Search Results

Search found 3061 results on 123 pages for 'interfaces'.

Page 11/123 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • Is there any way to force my Linux box to always boot up with a self-assigned IP address?

    - by Jeremy Friesner
    This is perhaps an unusual request: I'm trying to get a Debian Linux box to always give itself a self-assigned IP address (i.e. 169.254.x.y) on boot. In particular, I want it to do that even when there is a DHCP server present on the LAN. That is, it should not request an IP address from the DHCP server. From what I can see in the "man interfaces" text, there is an option for "manual", and an option for "dhcp". Manual assignment won't do, since I need multiple boxes to work on the same LAN without requiring any manual configuration... and "dhcp" does what I want, but only if there is no DHCP server on the LAN. (A requirement is that the functionality of these boxes should not be affected by the presence or absence of a DHCP server). Is there a trick that I can use to get this behavior? EDIT: By "no manual configuration", I mean that I should be able to take this box (headless) to any LAN anywhere, plug in the Ethernet cable, and have it do its thing. I shouldn't have to ssh to the box and edit files to get it working each time it is moved to a different LAN.

    Read the article

  • How to prevent response to who-has requests on virtual eth interface?

    - by user42881
    Hi, we use small embedded X86 linux servers equipped with a single physical ethernet port as a gateway for an IP video surveillance application. Each downstream IP cam is mapped to a separate virtual IP address like this: real eth0 IP address= 192.168.1.1, camera 1 (eth0:1) =192.168.1.61, camera 2 (eth0:2) =192.168.1.62, etc. etc. all on the same eth0 physical port. This approach works well, except that a specific third-party windows video recording application running on a separate PC on the same LAN, automatically pings the virtual IPs looking for unique who-has responses on system startup and, when it gets back the same eth0 MAC address for each virtual interface, freaks out and won't allow us to subsequently manually enter those addresses. The windows app doesn't mind, tho, if it receives no answer to the who-has ping. My question - how can we either (a) shut off the who-has responses just for the virtual eth0:x interfaces while keeping them for the primary physical eth0 port, or, in the alternative, spoof a valid but different MAC address for each virtual interface? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Testing for interface implementation in WCF/SOA

    - by rabidpebble
    I have a reporting service that implements a number of reports. Each report requires certain parameters. Groups of logically related parameters are placed in an interface, which the report then implements: [ServiceContract] [ServiceKnownType(typeof(ExampleReport))] public interface IService1 { [OperationContract] void Process(IReport report); } public interface IReport { string PrintedBy { get; set; } } public interface IApplicableDateRangeParameter { DateTime StartDate { get; set; } DateTime EndDate { get; set; } } [DataContract] public abstract class Report : IReport { [DataMember] public string PrintedBy { get; set; } } [DataContract] public class ExampleReport : Report, IApplicableDateRangeParameter { [DataMember] public DateTime StartDate { get; set; } [DataMember] public DateTime EndDate { get; set; } } The problem is that the WCF DataContractSerializer does not expose these interfaces in my client library, thus I can't write the generic report generating front-end that I plan to. Can WCF expose these interfaces, or is this a limitation of the serializer? If the latter case, then what is the canonical approach to this OO pattern? I've looked into NetDataContractSerializer but it doesn't seem to be an officially supported implementation (which means it's not an option in my project). Currently I've resigned myself to including the interfaces in a library that is common between the service and the client application, but this seems like an unnecessary extra dependency to me. Surely there is a more straightforward way to do this? I was under the impression that WCF was supposed to replace .NET remoting; checking if an object implements an interface seems to be one of the most basic features required of a remoting interface?

