Search Results

Search found 1236 results on 50 pages for 'nat papovich'.

Page 12/50 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

• Win 7: Share internet connection via Ethernet and WiFi

  - by Anvaka

  I have the following configuration: Box 1. Running Win 7, connected to the Internet via Eth0. Has one wireless network adapter and one another ethernet adapter (say, Eth1). Box 2. Running Win XP, has one ethernet adapter. I'd like to share Internet connection of the Box 1 with Box 2 via cable and have box 1 also sharing the Internet with other wireless devices. I don't want to buy any additional hardware. Is it possible? PS: Sorry if I'm unclear. I merely know nothing about NAT and network administration.

  Read the article

• What's wrong with my MAC address?

  - by Shaul

  I have a D-Link DSL-2650U router, and exactly one computer on the network. For reasons of port forwarding I want to give my computer a static internal IP address, so that I don't take the chance of losing my NAT settings every time the computer reboots. So here's a screen shot that summarizes the entire problem: WTH is wrong with my MAC address? It's copied and pasted from the command prompt window! I tried editing out the dashes, but it still doesn't work. Am I doing something wrong, or is there a bug in the D-Link firmware?

  Read the article

• Use teamviewer for running web server [closed]

  - by Steve

  I have a PC behind NAT. I want to host a web server on it which is accessible from the internet. I cannot open any blocked ports nor do i have admin rights on the computer. But it has a teamviewer client running on it 24*7 to which i do have access(no vpn installed). I can accesss this client from anywhere using teamviewer. I want to know if somehow i can use teamviewer to get a ip/hostname that is accessible from the internet and host a webserver. Also is it possible to get an ip if i get admin access but without opening ports.

  Read the article

• Inbound connections using Internet Connection Sharing in Apple/Mac/Leopard

  - by tlianza

  I have a Mac mini which I'm using to give some other devices wireless access, by sharing it's Airport connection with the local ethernet, and that is plugged into a switch. All devices can get online no problem. (See how: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20041112101646643 and http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20071223001432304 ) The issue is that I need to be able to connect in to these machines as well (at least, for the Slingbox to work). All the devices have 192.168.2.* addresses, and the rest of my local network is on 192.168.1.*. I tried setting a static route so that the 192.168.2.* addresses would use a gateway of 192.168.1.50 (my mac mini's address) but that didn't seem to help. Does anyone know if what I'm trying to do is possible? I admit I'm not certain what Internet Connection sharing is really doing under the hood... perhaps it just does basic nat, and doesn't do the type of routing I'm looking for. If so, anyone know if this is possible?

  Read the article

• Stopped windows firewall service during ICS, how is this possible?

  - by insipid

  Although windows firewall is required to be on when you "start" Internet Connection Sharing, you can stop the WF service with MMC. When done a client can still use the host machines internet. The firewall had port 80/http blocked, and now it is open for incoming traffic. However other ports used by applications on the host and client which communicate with each other still seem to be blocked. Can anybody explain what might be happening here? Doesn't ICS need windows firewall for NAT? Note: I am not actually seeing anything in the firewall logs after stopping the service, but even packets sent localhost on the host machine never arriving on these other random ports.

  Read the article

• Unable to open websites that use HTTPS on linux

  - by negai

  I have the following network configuration: My PC 192.168.1.20/24 uses 192.168.1.1/24 as a gateway. Dlink-2760U router with Local address 192.168.1.1/24 has a VPN connection open with the provider using PPTP. Whenever I'm trying to open some web-sites that has some authorization (e.g. gmail.com, coursera.org), I'm getting a request timeout. This problem is observed mostly on linux (Ubuntu 12.04 and Debian 6.0), while most of such websites work correctly on windows XP. Could you please help me diagnose the problem? Could it be related to NAT + HTTPS? Thanks

  Read the article

• Does connecting to the default host via public IP from within its subnet cause any issues?

  - by username

  I'm setting up a small office network with a single public IP (let's say it's 69.16.230.117). I've configured NAT on the router with incoming traffic forwarded to the server (say the server has a private IP of 192.168.0.2). Is it okay to configure the client machines on the same subnet to access the server via the router's public IP (69.16.230.117)? In practice it's never caused me problems, but I've heard, here and there, that it is a bad idea, and one should use the private IP (192.168.0.2). Does connecting to the default host via public IP from within its subnet cause any issues? Please refrain from writing "never! it breaks the intranet!" ;-)

  Read the article

• How to deal with redirect traffic in widows2003

  - by Huiyu

  I have set up an OpenVPN server on Windows 2003, and I want to route all client traffic through the VPN, so that my clients can connect to the Internet through the VPN server. In the server configuration, I added push "redirect-gateway def1". I know the server needs to be configured to deal with the traffic somehow: for example, on Linux, I can use iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE. The problem is, I don't know how to deal with the traffic on Windows Server 2003. Is there any way to accomplish this?

  Read the article

• Large Scale NAT maximum concurrent connections issue

  - by ffffff

  When I open Google Maps on a client PC that is behind a Large Scale NAT (LSN, Carrier grade NAT) the number of concurrent connections is limited to 15. Do you have any solutions how to enable more connections when behind an LSN(CGN)?

  Read the article

• Yum update not working on CentOS 6.2 minimal install

  - by Owen

  Note: This is my first question on the stack exchange network so please give mercy and provide guidance where needed. I have installed a CentOS 6.2 KVM guest and I am having problem getting yum to work. This is my first time working with CentOS so I feel that it's a setting somewhere that I am missing but cannot find using google. Here are my steps; Downloaded CentOS-6.2-x86_64-minimal.iso, booted, and went through default steps (only questions asked where keyboard, timezone, root password and use entire hdd) Restarted, logged in, pinged google.com to no avail Set the following settings; vi /etc/resolv.conf nameserver 8.8.8.8 nameserver 8.8.4.4 vi /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 DEVICE="eth0" HWADDR="52:54:00:42:1B:4A" #NM_CONTROLLED="yes" BOOTPROTO=none ONBOOT="yes" NETMASK=255.255.255.0 IPADDR=192.168.122.151 TYPE=Ethernet vi /etc/sysconfig/network NETWORKING=yes NETWORKING_IPV6=no HOSTNAME=server3.example.com GATEWAY=192.168.122.1 I can now ping google.com ping google.com PING google.com (173.194.70.139) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from fa-in-f139.1e100.net (173.194.70.139): icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=5.88 ms 64 bytes from fa-in-f139.1e100.net (173.194.70.139): icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=5.77 ms But I cannot 'yum update' yum update Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, presto Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Could not retrieve mirrorlist http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=6&arch=x86_64&repo=os error was 14: PYCURL ERROR 7 - "Failed to connect to 2a01:c0:2:4:216:3eff:fe0d:266d: Network is unreachable" Error: Cannot find a valid baseurl for repo: base My KVM guest is also NAT'd incase it's of concern.

  Read the article

• KVM virtual machine networking, NAT and bridge together

  - by stoqlt

  I have two running KVM guests on an Ubuntu (Lucid) host. One of them uses the simplest NAT method, and DHCP inside. The other uses the bridge method and static IP inside. Both work fine. Can I mix the networking methods? I'd like to create some set of scripts which used the local 192.168.122.x address, no matter if the guest has or not has an additional bridged LAN interface. Having eth0 and eth1 interfaces inside would be fine. Thanks for your interest.

  Read the article

• Routing multiple static IPs from ISP at the cable modem?

  - by Jakobud

  I'm taking over IT responsibilities for a previous IT guy. We have a 50mb cable modem connection from Comcast along with 5 static IP addresses: XXX.XXX.XXX.180 XXX.XXX.XXX.181 XXX.XXX.XXX.182 XXX.XXX.XXX.183 XXX.XXX.XXX.184 We are in the process of replacing our firewall machine. Currently the firewall box is the only thing connected to the cable modem. However the cable modem has multiple ethernet ports on it, similarly to a router. I have assembled a new firewall machine and its time to start testing and configuring it. So that means that I also need it plugged into the cable modem (remember it has multiple ethernet ports on it). So now with multiple computer plugged into the cable modem, how does the cable modem know where to route the traffic? If some request on the internet is made to XXX.XXX.XXX.181, which goes to our cable modem, how does the cable modem know which connected computer that traffic is supposed to be sent? Looking at the web interface for the cable modem, there doesn't seem to be anything special setup on it with regards to routing or NATing IP addresses. Is that because when there is only one computer connected to the modem, all traffic is sent to it by default? Now that I am going to (temporarily) have multiple computers plugged into the cable modem, do I need to specify routing or NAT rules on the modem itself? I am going to speak to Comcast about this next, but I figured I'd ask here first just so I can get a better grasp on how this type of thing generally plays out.

  Read the article

• SNAT through Racoon IPSec VPN

  - by Mite fine d'ailes

  I am trying to route traffic from a device (that I will call "target") connected to my Ubuntu box (that I will call "host") to servers at a remote office. The host uses a Racoon IPSec VPN, connected through a NIC called efix. This creates an aliased IF called efix:0 which has IP adress 192.168.190.132. It is able to reach the servers. The link between host and target is an Ethernet link, using IP adresses 10.0.0.1 on IF eusb for the host and 10.0.0.2 on IF eth0 for the target. I have setup the following routes and iptables entries: On target: 10.0.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 default 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 On host: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/24 -j SNAT --to 192.168.190.132 iptables -A FORWARD -s 10.0.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -d 10.0.0.0/24 -j ACCEPT Using Wireshark to monitor an HTTP GET, I can see SYN packets from the target go all the way to the server, but the server's SYNACK packets stop at the host and are not forwarded to the target. Am I missing something here ? Isn't SNAT supposed to keep track of the connections ?

  Read the article

• Slow upload speeds with pfsense virtual appliance

  - by Justin Shin

  I have a pfSense virtual appliance set up in front of a Windows server. The pfSense appliance has been configured with two L2L IPSec VPN sites and not too much else. The appliance has two vNics which both exist on the same VLAN, but one is "WAN" and the other is "LAN." When I run speedtest.net on my Windows server when I have configured it to use a static WAN address and gateway, I get great speeds - maybe around 50 down, 15 up. However, when I configure it with a private IP address, I get similar download speeds but terrible upload speeds - around 2 or 3 Mbps consistently. I used Wireshark to see what gives but there didn't appear to be too much helpful information there, or I just could not find it. Besides the L2L VPNs, other configurations include: Automatic Outbound NAT Virtual P-ARP IP for the Windows Server WAN Firewall rule to allow * to * on RDP WAN Firewall rule to allow * to * (enabled this just for testing... didn't help!) No DHCP or any other services besides IPSec VPN No Errors LAN or WAN No collisions LAN or WAN I would be happy to post the full config file if it would help. I've been scratching my head at this one all day!

  Read the article

• Win 2008 r2 -- client and server are both behind a NAT

  - by Mike Dehari

  I am new to win2008. Have Win2008 R2 installed. Need to know how a client system (Win7), using remote desktop, terminal server, or whatever windows 2008 provides to connect to it (as a user or an admin). Both the client (Win7) and the server (win2008) are inside a NAT (with 192.168......... addresses). Both have real internet addresses (they are in different cities 173.64.......). How can I use the internet from the client (Win7) to connect to the server (Win2008). On both systems, I have "allowed other systems to connect". I am familiar with tcp/ip, ports......etc.

  Read the article

• can't ssh within LAN, but can connect from outside

  - by Patrick B.

  A strange issue: I have a desktop running Ubuntu 10.04 behind a Netgear WNR1000 router performing NAT. I would like to be able to ssh into the desktop from my laptop (running Windows 7 and Cygwin). When at home, both the desktop and the laptop are connected by wireless (the desktop is in a different room from the router). sshd seems to be running fine, since ssh localhost from the desktop works without trouble. Also, ssh my.ip.address from my laptop when it is not behind the router works fine (I am forwarding port 22 on the router to my desktop). However, ssh same.ip.address from within the LAN fails with "Connection refused". ssh 192.168.local.ip.address fails with a different message, "Connection timed out". I can connect if I first ssh to a machine outside the LAN. So far I haven't found anything with Google because with the search terms that seem like they would be relevant, the vast majority of people have the opposite problem - i.e., they can't connect from outside the LAN but can connect within it. I can port forward through a remote server when I'm at home, but this seems like a totally absurd way to connect two computers on the same home LAN. I have already tried stopping and starting sshd on the desktop. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Pinging an external server through OpenVPN tunnel doesn’t work

  - by qdii

  I have an OpenVPN server and a client, and I want to use this tunnel to access not only 10.0.8.0/24 but the whole internet. So far, pinging the server from the client through the tun0 interface works, and vice versa. However, pinging www.google.com from the client through tun0 doesn’t work (all packets are lost). I figured that I should configure the server so that any packet coming from tun0 in destination of the internet be forwarded, so I came up with this iptables config line: interface_connecting_to_the_internet='eth0' interface_openvpn='tun0' internet_ip_address=`ifconfig "$interface_connecting_to_the_internet" | sed -n s'/.*inet \([0-9.]*\).*/\1/p'` iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o "${interface_connecting_to_the_internet}" -j SNAT --to-source "${internet_ip_address}" echo '1' > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward Yet, this doesn’t work, the packets are still lost and I am wondering what could possibly be wrong with my setup. Some details: ip route gives on the server: default via 176.31.127.254 dev eth0 metric 3 10.8.0.0/24 via 10.8.0.2 dev tun0 10.8.0.2 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.1 127.0.0.0/8 via 127.0.0.1 dev lo 176.31.127.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 176.31.127.109 ip route gives on the client: default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 proto static 10.8.0.1 via 10.8.0.5 dev tun0 10.8.0.5 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.6 127.0.0.0/8 via 127.0.0.1 dev lo scope link 192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.109 client uses wifi adapter wlan0 and TUN adapter tun0. server uses ethernet adapter eth0 and TUN adapter tun0. the VPN spans on 10.0.8.0/24 both client and linux are using Linux 3.6.1.

  Read the article

• VMware Server Host-Only Network Routing

  - by Chris

  I have a windows 2008 web server machine running VMware server. I have 3 VM's - All 3 are test servers so security isn't really a concern... each of them running windows 2008 standard and some of them serving web content. My ISP only allows one MAC address to access the physical switch, however they give me 10 public IP addresses to use. My question is, if I put each VM on their own Host only network, how can I route all traffic from a specific public IP on the host, to the corresponding host only adapter, therefore routing to the specific VM? For example: A single physical Adapter on the Host has the following public IP's assigned to it in windows networking: 74.208.14.10 74.208.14.20 74.208.14.30 Each VM is on a host-only network vm1 - 192.168.196.1 vm2 - 192.168.197.1 vm3 - 192.168.198.1 On the host, I want to route all traffic from 74.208.14.10 to VM1 and 74.208.14.20 to VM2 and 74.208.14.30 to vm3 without using VMware NAT, or bridged connections. I want each server to appear to have its own public IP address. My guess is i can modify the route tables somehow, or perhaps in ICS...but i'm not sure how.

  Read the article

• Does Guest WiFi on an Access Point make any sense?

  - by uos??

  I have a Belkin WiFi Router which offers a feature of a secondary Guest Access WiFi network. Of course, the idea is that the Guest network doesn't have access to the computers/devices on the main network. I also have a Comcast-issues Cable Modem/Router device with mutliple wired ports, but no WiFi-capabilities. I prefer to only run one router/DHCP/NAT instead of both the Comcast Router and the Belkin Router, so I can disable the Routing functions of the Belkin and allow the Comcast Router to But if I disable the Routing functions of the Belkin device, the Guest WiFi network is still available. Is this configuration just as secure as when the Belkin acts as a Router? I guess the question comes down to this: Do Guest WiFi's provide security by 1) only allowing requests to IPs found in-front of the device, or do they work by 2) disallowing requests to IPs on the same subnet? 1) Would mean that Guest WiFi on an access point provides no benefit 2) Would mean that the Guest WiFi functionality can work even if the device is just an access point. Or maybe something else entirely?

  Read the article

• Hyper-V VM Lab + RRAS + RDP

  - by Dennis Evans

  My background is primarily .NET Development with some System Administration skills. I'm trying to set up a VM Lab for me to test System Applications I'm developing but I've only ever done System Administration in already set up environments; I've never set up my own. My current setup: Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Host on physical machine (only role enabled) with two NICs. First NIC dedicated for Management w/ DHCP address from company's network. Second NIC dedicated to RRAS VM w/ DHCP address from company's network. RRAS VM has two NICS, one is virtual private internal only NIC w/ static entry. The other is the physical NIC mentioned above. I've joined it to my VMLab.net internal domain. My Active Directory Domain Controller server (ADCT) also runs DNS, DHCP, and Certificate Services which I'm familiar with but don't understand completely. RRAS is already set up with NAT to provide the private internal network with Internet access. What I would like to do is be able to RDP into the servers/computers on the VMLab.net domain from my computer. Do I need to add the Remote Desktop Services role and enable the Remote Desktop Gateway service on RRAS in order to do this or is there a way to set up port forwarding on RRAS to just allow a direct connection to the internal servers...or both? What would the best practices be here? Network Diagram http://i.stack.imgur.com/4qfnk.png

  Read the article

• Sonicwall Enhanced With One-To-One NAT, Firewall Blocking Everything

  - by Justin

  Hello, just migrated from a Sonicwall TZ180 (Standard) to a Sonicwall TZ200 (Enhanced). Everything is working except the firewall rules are blocking everything. All hosts are online, and being assigned correct ip addresses. I can browse the internet on the hosts. I am using one-to-one NAT translating public ip addresses to private. 64.87.28.98 -> 192.168.1.2 64.87.28.99 -> 192.168.1.3 etc First order of business is to get ping working. My rule is in the new firewall is (FROM WAN to LAN): SOURCE DESTINATION SERVICE ACTION USERS ANY 192.168.1.2-192.168.1.6 PING ALLOW ALL This should be working, but not. I even tried changing the destination to the public ip addresses, but still no luck. SOURCE DESTINATION SERVICE ACTION USERS ANY 64.87.28.98-64.87.28.106 PING ALLOW ALL Any ideas what I am doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Simple NAT router for ESX

  - by Evan M.

  Hi Guys, I'm looking for a simple virtual appliance that I can deploy to my ESX environment to use as a virtual NAT router / firewall to create an isolated network that I can easily give internet access too. Basic setup: ESX Host, has 2 vswitches configured: 1 is connected to the physical LAN, the other is isolated. I need an appliance that I can add 2 vNICs to, and attach one to the isolated vSwitch, the other to the LAN, to give the isolated network outbound access (so it can reach the internet). Anyone have an appliance that I can setup quickly to do so? Thanks.

  Read the article

• How do you get AWS VPC EC2 instances to be able to see the AWS APIs?

  - by Peter Mounce

  We're spinning up infrastructure inside of an AWS VPC via CloudFormation. We're using auto-scaling groups to bring up VPC-EC2 instances (so, we don't bring up instances directly; ASGs manage that). Inside of a PVC, EC2 instances only have a private IP; they cannot see the outside world without further work. When these instances spin up, we have some bootstrap tasks that require talking to the various AWS APIs. We also have some ongoing tasks that require AWS API traffic. How are you tackling this apparent chicken-egg problem? We've read about: NAT instances - but don't like this so much because it's another layer to our stack. assigning elastic-IPs to each VPC instance that needs to talk - but a) they all do, and b) since we're using ASGs, we don't know which instances to assign EIPs to at provision-time, and c) we'd need to set up something to monitor those ASGs and assign EIPs when instances are terminated and replaced spinning up an instance (actually, a load-balanced pair, probably spanning AZs) to act as an AWS-API proxy for all API traffic I guess I'm wondering whether there's some kind of back-door we can open that allows our VPC EC2 instances access to the AWS API endpoints, but nothing else, for cheap-complexity setup, that doesn't add another network-hop layer to our infrastructure for serving requests.

  Read the article

• Does Guest WiFi on an Access Point make any sense? [migrated]

  - by Jason

  I have a Belkin WiFi Router which offers a feature of a secondary Guest Access WiFi network. Of course, the idea is that the Guest network doesn't have access to the computers/devices on the main network. I also have a Comcast-issues Cable Modem/Router device with mutliple wired ports, but no WiFi-capabilities. I prefer to only run one router/DHCP/NAT instead of both the Comcast Router and the Belkin Router, so I can disable the Routing functions of the Belkin and allow the Comcast Router to But if I disable the Routing functions of the Belkin device, the Guest WiFi network is still available. Is this configuration just as secure as when the Belkin acts as a Router? I guess the question comes down to this: Do Guest WiFi's provide security by 1) only allowing requests to IPs found in-front of the device, or do they work by 2) disallowing requests to IPs on the same subnet? 1) Would mean that Guest WiFi on an access point provides no benefit 2) Would mean that the Guest WiFi functionality can work even if the device is just an access point. Or maybe something else entirely?

  Read the article

• VMware Player loses internet connectivity

  - by Martha

  Periodically, the internet simply stops working in my virtual machine, and the only way I can get it working again is to restart the host computer. Since I use the virtual machine specifically for testing web pages, this is, shall we say, a bother. Details: I have Windows XP Pro running in VMware Player (v. 3.0.0 build-203739) on a Windows 7 host. It's set to NAT (shared IP address) because the firewall won't allow a bridged connection. Every couple of days or so, first the internet slows down to a crawl, then eventually it stops working altogether. Both VMWare and the virtual OS report that they are connected, everything looks just peachy, I can reach the internet from the host, but on the VM, all web pages time out and/or report that the server could not be found. (Browser-independent; tried with IE, FF, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.) When this happens, the only way I've found to restore the internet connectivity is to restart the host machine. Restarting the VM doesn't help, nor does refreshing network connections on either the host or the guest. (Although I'm not entirely sure I've found the proper way to refresh a network connection in Windows 7...) I have not noticed any predictability about when the problem occurs, i.e. it's not immediately after I do anything special. It seems to occur mostly after putting the host to sleep once or twice, but it has happened even if the host has been in continuous use. It also seems independent of when I start using the VM - sometimes, I wake up the VM and the internet is really slow in it, then eventually stops working altogether; other times, I wake up the VM, use it perfectly happily for a while, then suddenly the internet is gone. Does anyone know why this is occurring? Failing that, is there a workaround that's less drastic than restarting the host? (Windows 7 startup times are blazingly fast compared to previous versions of Windows, but it's still a hassle to close all my programs and reopen them again.) Edit: while badges overall are nice, the Tumbleweed badge isn't helping me to solve my problem. Hasn't anyone encountered anything even remotely similar?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >