Search Results

Search found 11077 results on 444 pages for 'no such ip'.

Page 136/444 | < Previous Page | 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 | Next Page >

Wireless Access Point stopped working

- by Alex Pritchard

I have a simple LAN set up at home using a Linksys WRT54GSV4 as my primary router and an Encore ENHWI-2AN3 as an access point. I connect the Encore to the Linksys by running a cable from one of the Linksys LAN ports into the Encore WAN input. I originally configured this using the Encore setup wizard, setting the device up in AP Router Mode. It detected the input network and worked about as expected, creating a second network that used my primary network to connect to the internet. It worked fine for about 2 weeks, then abruptly cut out today. I checked to make sure the network was still live through the cable going into the Encore (provides internet when connected to a laptop directly) and that devices are still able to connect to the network being broadcast by the Encore. When I try to rerun the connection wizard on the Encore, I receive the message "No Services found in WAN port." The WAN Settings is no longer retrieving a dynamic ip from the line. I tried providing a static IP, assigning an IP address within the subnet range of my primary router that wasn't being used and pointing the Default Gateway to the Linksys IP, but this did not work either. When I plug the cable into the WAN port, an internet light comes on that is not lit when a live network is not connected. I've tried doing a hard reset on the Encore (held down the rest button until the lights flashed, reconfigured from scratch), but the WAN settings are still not detected. Also tried powering off and on the modem, linksys, and encore. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

Read the article
Virtual box host-only adapter configuration

- by Xoundboy

I have VirtualBox 4 running on Win 7 with a Centos 6 guest VM set up for hosting my dev server. When I'm connected to my home network the guest can be accessed via a static IP address that I configured (192.168.56.2), but not when I'm in the office. I'm guessing that the DHCP server in the office doesn't have a gateway configured for the 192.168.56.x IP range. I read something about the VB host-only adapter that should allow me to set this guest VM up in such a way that I don't need to be on any network to be able to access the guest from the host using a static IP. I've not been able to find out exactly how to configure this though. Can anyone give me an example configuration, thanks. UPDATE: Thanks for your responses. I've now set up a single virtual network adapter in VirtualBox and set it to host-only: C:\Users\Ben>vboxmanage list hostonlyifs Name: VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter GUID: d419ef62-3c46-4525-ad2d-be506c90459a Dhcp: Disabled IPAddress: 192.168.56.2 NetworkMask: 255.255.255.0 IPV6Address: fe80:0000:0000:0000:78e3:b200:5af3:2a57 IPV6NetworkMaskPrefixLength: 64 HardwareAddress: 08:00:27:00:94:e8 MediumType: Ethernet Status: Up VBoxNetworkName: HostInterfaceNetworking-VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter On the guest I've set up eth0 to use the same IP address as the host-only adapter (192.168.56.2) but when I try to log in using Putty I still get "Network Error : connection refused". VirtualBox DHCP servier is enabled but I can't ping the gateway (192.168.56.1) from either host nor guest. There's no firewall running on either OS. What next?

Read the article
windows: force user to use specific network adapter

- by Chad

I'm looking for a configuration/hack to force a particular application or all traffic from a particular user to use a specific NIC. I have an legacy client/server app that has a "security feature" that limits connections based on IP address. I'm trying to find a way to migrate this app to a terminal server environment. The simple solution is for the development team to update the code in the application, however in this case that's not an option. I was thinking I might be able to install VMware NIC's installed for each user on the terminal server and do some type of scripting to force that user account to use a specific NIC. Anybody have any ideas on this? EDIT 1: I think I have a hack to work around my specific problem, however I'd love to hear of a more elegant solution. I got lucky in that the software reads the server IP address out of a config file. So I'm going to have to make a config file for each user and make a customer programs files for each user. Then add a VMware NIC for each user and make each server IP address reside on a different subnet. That will force the traffic for a particular user to a particular IP address, however its really messy and all the VM NIC's will slow down the terminal server. I'll setup a proof of concept Monday and let the group know how it affects performance.

Read the article
How to secure a group of Amazon EC2 instances

- by ks78

I have several Amazon EC2 instances running Ubuntu 10.04 and I've recently started using Amazon's Route 53 as my DNS. The purpose of doing that was to allow the instances to refer to each other by name rather than private IP (which can change). I've pointed my domain name (via GoDaddy) to Amazon's name servers, allowing me to access my EC2 webservers. However, I noticed I can now access the EC2 instances which I don't want to be public, such as the dedicated MySQL Server. I was thinking Amazon's Security Groups would still be in effect when using Route 53, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Before I started using Route 53, I was thinking of having one instance run a reverse proxy, which would help protect the web servers behind it. Then IP-restrict all the other instances. I know IP restricting can be done using the firewall within each instance, but should I ever need to access them from another IP address, I'd need a way in. Amazon's control panel made it a breeze to open a port when necessary. Does anyone have any suggestions for keeping EC2 instances secure, but also accessible to their administrator? Also, what's the best topology for a group of EC2 instances, consisting of web servers and a dedicated database server, from a security perspective? Does having a reverse proxy server even make sense?

Read the article
Certain websites redirect to 127.0.0.1. How do I fix this?

- by Dian

Facebook and Youtube in particular. Tried nslookup the address shows as 127.0.0.1. Checked the HOSTS file, it's fine. Ran Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (didn't find any problems) and SpyBot Search and Destroy (found 1 problem). (Not sure if the Spybot made this improvement) now pinging youtube shows the correct address (74.125.71.91) but the browser still says: Connection to 127.0.0.1 Failed The system returned: (111) Connection refused Tried ipconfig /flushdns but there are no changes. Switched to another user but the results are the same. hosts file: # Copyright (c) 1993-2009 Microsoft Corp. # # This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows. # # This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each # entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should # be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name. # The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one # space. # # Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual # lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol. # # For example: # # 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server # 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host # localhost name resolution is handled within DNS itself. # 127.0.0.1 localhost # ::1 localhost ipconfig all: Connection-specific DNS Suffix: DNS Servers: 10.1.1.30 208.67.220.220

Read the article
KVM virtual machine unable to access internet

- by peachykeen

I have KVM set up to run a virtual machine (Windows Home Server 2011 acting as a build agent) on a dedicated server (CentOS 6.3). Recently, I ran updates on the host, and the virtual machine is now unable to connect to the internet. The virtual network is running through NAT, the host has an interface (eth0:0) set up with a static IP (virt-manager shows the network and its IP correctly), and all connections to that IP should be sent to the guest. The host and guest can ping one another, but the guest cannot ping anything above the host, nor can I ping the guest from anywhere else (I can ping the host). Results from the guest to another server under my control and from an external system to the guest both return "Destination port unreachable". Running tcpdump on the host and destination shows the host replying to the ping, but the destination never sees it (it doesn't even look like the host is bothering to send it on at all, which leads me to suspect iptables). The ping output matches that, listing replies from 192.168.100.1. The guest can resolve DNS, however, which I find rather odd. The guest's network settings (connection TCP/IPv4 properties) are set up with a static local IP (192.168.100.128), mask of 255.255.255.0, and gateway and DNS at 192.168.100.1. When originally setting up the vm/net, I had set up some iptables rules to enable bridging, but after my hosting company complained about the bridge, I set up a new virtual net using NAT and believe I removed all the rules. The VM's network was working perfectly fine for the last few months, until yesterday. I haven't heard anything from the hosting company, didn't change anything on the guest, so as far as I know, nothing else has changed (unfortunately the list of packages updated has since fallen off scrollback and I didn't note it down).

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
NAT via iptables and virtual interface

- by Alex

I'm trying to implement the following scenario: One VM-host, multiple guest VMs, each one gets its own IP-address (and domain). Our server has only one physical interface, so the intended use is to add virtual interfaces on eth0. To complicate our situation the provider uses port-security on their switches, so I can't run the guest interfaces in bridged mode, because then the switch detects a "spoofed" MAC-address and kills the interface (permanently, forcing me to call the support, which I'm sure will get them a little bit angry the third time ;) ). My first guess was to use iptables and NAT to forward all packages from one virtual interface to another one, but iptables doesn't seem to like virtual interfaces (at least I can't get it to work properly). So my second guess is to use the source IP of the packages to the public interface. Let's assume libvirt creates a virbr0-network with 192.168.100.0/24 and the guest uses 192.168.100.2 as IP-address. This is what I tried to use: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING --src public_ip_on_eth0:0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.100.2:80 That doesn't give me the intended results either (accessing the server times out). Is there a way to do what I'm trying to do, or even to route all traffic to a certain IP on a virtual interface to the VM's device?

Read the article
Apache Virtual Hosts behind Cisco Router

- by Theo

I'm setting up an Apache 2.2 Ubuntu web server for internal services that is also supposed to be accessed from outside our LAN. Our LAN has a single external IP that is the external IP of our RV042 Cisco router. We have set up several A records on our external DNS server that point to this IP. Our internal DNS server resolve the same records to the internal IP of our web server, so computers from inside the network can access them using the same address as if they were outside. We forwarded the router's external 80 port to our web server's 80 port. I have set up one Virtual Host for each domain name in our list, and my httpd.conf is something like this: ServerName web.domain.com NameVirtualHost *:80 <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName alfresco.domain.com <Proxy *> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Proxy> ProxyPass /alfresco http://localhost:8080/alfresco ProxyPassReverse /alfresco http://localhost:8080/alfresco ProxyPass /share http://localhost:8080/share ProxyPassReverse /share http://localhost:8080/share </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName crm.domain.com DocumentRoot /var/www/sugarcrm </VirtualHost> Now, this works if we are in our LAN. However, if we are outside of our LAN we reach our web server's default page saying: It Works! This is the default web page for this server. But we can't reach the virtual hosts, as if the domain name is not being preserved when the router forward the packets to the web server. Am I doing something wrong? How can I check what is going on? What should be the settings to make this work from outside?

Read the article
Separate Certificate by Subdomain (With multiple IPs)

- by Brian

Note: Yes, I realize this problem is easier to solve by just using 1 multi-domain or wildcard certificate. I wish to have an ASP.NET site running on IIS with 2 SSL domains sharing 1 web application but using separate certificates. Assuming I have 2 certificates, this can be solved on IIS7 as follows: Web Application1: Binding 1: http, 80, IP Address *, Host Name * Binding 2: https, 443, IPADDRESS1, using CERTDOMAIN1 (DOMAIN1 resolves to IPADDRESS1) Binding 3: https, 443, IPADDRESS2, using CERTDOMAIN2 (DOMAIN2 resolves to IPADDRESS2) That is to say, 2 certificates and 2 ip addresses, but both mapped to the same web application. In IIS6, the closest I have been able to come to this configuration is: Web Application1: Binding 1: http, 80, IPADDRESS1 Binding 2: https, 443, IPADDRESS1, using CERTDOMAIN1 (DOMAIN1 resolves to IPADDRESS1) Web Application2: Binding 1: http, 80, IPADDRESS2 Binding 2: https, 443, IPADDRESS2, using CERTDOMAIN2 (DOMAIN2 resolves to IPADDRESS2) That is to say, 2 certificates and 2 IP addresses, 2 web applications, both mapped to the same file location. The IIS6 solution is not optimal. Even if sharing an application pool, there are still costs associated with running the same site as two applications. Is upgrading from IIS6 to IIS7 a legitimate way to resolve this problem? Is there an IIS6 way to map 2 IP addresses within the same web application to different certificates?

Read the article
Seeing traffic destined for other people's servers in wireshark

- by user350325

I rent a dedicated server from a hosting provider. I ran wireshark on my server so that I could see incoming HTTP traffic that was destined to my server. Once I ran wireshark and filtered for HTTP I noticed a load of traffic, but most of it was not for stuff that was hosted on my server and had a destination IP address that was not mine, there were various source IP addresses. My immediate reaction was to think that somebody was tunnelling their HTTP traffic through my server somehow. However when I looked closer I noticed that all of this traffic was going to hosts on the same subnet and all of these IP addresses belonged to the same hosting provider that I was using. So it appears that wireshark was intercepting traffic destined for other customers who's servers are attached to the same part of the network as mine. Now I always assumed that on a switch based network that this should not happen as the switch will only send data to the required host and not to every box attached. I assume in this case that other customers would also be able to see data going to my server. As well as potential privacy concerns, this would surely make ARP poising easy and allow others to steal IP addresses (and therefor domains and websites)? It would seem odd that a network provider would configure the network in such a way. Is there a more rational explanation here?

Read the article
LAN Webserver not accessible through PPTP VPN

- by Joe

I have this LAN Network with 10 clients and one server. The server has 4 virtual machines and a BIND DNS Server. When the router assigns an IP through the DHCP , it also gives the ip of the DNS Server, to resolve internal domains. Everything apparently works fine, the clients being able to access the server's vm's resources, but I also have to create the possibility of remote access. I installed the PPTP VPN on the server, and the vpn clients would get the same ip address range as the router's dhcp is assigning. Apparently everything is fine here also, except the fact that when we connect through the vpn , we cannot access the webserver on port 80 ( the webserver being one of the server's VM ). The iptables on the webserver has been turned off for testing purposes and the router's firewall is directing all the external traffic to the server. Can somebody suggest a solution to this? Extra details : VPN Server : PPTP Server Centos 6.3 x64 VPN Client : Windows 7 default PPTP VPN Connection The client is successfully connected to the server, everything works ( FTP/MYSQL/SSH/DNS ) , except the fact that when I try to access the webserver IP on the browser, it won't work.Pinging it works perfectly.

Read the article
Preventing endless forwarding with two routers

- by jarmund

The network in quesiton looks basically like this: /----Inet1 / H1---[111.0/24]---GW1---[99.0/24] \----GW2-----Inet2 Device explaination H1: Host with IP 192.168.111.47 GW1: Linux box with IPs 192.168.111.1 and 192.168.99.2, as well as its own route to the internet. GW2: Generic wireless router with IP 192.168.99.1 and its own route to the internet. Inet1 & Inet2: Two possible routes to the internet In short: H has more than one possible route to the internet. H is supposed to only access the internet via GW2 when that link is up, so GW1 has some policy based routing special just for H1: ip rule add from 192.168.111.47 table 991 ip route add default via 192.168.99.1 table 991 While this works as long as GW2 has a direct link to the internet, the problem occurs when that link is down. What then happens is that GW2 forwards the packet back to GW1, which again forwards back to GW2, creating an endless loop of TCP-pingpong. The preferred result would be that the packet was just dropped. Is there something that can be done with iptables on GW1 to prevent this? Basically, an iptables-friendly version of "If packet comes from GW2, but originated from H1, drop it" Note1: It is preferable not to change anything on GW2. Note2: H1 needs to be able to talk to both GW1 and GW2, and vice versa, but only GW2 should lead to the internet TLDR; H1 should only be allowed internet access via GW2, but still needs to be able to talk to both GW1 and GW2. EDIT: The interfaces for GW1 are br0.105 for the '99' network, and br0.111 for the '111' network. The sollution may or may not be obnoxiously simple, but i have not been able to produce the proper iptables syntax myself, so help would be most appreciated. PS: This is a follow-up question from this question

Read the article
VirtualBox with Ubuntu Server guest can't ping outside

- by Danidan

Here's my situation: an Ubuntu 12.04 Host running VirtualBox; two guest VMs running Ubuntu Server 12.04 home network, so my Host pc has a wireless connection to the router of my ISP. My problem is in one of the virtual machines: it has 3 NICs, one in NAT mode and the others in Host Only mode. My purpose is to use eth0 (NAT) for Internet access and eth1, eth2 (Host Only) for management of internal virtual network (eth1 uses a VBoxNet with this IP 192.168.69.254). Whenever I try to $ping 8.8.8.8 I get Destination Host Unreachable. While if I $ping 192.168.69.10, that is the IP of the other VM, it works. I can't also ping my Host nor my router My /etc/network/interfaces file is: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.69.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 auto eth2 iface ifconfig $IFACE 0.0.0.0 up up ip link set $IFACE promisc on down ip link set $IFASE promisc off down ifconfig $IFACE down $route -n returns: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 10.0.2.2 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.0.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.69.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 Forgetting for now what eth2 needs to do and its setup, why I can't go outside the Host box? What can I do to help you helping me? :-)

Read the article
OpenVZ container is running but does not show in vzlist nor can I find the private/conf files for the container

- by Kakeakeai

I was creating a new OpenVZ container on one of our VPS Nodes while the power went out for that machine. After bringing the machine back online I could no longer access the container CTID=101. I could not destroy it using "vzctl destroy 101", I can not enter or control it, and "vzlist -a" does NOT display any containers at all (this was a fresh node and the first container was being created). I decided to create a new container at this point assuming that the old container just was not saved for some reason. However when I go to add the ip/host to the new container I get a warning that the IP is already in use. After doing a ping to the IP I realized there was a machine on that IP. I SSH into the machine and discover it is the OLD container that some how is orphaned. I can not find it on the filesystem, I can not find it using VZ commands, and It is set to start on Node boot so it is impossible to shutdown (even ssh in and typing the "shutdown now" command just reboots the container not shut it down). Is this a flaw in OpenVZ or am I missing something? I have all the outputs and logs if needed. Thank you all so much in advance.

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
openvpn in a bridge?

- by sebelk

I have a somewhat tricky proble to solve. We have a wireless link between 2 building. One of them has an mikrotik and below there are some vlans. Some machines of one vlan need to use openvpn to connect to a remote private lan. I put a TP-Link WR1043ND (which those machines connect to) with openwrt with ebtables just in case I need it. I've configured openwrt in such a way that all ports belongs to the same vlan. My idea was to make things as transparent as I can. It has a bridge as follows: usr/sbin/brctl-full show br-lan bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br-lan 8000.f8d111565716 no eth0.1 eth0.2 Also I've added an ebtables rule: ebtables -t broute -A BROUTING -p ipv4 -j DROP So "bridge" has only one IP address. I've installed openvpn and I'm trying to bring up the tunnel but I can't still get working. Sure, someone can says why don't you use the vpn on the mikrotik, there are some reasons, the first one is I have little experience with mikrotik and I'd want to have the vpn at hand :) The problem is that openvpn is not working, because it is complaining that I have only one Ip Address on the server side. So I set up and alias interface with another IP address but is not working either: : Rejected connection attempt from IP-Client-Side:37801 due to --remote setting Is there a way to make it work?

Read the article
Upgrade of Ubuntu 8.10 distribution fails due to missing packages

- by Tim

I have a server that I've forgotten to upgrade for ages, which is still running Intrepid (8.10). I'd like to upgrade it to a newer version of the distribution, so that I can get security patches etc. I found some instructions that tell me to install the package update-manager-core. I tried the following: $ sudo apt-get install update-manager-core but this fails since some of the necessary packages can't be found: ... Err http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main python-apt 0.7.7.1ubuntu4 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.40 80] Err http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid-updates/main update-manager-core 1:0.93.34 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.40 80] Failed to fetch http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python-apt/python-apt_0.7.7.1ubuntu4_amd64.deb 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.40 80] Failed to fetch http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/u/update-manager/update-manager-core_0.93.34_amd64.deb 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.40 80] ... I know that Intrepid is no longer supported, and so I guess some of the necessary files may no longer be maintained. But this seems rather unhelpful: I can't upgrade because it's too old, and the only way to fix this would be to upgrade it. Is there a way round this? Is something else wrong?

Read the article
2 routers at home- how to connect with VNC?

- by Charles Leviton

I have two routers at home. First router is upstairs and is connected to the cable modem. 2nd router is downstairs and acts as "signal booster" for the 1st router. Devices connected to the upstairs router have IP addresses of the form 192.168.1.n Devices connected to the upstairs router have IP addresses of the form 192.168.2.n. I blindly followed instructions from a website to do this set up, just glad it works! Upstairs I have a PC running Win 7 64 bit. Its assigned IP is 192.168.1.7. I have a VNC viewer running on this. Downstairs I have a 2nd PC running Vista 32 Home edition bit that is connected to the 2nd router and has IP Address 192.168.2.114. VNC server is running on this. It's listening on 5900. There is no firewall. When I try to connect to this downstairs PC from upstairs it fails with message "Failed to connect to server". I cannot ping to this either. If I try to connect to this downstairs PC using VNC Viewer from another computer that's connected to the same downstairs router then it works like a charm. So what's the work around if the viewer is on a different "network"? I don't have any problems doing remote desktop connection from the downstairs PC to the upstairs PC even if they are connected to different routers. Router information- Upstairs- ASUS RTN13U, downstairs- DD-WRT v24 RC-5 Thanks! P.S. I posted this on the Ultra VNC forum as well but that doesn't seem to have a lot of activity, so taking the liberty to multipost.

Read the article
Two network adapters in one WindowsXP PC, how to make them work?

- by Deele

I have a need to set up network so I can use two ethernet cards inside one Windows (Windows XP SP2) based PC, one for internet connection, second, for internal LAN. How should I configure each NIC, with what IP's, subnet masks and gateways, so I can use inernet on my PC and get in touch with devices on my LAN? I have found that there are some sort of re routing nessesary inside my PC, but how does it work? I have already set up some configuration already, but I can't use it together with PC #1 NIC #1 connected. I need to disconnect, to access NIC WEB interface. Current configuration: Switch #1 and PC #1 NAS #2 are gigabit one's, so I could access NAS with gigabit speed. PC #1 NIC #1 IP XX.XXX.162.106 SN 255.255.255.248 GW XX.XXX.162.105 PC #1 NIC #2 IP 10.0.0.1 SN 255.255.0.0 GW 0.0.0.0 NAS #1 NIC #1 IP 10.0.0.12 SN 255.255.0.0 GW 0.0.0.0 My question is - what exact configuration should I do for every NIC in this LAN, so it would work? Is it possible to achieve internet access for Laptop, that is inside that NIC #2 LAN (should I just set up basic ICS)?

Read the article
Better urls for this internal web server?

- by sprugman

I've got a server that I have admin access to, but don't fully manage. (I think it's a virtual machine, but I'm not 100% sure. It's running Apache on Windows Server 2003.) I share the ip with another user, so my sites all have to use the :8080 port. This is kind of ugly. Also, AFAIK, the only access I have is through an ip address. (I'm inside a corporate firewall and don't think I have access to a DNS server or anything.) I've adjusted my hosts file so I don't have to use the ip address on my local machine, but that's not a very generic solution. Are there any options to 1) get rid of the port requirement 2) be able to use a name (maybe a machine name) instead of the ip address in a generic way? (I'm not really a network admin -- I'm a developer managing this machine. The IT folks who really manage it are a few people away from me and tough to get to do anything, so I'm looking for a light-weight solution if possible.)

Read the article
Will the removal of NAT (with the use of IPv6) be bad for consumers? [closed]

- by Jonathan.

Possible Duplicate: How will IPv6 impact everyday users? (World IPv6 Day) As I understand when we have finally made the switch to IPv6 not only will NAT be unnecessary but it is incompatible with IPv6? Will that mean that ISPs will have to serve multiple IP addresses per customer? Will they provide a range of addresses for each customer or as each device connects will they get an IP address that isn't necessarily near that of the other devices in their house? But overall will this be bad for the Internet users? as surely it will allow ISPs to see exactly how many devices are being used, and so allow them to charge for the use of additional IP addresses? And then if that happens, what happens when you try to connect an extra device to your network? Will it simply not get an IP address? In my home we have about 15-20 devices connected at once, but for places where there are hundreds of devices, it seems like the perfect opportunity for ISPs to charge more? I think I may have it completely wrong, so is there somewhere where there is an explanation of who things will work when IPv6 becomes the norm?

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
Routing Traffic With OpenVPN

- by user224277

Few minutes ago i configured my VPN server, and actually I can connect to my VPN but all trafic is going through my normal home network. On my OpenVPN application I've got an information : Server IP: **.185.***.*10 Client IP: 10.8.0.6 Traffic: 7.3 KB in, 5.6 KB out Connected: 10 June 2014 19:21:59 So everything is connected but how I can setup on windows 7 that all trafic have to go through OpenVPN network card ?? Client setting : client dev tun proto udp # enter the server's hostname # or IP address here, and port number remote **.185.***.*10 1194 resolv-retry infinite nobind persist-key persist-tun # Use the full filepaths to your # certificates and keys ca ca.crt cert user1.crt key user1.key ns-cert-type server comp-lzo verb 6 Server setting : port 1194 proto udp dev tun # the full paths to your server keys and certs ca /etc/openvpn/keys/ca.crt cert /etc/openvpn/keys/server.crt key /etc/openvpn/keys/server.key dh /etc/openvpn/keys/dh2048.pem cipher BF-CBC # Set server mode, and define a virtual pool of IP # addresses for clients to use. Use any subnet # that does not collide with your existing subnets. # In this example, the server can be pinged at 10.8.0.1 server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 # Set up route(s) to subnet(s) behind # OpenVPN server push "dhcp-option DNS 8.8.8.8" push "dhcp-option DNS 8.8.4.4" ifconfig-pool-persist /etc/openvpn/ipp.txt keepalive 10 120 status openvpn-status.log verb 6 and sysctl : net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 Thank you for your time and help.

Read the article
A duplicate name has been detected on the TCP network

- by MSedm

When I installed my domain controller and DNS, I had 2 NIC on the server. Both NIC has its own IP address. NICs are not teamed, they are seperate and ip address are in the same subnet. Both IP address are now registered in the DNS. i found them in Forward and reverse lookup zone. Everything working ok except the following error in the event log. "A duplicate name has been detected on the TCP network......" Now I have realized that this is because of the second NIC. My question is if i disable the second NIC, what happen to those DNS record assiciated with the second ip address? How do I remove all the DNS recored for the disabled NIC? There are A record, some record with the name (same as parent folder), PTR record and may be more. How do i disable second NIC and remove all the associated DNS recoreds? Please help.

Read the article

< Previous Page | 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 | Next Page >