    Read the article

  • Templates, interfaces (multiple inheritance) and static functions (named constructors)

    - by fledgling Cxx user
    Setup I have a graph library where I am trying to decompose things as much as possible, and the cleanest way to describe it that I found is the following: there is a vanilla type node implementing only a list of edges: class node { public: int* edges; int edge_count; }; Then, I would like to be able to add interfaces to this whole mix, like so: template <class T> class node_weight { public: T weight; }; template <class T> class node_position { public: T x; T y; }; and so on. Then, the actual graph class comes in, which is templated on the actual type of node: template <class node_T> class graph { protected: node_T* nodes; public: static graph cartesian(int n, int m) { graph r; r.nodes = new node_T[n * m]; return r; } }; The twist is that it has named constructors which construct some special graphs, like a Cartesian lattice. In this case, I would like to be able to add some extra information into the graph, depending on what interfaces are implemented by node_T. What would be the best way to accomplish this? Possible solution I thought of the following humble solution, through dynamic_cast<>: template <class node_T, class weight_T, class position_T> class graph { protected: node_T* nodes; public: static graph cartesian(int n, int m) { graph r; r.nodes = new node_T[n * m]; if (dynamic_cast<node_weight<weight_T>>(r.nodes[0]) != nullptr) { // do stuff knowing you can add weights } if (dynamic_cast<node_position<positionT>>(r.nodes[0]) != nullptr) { // do stuff knowing you can set position } return r; } }; which would operate on node_T being the following: template <class weight_T, class position_T> class node_weight_position : public node, public node_weight<weight_T>, public node_position<position_T> { // ... }; Questions Is this -- philosophically -- the right way to go? I know people don't look nicely at multiple inheritance, though with "interfaces" like these it should all be fine. There are unfortunately problems with this. From what I know at least, dynamic_cast<> involves quite a bit of run-time overhead. Hence, I run into a problem with what I had solved earlier: writing graph algorithms that require weights independently of whether the actual node_T class has weights or not. The solution with this 'interface' approach would be to write a function: template <class node_T, class weight_T> inline weight_T get_weight(node_T const & n) { if (dynamic_cast<node_weight<weight_T>>(n) != nullptr) { return dynamic_cast<node_weight<weight_T>>(n).weight; } return T(1); } but the issue with it is that it works using run-time information (dynamic_cast), yet in principle I would like to decide it at compile-time and thus make the code more efficient. If there is a different solution that would solve both problems, especially a cleaner and better one than what I have, I would love to hear about it!

    Read the article

  • svcutil, WSDL, and the generated interfaces not being sufficient for implementation

    - by chtmd
    I have a WSDL file defining a service that I have to implement in WCF. I had read that I could generate the proxy using svcutil from the WSDL file, and that I could then use the generated interfaces to implement the service. Unfortunately, I can't quite seem to find a way to have the interfaces contain the correct attributes to expose the contracts. All operations have the "OperationContractAttribute" attribute, but it appears as though for the service to be exposed, I require the "OperationContract" for each one. Same thing with "ServiceContractAttribute" and "ServiceContract", and I imagine DataContract, but I haven't gotten that far. I could manually make these changes, but I would much prefer a technique where the existing code could be easily used, or better code could be generated for my uses. Is there some way that this can be done? Thanks. EDIT: Command used: svcutil ObjectManagerService.wsdl /n:*,Sample /o:ObjectManagerServiceProxy.cs /nologo Code sample: public interface ObjectManagerSyncPortType { // CODEGEN: Generating message contract since the operation createObject is neither RPC nor document wrapped. [System.ServiceModel.OperationContractAttribute(Action="http://www.sample.com/createObject", ReplyAction="*")] [System.ServiceModel.XmlSerializerFormatAttribute()] Sample.createObjectResponse1 createObject(Sample.createObjectRequest1 request); As best as I can tell/see the WSDL file is entirely self-contained and requires no additional XSD files.

    Read the article

  • Register and Resolve Generic Interfaces Unity

    - by user1643791
    I am trying to register some generic interfaces and resolve them . I have the registering function private static void RegisterFolderAssemblies(Type t,string folder) { var scanner = new FolderGenericInterfaceScanner(); var scanned = scanner.Scan(t,folder); // gets the implementations from a specific folder scanned.ForEach(concrete => { if (concrete.BaseType != null || concrete.IsGenericType) { myContainer.RegisterType(t, Type.GetType(concrete.AssemblyQualifiedName), concrete.AssemblyQualifiedName); } }); } which is called by the bootstrapper with RegisterFolderAssemblies(typeof(IConfigurationVerification<>),Environment.CurrentDirectory); The registration seem to go through ok but when I try to Resolve them with Type generic = typeof(IConfigurationVerification<>); Type specific = generic.MakeGenericType(input.Arguments[0].GetType()); var verifications = BootStrap.ResolveAll(specific); The input.Arguments[0] is an object of the type the generic is implemented in I also tried using typeof(IConfigurationVerification<) instead and get the same error . When ResolveAll is public static List<object> ResolveAll(Type t) { return myContainer.ResolveAll(t).ToList(); } I get a ResolutionFailedException with them message "The current type, Infrastructure.Interfaces.IConfigurationVerification`1[Infrastructure.Configuration.IMLogPlayerConfiguration+LoadDefinitions], is an interface and cannot be constructed. Are you missing a type mapping?" Any help will be great. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • protecting COM interfaces from exceptions

    - by rmeador
    I have several dozen objects exposed through COM interfaces, each of which with many methods, totaling a few hundred methods. These interfaces expose business objects from my app to a scripting engine. I have been given the task of protecting every single one of these methods from exceptions being thrown (to catch them and return an error using COM's Error() function, which incidentally I can find no documentation on because it's impossible to google). To my understanding, this requires that I add a try/catch around the guts of each one of these methods. The catch blocks are going to be similar or identical for each and every one of these hundreds of methods, which strongly smells of a problem (massively violates the DRY principle), but I can't think of any way to avoid changing every method. As far as I can tell, these methods are invoked directly by COM, with no intervening code that I can hook into to catch the exceptions. My current best idea is to make a macro for the catch block, but that has it's own sort of code-smell. Can anyone come up with a better approach? BTW, my app's exceptions do not derive from std::exception, so if there is some way of COM automatically handling standard exceptions, it won't help. And I sadly cannot change the existing exceptions to derive from std::exception.

    Read the article

  • C# POCO T4 template, generate interfaces?

    - by Jonna
    Does anyone know of any tweaked version of POCO T4 template that generates interfaces along with classes? i.e. if I have Movie and Actor entities in .edmx file, I need to get the following classes and interfaces. interface IMovie { string MovieName { get; set; } ICollection<IActor> Actors { get; set; } //instead of ICollection<Actor> } class Movie : IMovie { string MovieName { get; set; } ICollection<IActor> Actors { get; set; } //instead of ICollection<Actor> } interface IActor { string ActorName { get; set; } } class Actor { string ActorName { get; set; } } Also, just in case I write my own entities, does POCO proxies(I need them for lazy loading) work with the interface declarations as shown above?

    Read the article

  • Defining implicit and explicit casts for C# interfaces

    - by ehdv
    Is there a way to write interface-based code (i.e. using interfaces rather than classes as the types accepted and passed around) in C# without giving up the use of things like implicit casts? Here's some sample code - there's been a lot removed, but these are the relevant portions. public class Game { public class VariantInfo { public string Language { get; set; } public string Variant { get; set; } } } And in ScrDictionary.cs, we have... public class ScrDictionary: IScrDictionary { public string Language { get; set; } public string Variant { get; set; } public static implicit operator Game.VariantInfo(ScrDictionary s) { return new Game.VariantInfo{Language=sd.Language, Variant=sd.Variant}; } } And the interface... public interface IScrDictionary { string Language { get; set; } string Variant { get; set; } } I want to be able to use IScrDictionary instead of ScrDictionary, but still be able to implicitly convert a ScrDictionary to a Game.VariantInfo. Also, while there may be an easy way to make this work by giving IScrDictionary a property of type Game.VariantInfo my question is more generally: Is there a way to define casts or operator overloading on interfaces? (If not, what is the proper C# way to maintain this functionality without giving up interface-oriented design?)

    Read the article

  • Sonicwall routing between multiple subnets on multiple interfaces

    - by Rain
    As shown by the network diagram below, I have two completely separate networks. One is being managed by a Sonicwall NSA 220, the other by some other router (the brand is not important). My goal is to allow devices within the 192.168.2.0/24 network to access devices in the 192.168.3.0/24 network. Allowing the reverse (192.168.3.0/24 - 192.168.2.0/24) is not required. So far, I have done the following: I connected the X3 Interface on the Sonicwall to the 192.168.3.0/24 network switch (shown as the dashed red line in the diagram). Next, I gave it a static ip address of 192.168.3.254 and set the Zone to LAN (the same Zone for the X0 interface). Judging by various articles and KBs I've read, this is all that should be necessary, although it does not work. I can ping 192.168.3.254 from any device in the 192.168.2.0/24 network although I cannot ping/connect to any device within the 192.168.3.0/24 network. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Network Diagram: (I asked a similar, yet more complicated, question earlier; although, I realized that I cannot solve that without first solving this (which may actually solve my original question))

    Read the article

  • configuring two network interfaces in ubuntu 10.04.1

    - by Bill Smith
    I have got two NICs configured on a VM - each is tied to a specific network, one is a DMZ, the other is an internal network. I want MySQL to listen on the internal network only and Apache on the DMZ listening for HTTP and HTTPS. But as soon as I add the second interface I run into trouble. I can hit HTTP on either interface, but can not hit 3306 on the internal network for MySQL. Here's the config... could someone sanity check this please? auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 10.153.24.230 netmask 255.255.255.240 network 10.153.24.224 broadcast 10.153.24.239 dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 10.153.24.195 netmask 255.255.255.224 gateway 10.153.24.193 broadcast 10.153.23.223

    Read the article

  • please demystify the 10Gb ethernet interfaces, cables

    - by maruti
    this really is a Dell question but tempted to ask the experts @ serverfault. choosen a Dell powerconnect 8024 10GbE switch. per the spec sheet this has 10GbaseT ports. "24x 10GBASE-T (10Gb/1Gb/100Mb) with 4x Combo Ports of SFP+ (10Gb/1Gb) or 10GBASE-T" the HBA on my storage server has 10G CX4 copper ports Dell does not sell any cables and this adds to my confusion. from the picture Dell 8024 seems to have RJ-45 type ports on the front panel? my question: is it a RJ-45 + CX4 cable or CX4 + CX4 cable?

    Read the article

  • Debian - starting UFW (Uncomplicated Firewall) before network interfaces are operational

    - by Tomasz Zielinski
    I want to install UFW on Debian Lenny. Everything looks straightforward except that I don't know where to plug UFW startup script so that it configures iptables before hax0rs can break in. I've reviewed runlevel directories and in /etc/rc0.d, /etc/rc6.d and /etc/rcS.d there are items like these: S35networking -> ../init.d/networking S36ifupdown -> ../init.d/ifupdown Runlevel 0 and 6 are for shutdown and reboot so I guess nothing should be changed there, but runlevel S advertises itself (in README) like something for me: The scripts in this directory whose names begin with an 'S' are executed once when booting the system, even when booting directly into single user mode. The following sequence points are defined at this time: * After the S40 scripts have executed, all local file systems are mounted and networking is available. All device drivers have been initialized. (What bothers me is that both rc0/6.d and rcS.d point to the same networking and ifupdown scripts, but after looking at sources I believe those scripts are smart enough to figure out where to start and where to stop networking.) Now, I think that I should plug my /lib/ufw/ufw-init into /etc/rcS.d, with priority higher that the one of ifupdown and networking, i.e. <= 38 for my /etc/rcS.d. Am I right in this "analysis" ?

    Read the article

  • SMTP for multiple domains on virtual interfaces

    - by Pawel Goscicki
    The setup is like this (Ubuntu 9.10): eth0: 1.1.1.1 name.isp.com eth0:0 2.2.2.2 example2.com eth0:1 3.3.3.3 example3.com example2.com and example3.com are web apps which need to send emails to their users. 2.2.2.2 points to example2.com and vice-versa (A/PTR). MX - Google. Google handles all incoming mail. 3.3.3.3 points to example3.com and vice-versa (A/PTR). MX - Google. Google handles all incoming mail. Requirements: Local delivery must be disabled (must deliver to MX specified server), so that the following works (note that there is no local user bob on the machine, but there is an existing bob email user): echo "Test" | mail -s "Test 6" [email protected] I need to be able to specify from which IP/domain name the email is delivered when sending an email. I fought with sendmail. With not much luck. Here's some debug info: sendmail -d0.12 -bt < /dev/null Canonical name: name.isp.com UUCP nodename: host a.k.a.: example2.com a.k.a.: example3.com ... Sendmail always uses canonical name (taken from eth0). I've found no way for it to select one of the UUCP codenames. It uses it for sending email: echo -e "To: [email protected]\nSubject: Test\nTest\n" | sendmail -bm -t -v [email protected]... Connecting to [127.0.0.1] via relay... 220 name.isp.com ESMTP Sendmail 8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9ubuntu1; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:33:55 +0200; (No UCE/UBE) logging access from: localhost(OK)-localhost [127.0.0.1] >>> EHLO name.isp.com I'm ok with other SMTP solutions. I've looked briefly at nbsmtp, msmtp and nullmailer but I'm not sure thay can deal with disabling local delivery and selecting different domains when sending emails. I also know about spoofing sender field by using mail -a "From: <[email protected]>" but it seems to be a half-solution (mails are still sent from isp.com domain instead of proper example2.com, so PTR records are unused and there's more risk of being flagged as spam/spammer).

    Read the article

  • Internal+external interfaces with multiple default gateways on win2003

    - by fileitup
    Im trying to set up several web servers for a load balanced cluster and need to have each server connected to the internal network (for load balancing) as well as to an external network (internet - for administration). I have two NICs but since I cant set two default gateways I have the external gateway as default and the internal as a route rule. This setup only works half way - the internal network is fine but I cant log in from outside or see the web from the box. If I switch the gateways remote login/web will work, but the internal wont. Im sure someone encountered this before but wasnt able to find anything online. Any help will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Multiple interfaces to one IP address?

    - by Delan Azabani
    At present, I have: a Netgear router with DHCP off at 192.168.0.1 my computer eth0 at 192.168.0.2 wlan0 at 192.168.0.2 The wlan0 interface always connects to the router, while the eth0 interface connects to other computers with crossover and acts as a dnsmasq DHCP server for network boot and installation. If I use the Gnome NetworkManager to enable both connections, that is, with wlan0 connected to the router/internet and eth0 to another computer, both as 192.168.0.2, I cannot access the internet while eth0 is connected. Why is this? How can I configure my computer to follow wlan0 for Internet usage, but use eth0 for itself (the latter is working but blocking wlan0).

    Read the article

  • NAT rules betweek 2 network interfaces (with iptables)

    - by Simone Falcini
    this is the current network that I have: UBUNTU: eth0: ip: 212.83.10.10 bcast: 212.83.10.10 netmask 255.255.255.255 gateway 62.x.x.x eth1: ip: 192.168.1.1 bcast: 192.168.1.255 netmask: 255.255.255.0 gateway ? CENTOS: eth0: ip: 192.168.1.2 bcast: 192.168.1.255 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.1 I basically want this: Make specific NAT rules from the internet to specific internal servers depending on the port: Connections incoming to port 80 must be redirected to 192.168.1.2:80 Connections incoming to port 3306 must be redirected to 192.168.1.3:3306 and so on... I also need one NAT rule to allow the servers in the subnet 192.168.1.x to browse the internet. I need to route the requests on eth0 to eth1 to be able to exit to internet. Can I do this on the UBUNTU machine with iptables? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Switch flooding when bonding interfaces in Linux

    - by John Philips
    +--------+ | Host A | +----+---+ | eth0 (AA:AA:AA:AA:AA:AA) | | +----+-----+ | Switch 1 | (layer2/3) +----+-----+ | +----+-----+ | Switch 2 | +----+-----+ | +----------+----------+ +-------------------------+ Switch 3 +-------------------------+ | +----+-----------+----+ | | | | | | | | | | eth0 (B0:B0:B0:B0:B0:B0) | | eth4 (B4:B4:B4:B4:B4:B4) | | +----+-----------+----+ | | | Host B | | | +----+-----------+----+ | | eth1 (B1:B1:B1:B1:B1:B1) | | eth5 (B5:B5:B5:B5:B5:B5) | | | | | | | | | +------------------------------+ +------------------------------+ Topology overview Host A has a single NIC. Host B has four NICs which are bonded using the balance-alb mode. Both hosts run RHEL 6.0, and both are on the same IPv4 subnet. Traffic analysis Host A is sending data to Host B using some SQL database application. Traffic from Host A to Host B: The source int/MAC is eth0/AA:AA:AA:AA:AA:AA, the destination int/MAC is eth5/B5:B5:B5:B5:B5:B5. Traffic from Host B to Host A: The source int/MAC is eth0/B0:B0:B0:B0:B0:B0, the destination int/MAC is eth0/AA:AA:AA:AA:AA:AA. Once the TCP connection has been established, Host B sends no further frames out eth5. The MAC address of eth5 expires from the bridge tables of both Switch 1 & Switch 2. Switch 1 continues to receive frames from Host A which are destined for B5:B5:B5:B5:B5:B5. Because Switch 1 and Switch 2 no longer have bridge table entries for B5:B5:B5:B5:B5:B5, they flood the frames out all ports on the same VLAN (except for the one it came in on, of course). Reproduce If you ping Host B from a workstation which is connected to either Switch 1 or 2, B5:B5:B5:B5:B5:B5 re-enters the bridge tables and the flooding stops. After five minutes (the default bridge table timeout), flooding resumes. Question It is clear that on Host B, frames arrive on eth5 and exit out eth0. This seems ok as that's what the Linux bonding algorithm is designed to do - balance incoming and outgoing traffic. But since the switch stops receiving frames with the source MAC of eth5, it gets timed out of the bridge table, resulting in flooding. Is this normal? Why aren't any more frames originating from eth5? Is it because there is simply no other traffic going on (the only connection is a single large data transfer from Host A)? I've researched this for a long time and haven't found an answer. Documentation states that no switch changes are necessary when using mode 6 of the Linux interface bonding (balance-alb). Is this behavior occurring because Host B doesn't send any further packets out of eth5, whereas in normal circumstances it's expected that it would? One solution is to setup a cron job which pings Host B to keep the bridge table entries from timing out, but that seems like a dirty hack.

    Read the article

  • Iptables rules, forward between two interfaces

    - by Marco
    i have a some difficulties in configuring my ubuntu server firewall ... my situation is this: eth0 - internet eth1 - lan1 eth2 - lan2 I want that clients from lan1 can't communicate with clients from lan2, except for some specific services. E.g. i want that clients in lan1 can ssh into client in lan2, but only that. Any other comunication is forbidden. So, i add this rules to iptables: #Block all traffic between lan, but permit traffic to internet iptables -I FORWARD -i eth1 -o ! eth0 -j DROP iptables -I FORWARD -i eth2 -o ! eth0 -j DROP # Accept ssh traffic from lan1 to client 192.168.20.2 in lan2 iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -p tcp --dport 22 -d 192.168.20.2 -j ACCEPT This didn't works. Doing iptables -L FORWARD -v i see: Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 33 144 DROP all -- eth1 !eth0 anywhere anywhere 0 0 DROP all -- eth2 !eth0 anywhere anywhere 23630 20M ACCEPT all -- any any anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth1 any anywhere anywhere 175 9957 ACCEPT all -- eth1 any anywhere anywhere 107 6420 ACCEPT all -- eth2 any anywhere anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT all -- pptp+ any anywhere anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT all -- tun+ any anywhere anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- eth1 eth2 anywhere server2.lan tcp dpt:ssh All packets are dropped, and the count of packets for the last rule is 0 ... How i have to modify my configuration? Thank you. Regards Marco

    Read the article

  • Dynamic DNS Updates with Wireless and Wired interfaces

    - by Phaedrus
    We have offices full of Windows & Mac users who obtain IP addresses from a Windows DHCP server, which in turn updates Dynamic DNS entries. We are noticing major inconsistencies with the entries, and have found that the problem is occurring more on Macs than on windows, and even more when users are frequently switching from wired to wireless adapter, which makes sense, as this sequence occurs: User enables wired adapter and registers Proper DNS User enables wireless adapter and registers 2nd proper DNS entry user switches off wireless manually and 2nd entry remains improperly until scavenge. Our help desk folks rely heavily (maybe more than they should) on the dynamic entries as part of their business process. For example, the user submits a help desk ticket, and the staff member expects to be able to remote desktop to their machine by hostname, which is hyperlinked in the helpdesk ticketing app. We have implemented multiple solutions & band-aids to different symptoms of the problems such as: Using DNS Reservations for Macintosh PCs Using DNS Scavenging to remove old records Switching from a Cisco DHCP server to the Windows DHCP Server But no matter what we do, it seems impossible to maintain perfect records. Has anyone encountered this problem before? What is industry best practice? Comments & Suggestions are much appreciated, /P

    Read the article

  • Wireshark does not see interfaces (winXP)

    - by bua
    Short story: Wireshark is working....on my winXP-32b ... usage .... Long long time later Wireshark does not work It can't find any usefull interface (just VPN) ipconfig /all Ethernet adapter Wireless Network Connection: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Dell Wireless 1490 Dual Band WLAN Mini-Card Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : SOME VALID MAC Ethernet adapter eth0: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : xxxx Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Broadcom 440x 10/100 Integrated Controller Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : SOME VALID MAC Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.12.68 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168..... ..... Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Fortinet virtual adapter Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : SOME VALID MAC Following steps didn't help: Several Wireshark re-installation Several LIBPCAP re installation SP3 for winXP Any ideas welcome.

    Read the article

  • Why "scope link" ipv6 address can be pinged via interfaces which they are not active on

    - by olagu
    [root@2_01 ~]# /sbin/ip -6 addr show pubeth0 inet6 2001:1::6/64 scope global inet6 2001:1::1/64 scope global inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8/64 scope link [root@v2_01 ~]# /sbin/ip -6 addr show pubeth1 inet6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f906/64 scope link [root@2_01 ~]# ping6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8%pubeth1 PING fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8%pubeth1(fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.259 ms --- fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8%pubeth1 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 286ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.259/0.259/0.259/0.000 ms [root@2_01 ~]# ping6 fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8%pubeth0 PING fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8%pubeth0(fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.057 ms --- fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8%pubeth0 ping statistics --- 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 390ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.057/0.057/0.057/0.000 ms Why can I ping6 "fe80::20c:29ff:fe69:f9e8" via pubeth1?

    Read the article

  • Bridging two wireless interfaces with brctl?

    - by AK_
    I have this topology: [internet] ^ L-------[wlan0]-[host]-[wlan1]-----[client-1] I tried to bridge wlan0 wlan1 but it wont work with brctl; but magically when I issue this command #iw set dev wlan0 4addr on it adds wlan0 to the bridge BUT I lost all internet connection and I was unable to hook it to the internet router. can somebody please explain why did that happen and is there a way to get this done ?

    Read the article

  • Combine multiple network interfaces to connect to a dedicated server

    - by Dženis Macanovic
    this is an underpaid employee writing, who's apparently responsible for all the IT stuff in a very small (non-IT) company. Today said company got a bunch of PCs/workstations, a switch, a computer that's supposed to be used as a router, two DSL connections (each 16 MBit/s downstream and 1 MBit/s upstream) and a dedicated server which is hosted and managed professionally by a larger local company with some decent connection speed (1 GBit/s both directions if I'm not mistaken). This is what I've set up (note I'm not making use of the second DSL connection at all)... ETH0 ETH1 [ SWITCH ]---[LINUX DEBIAN ROUTER]---[DSL MODEM 1]---[INTERNET] | | | PC1 | | PC2 | ... ... when my boss asked me, if it was somehow possible to get 32 MBit/s downstream and 2 MBit/s upstream. At that time I replied "no" without thinking too much about it. Now I've just had the following idea... ETH1 ETH0 ETH0 ,---[DSL MODEM 1 (NON-STATIC IP)]---, ,---, ETH0 [ SWITCH ]---[LINUX DEBIAN ROUTER] [INTERNET] [LINUX DEBIAN SERVER]---[INTERNET] | | | '---[ DSL MODEM 2 (STATIC IP) ]---' '---' PC1 | | ETH2 ETH0 PC2 | ... ... but I have absolutely no clue how to implement that. Would that even be possible? What would the masquerading rules look like on the router? What about the server? I didn't find anything on the internet, mainly because I couldn't come up with any good keywords to search for to begin with. English obviously isn't my first language. Thanks in advance for your time!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >