing is leaked both because of pf and the router outgoing ruleset. It can't even do a DNS lookup through the router. So what do I have to hide with all this? Nothing much really, I just got carried away trying to stop port scans through the VPN tunnel :) In any case this setup works perfectly and it is very stable. The Problem at last! I want to run a minecraft server and I installed that on a separate user account on the mini server (user=mc) to keep things partitioned. I don't want this server accessible through the anonymized VPN tunnel because there are lots more port scans and hacking attempts through that than over my regular IP and I don't trust java in general. So I added the following pf rule on the mini: ### Allow Minecraft public through user mc pass in on $eth_if proto {tcp,udp} from any to any port 24983 user mc pass out on $eth_if proto {tcp, udp} from any to any user mc And these additions on the border firewall: Inbound: Allow always TCP/UDP from any to 10.0.0.40 (NAS) Outbound: Allow always TCP port 80 from 10.0.0.40 to any (needed for online account checkups) This works fine but only when the OpenVPN/Tunnelblick tunnel is down. When up no connection is possbile to the minecraft server from outside of LAN. inside LAN is always OK. Everything else functions as intended. I believe the redirect_gateway push is close to the root of the problem, but I want to keep that specific VPN provider because of the fantastic throughput, price and service. The Solution? How can I open up the minecraft server port outside of the tunnel so it's only available over en0 not the VPN tunnel? Should I a static route? But I don't know which IPs will be connecting...stumbles How secure would to estimate this setup to be and do you have other improvements to share? I've searched extensively in the last few days to no avail...If you've read this far I bet you know the answer :)

  Read the article

• Ping reply not getting to LAN machines but getting in Linux router Gateway

  - by Kevin Parker

  I have configured Ubuntu 12.04 as Gateway machine.its having two interfaces eth0 with ip 192.168.122.39(Static) and eth1 connected to modem with ip address 192.168.2.3(through DHCP). ip-forwarding is enabled in router box. Client machine is configured as: ip address 192.168.122.5 and gateway 192.168.122.39 Client machines can ping router box(192.168.122.39).but when pinged 8.8.8.8 reply is not reaching Client machines but in the tcpdump output on gateway i can see echo request for 8.8.8.8 but never echo reply.Is this because of 122.5 not forwarding request to 2.0 network.Can u please help me in fixing this.

  Read the article

• Are neighbors formed in EIGRP and OSPF always directly connectly?

  - by xczzhh

  I always thought that neighbors formed in EIGRP were not necessarily directly connected because the only requirement for two routers to be neighbors is that they share the same Autonomous System and K-values, but it seems that I was wrong. I have looked up several books, they do not seem to give a clear answer. And I am even more confused with OSPF... Please, give me some light here. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Linux router with diffent gateways for incomming and outgoing connections

  - by nkout

  I have the following topology: LAN Users:192.168.1.2 - 254 (192.168.1.0/24) gateway1: 192.168.2.2/24 used for all outgoing connections of LAN users (default gateway) gateway2: 192.168.3.2/24 used for incoming services (destination NAT, ports 80,443 are forwarded to 192.168.2.1) linux router-server R eth0 192.168.1.1/24: LAN eth1 192.168.2.1/24: WWAN1 eth2 192.168.3.1/24: WWAN2 I want to: route all outgoing traffic coming from LAN and R via 192.168.2.2 route the responses to incoming connections via 192.168.3.2 My config: ifconfig eth0 up 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig eth1 up 192.168.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig eth2 up 192.168.3.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward route add default gw 192.168.2.2 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d !192.168.0.0/16 -j MASQUERADE I want to add iptables rule to mark incoming traffic from WWAN2 and send back the responses to WWAN2, while keeping default gateway on WWAN1

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04 as router with 2 nic

  - by Blue Gene

  I have been trying this setup for weeks and still can not make this to work... ubuntu 12.04 64 bit with 2 nic nic1: eth0:192.168.2.33 -static ip with internet access (connected to modem) nic2: eth1:192.168.1.2 -static ip connected to LAN. enabled ip_forward on ubuntu box net_ip_forward = 1 on the LAN with ip address 192.168.1.5 specified gateway as 192.168.1.2 and able to ping gateway.But can not ping public address.What am i missing? on router box: route -n Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 tried ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.1.2 dev eth0 route -n on LAN 192.168.1.5 Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.2 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.2.0 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 iptables default policy is to accept all. tracepath 8.8.8.8 from LAN 1: 192.168.1.5 0.060ms pmtu 1500 1: 192.168.1.2 3.367ms 1: 192.168.1.2 3.764ms 2: no reply Is there a way to make this work,other than NAT ing.

  Read the article

• ip route add HOMEIP via SERVERIP disconnects me from ssh

  - by Arya

  I want to use a vpn connection on my Debian server but I get disconnected from ssh if I connect to the vpn. I thought by using the "ip route add" I can prevent getting disconnected from my server and it will continue to use the main connection for communication between my computer and the server, and the vpn for communication with other ips. This is the command I use ip route add PUBLICHOMEIP via PUBLICSERVERIP But I get disconnected after the "ip route add" command too. Am I making a mistake anywhere?

  Read the article

• How to route traffic from one subnet through a specific SOCKS proxy in other subnet?

  - by Yegor Razumovsky

  Here is my network map: Internet | | Router (192.168.1.1) | | (192.168.1.100) (wireless) MacBook ( mac os x / windows 7 / ubuntu. It doesn't matter ) (192.168.2.1) (wired) | | TargetComputer (192.168.2.2) I want to route all traffic from TargetComputer 192.168.2.2 through socks proxy running on my macbook. On target computer i can only change IP settings ( ip address, subnetmask, gateway, dns ).

  Read the article

• Can't connect to server from certain machines

  - by Joel Coel

  On a small college campus we have a VLAN setup for the computer labs. These machines get assigned IP addresses in the 192.168.7.xxx range. In the server room, all of the server are on the default VLAN and assigned an IP address in the 10.1.1.xxx range. For the most part this works, but the lab machines are unable to connect to one of the servers. They can't even ping it. They can talk to other servers on the same switch as this server just fine. At first I thought it might be a vlan issue, but I changed the server port vlan to match other known-working ports with no effect. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Redirecting and Remapping with mod_rewrite

  - by Droid646197

  First of all, am new to doing back-end server admin.. I have a main website being served on at certain IP. I have a blog address that lives on another IP, which was used on wordpress.com. When a user typed in blog.domain.com it would resolve to the Wordpress.com site. Since coming on board (two months) they wanted me to bring the blog in house. So, I set up a wordpress install at domain.com/blog. I would like blog.domain.com (different ip) to resolve to domain.com/blog but still using blog.domain.com is this possible with Apache and mod_rewrite?

  Read the article

• Multiple network cards, controlling where my traffic goes

  - by thefinn93

  This is an Ubuntu 12.04 server install. I have multiple network cards, eth0 and eth1 lets call them. eth0 is connected to the internet, and all of my traffic goes through it, until eth1 gets plugged in. Then the machine tries to send everything through eth1, which for various and sundry reasons does not go out to the Interent. The only traffic it doesn't send through eth1 is traffic on eth0's subnet. It also will not accept inbound connections on eth0 from outside of eth0's subnet. I'd like all outbound traffic to go out eth0, but I'd like incoming connections from to either card from any subnet to work.

  Read the article

• OpenBSD: Gateway outside subnet (works in Linux)

  - by kshade

  We need to set up an OpenBSD host to use a default gateway that's outside of it's subnet. This is all I need to do on Linux (not the actual IPs) to achieve it: ifconfig eth0 33.33.33.33/31 up route add 33.33.33.254 dev eth0 route add default gw 33.33.33.254 The problem is that we don't know the proper equivalent of the middle command in OpenBSD. The man page says: If the destination is directly reachable via an interface requiring no intermediary system to act as a gateway, the -iface modifier should be specified; Sadly we can't seem to figure out how to make it work with that. This is a virtual host on an OVH server, they have documentation for many other operating systems showing how to do it here: http://help.ovh.co.uk/BridgeClient

  Read the article

• How to setup an Openvpn server with two gateways to internet

  - by fourat

  I have an openvpn server behind two wan interfaces: eth1 and eth2 where eth1 is the default gw and eth2 is where openvpn binds to. The problems my ovpn server is replying back to ovpn client via the default gw (through eth1) and the tcp negociation is lost before establishing any tunnel. Here's what's happening: wan client -----> eth2 ----> openvpn -----> eth1 ----> lost and not delivered back to client Is there a way to tell ovpn to stick on eth2 and consider it for all traffic ?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >