Search Results

Search found 1370 results on 55 pages for 'nat gr'.

Page 14/55 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

• Load balancing SMTP in a way that doesn't hide the source IP address

  - by makerofthings7

  I need to load balance SMTP to handle some applications that don't know how to use MX records. I set up a Netscaler using the TCP option on port 25 and now Exchange sees the source IP as that of the DMZ of the Netscaler for every connection, not the client. Obviously this prevents RBLs, Whitelists, and all other IP-based reputation to fail. It also make it impossible to whitelist a trusted IP for anonymous relay. Question How should I configure the NetScaler (or Windows Load Balancing) so that I can allow load balancing yet still maintain visibility of the source IP?

  Read the article

• Is it possibile to alow port forwarding only for specific IP public addresses

  - by adopilot

  I have freeBSD router and it host public IP address, I am using ipnat.rules to configure port forwarding prom public network inside my private network. Now I wondering can I restrict only specific public IP addresses to can pass trough my port forwarding. What I want is to only my specific public IP addresses can walk inside my network on specific ports. Here is how now look like my ipnat.rules file rdr fxp0 217.199.XXX.XXX/32 port 7900-> 192.168.1.12 port 80 tcp

  Read the article

• iptables forward rule not working in openwrt

  - by Udit Gupta

  I am trying to apply some iptables forwarding rules in openwrt. Here is my scenario - My server has two cards ath0 and br-lan. br-lan is connected to internet and ath0 to private network. The other m/c in n/w also has ath0 that connects with this server's ath0 and they are able to ping each other. Now, I want other m/c in network to use internet using br-lan of server so I thought of using iptables forwarding rule- Here is what I tried - Server : $ ping 1.1.1.6 // <ath0-ip of client> works fine $ iptables -A FORWARD -i ath0 -o br-lan -j ACCEPT $ /etc/init.d/firewall restart Client : $ ping 1.1.1.5 // <ath0-ip of server> works fine $ ping 132.245.244.60 // <br-lan ip of server> (not working) I am new to iptables stuff and openwrt. What I am doing wrong here ?? Any other help if anyone could suggest for my scenario Edit- m/c - machine n/w - network

  Read the article

• CNet router - no field for private port

  - by Aadit M Shah

  I'm trying to configure port forwarding on my CNet router for a locally hosted HTTP server. The model number of my router is CQR-981 and the firmware version is 1.0.43. The problem is that there's no field to enter the private port of the HTTP server (the local port). According to the manual there should be one. Here's a picture of the manual: Here's a screenshot of my router page for port forwarding (with no field for private port): Is there some way I can circumvent this problem. Perhaps manually make an HTTP request to the HTTP server on the router to update the table with the private port number, or perhaps update my firmware to solve this problem.

  Read the article

• Public static ip for vagrant box

  - by Numbata

  I have server (Debian Squeeze) with 1 ethernet card and 2 public static IPs (188.120.245.4 and 188.120.244.5). What I want: Setup virtual box (Ubuntu) with access via static IP (188.120.244.5). What I was trying: config.vm.forward_port - good idea: setup interface "eth1:1" with 188.120.244.5 on host-machine, and add to Vagrant file "config.vm.forward_port = hmm..?" config.vm.network :hostonly, "188.120.244.5" - not working. Was created new interface on host-machine with ip "188.120.244.1". Of course 188.120.244.1 IP isn't mine and I can't access my server via this IP. config.vm.network :bridged - I'm confused how this works :) What I have now: Not working configuration. Debian-host-machine# cat Vagrantfile Vagrant::Config.run do |config| config.vm.define :gitlab do |box_config| box_config.vm.box = "ubuntu" box_config.vm.host_name = "ubuntu" box_config.vm.network :bridged box_config.vm.network :hostonly, "188.120.244.5", :auto_config => false end end Debian-host-machine# ifconfig eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:15:17:69:71:bb inet addr:188.120.245.4 Bcast:188.120.247.255 Mask:255.255.248.0 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 vboxnet0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 0a:00:27:00:00:00 inet addr:188.120.244.1 Bcast:188.120.246.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 Ubuntu-virtual-machine# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 08:00:27:ee:8d:0c inet addr:10.0.2.15 Bcast:10.0.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 08:00:27:45:71:87 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 How I can access virtual box via public static IP from network? I'm using Oracle VM VirtualBox Manager 4.1.18 and Vagrant version 1.0.3. Thanks in advance for your feedback.

  Read the article

• Firewall issue with multiple SIP PROXY / REGISTRAR servers

  - by MikeBrom

  Hi We have a pair of Internet-facing SIP PROXY/REGISTRAR servers (for resilienced and load-balancing). When a SIP phone registers, it will be handled by one of the REGISTRAR servers (round-robin DNS) - and since this registration is renewed, the firewall port/address translation is maintained. Therefore, when a call is to be sent back to the phone the INVITE message passes successfully through the firewall. However, it is likely that the phone may register with one of the two servers, but the INVITE may come from the other. In this situation, the call fails since there is no translation in place on the firewall. Is there a feature in the SIP protocol to facilitate this? Any other ideas? As our traffic grows, we will no doubt end-up with more than two servers - so the problem will escalate. Thanks, Mike

  Read the article

• Exposing a WebServer behind a firewall without Port Forwarding

  - by pbreault

  We are deploying web applications in java using tomcat on client machines across the country. Once they are installed, we want to allow a remote access to these web applications through a central server, but we do not want our clients to have to open ports on their routers. Is there a way to tunnel the http traffic so that people connected to the central server can access the web applications that are behind a firewall ? The central server has a static ip address and we have full control over it. Right now, it is a windows box but it could be changed to a linux box if necessary. Our clients are running windows xp and up. We don't need to access the filesystem, we only want to access the web application through a browser. We have looked at reverse ssh tunneling but it shows scaling problem since every packet would have to pass through the central server.

  Read the article

• The ping response time doesn't reflect the real network response time

  - by yangchenyun

  I encountered a weird problem that the response time returned by ping is almost fixed at 98ms. Either I ping the gateway, or I ping a local host or a internet host. The response time is always around 98ms although the actual delay is obvious. However, the reverse ping (from a local machine to this host) works properly. The following is my route table and the result: route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth1 60.194.136.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 # ping the gateway ping 192.168.1.1 PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=98.7 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=97.0 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=96.0 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=94.9 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_req=5 ttl=64 time=94.0 ms ^C --- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 4004ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 94.030/96.149/98.744/1.673 ms #ping a local machine ping 192.168.1.88 PING 192.168.1.88 (192.168.1.88) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.1.88: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=98.7 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.88: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=96.9 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.88: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=96.0 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.1.88: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=95.0 ms ^C --- 192.168.1.88 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3003ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 95.003/96.696/98.786/1.428 ms #ping a internet host ping google.com PING google.com (74.125.128.139) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from hg-in-f139.1e100.net (74.125.128.139): icmp_req=1 ttl=42 time=99.8 ms 64 bytes from hg-in-f139.1e100.net (74.125.128.139): icmp_req=2 ttl=42 time=99.9 ms 64 bytes from hg-in-f139.1e100.net (74.125.128.139): icmp_req=3 ttl=42 time=99.9 ms 64 bytes from hg-in-f139.1e100.net (74.125.128.139): icmp_req=4 ttl=42 time=99.9 ms ^C64 bytes from hg-in-f139.1e100.net (74.125.128.139): icmp_req=5 ttl=42 time=99.9 ms --- google.com ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 5 received, 0% packet loss, time 32799ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 99.862/99.925/99.944/0.284 ms I am running iperf to test the bandwidth, the rate is quite low for a LAN connection. iperf -c 192.168.1.87 -t 50 -i 10 -f M ------------------------------------------------------------ Client connecting to 192.168.1.87, TCP port 5001 TCP window size: 0.06 MByte (default) ------------------------------------------------------------ [ 4] local 192.168.1.139 port 54697 connected with 192.168.1.87 port 5001 [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 6.12 MBytes 0.61 MBytes/sec [ 4] 10.0-20.0 sec 6.38 MBytes 0.64 MBytes/sec [ 4] 20.0-30.0 sec 6.38 MBytes 0.64 MBytes/sec [ 4] 30.0-40.0 sec 6.25 MBytes 0.62 MBytes/sec [ 4] 40.0-50.0 sec 6.38 MBytes 0.64 MBytes/sec [ 4] 0.0-50.1 sec 31.6 MBytes 0.63 MBytes/sec

  Read the article

• ports only available from the outside network

  - by ChrisJ

  This is a counter-intuitive problem for me. I have a new Win 2003 server on a static IP address w.x.y.z. Tomcat 7, PostgreSQL 9.1, and Subversion are installed. All of it appears to be working fine from the server itself. We can also access the Tomcat manager, web applications, and run "svn ls svn://w.x.y.z/" from outside our network. However, when I try from another machine in the office, phpPgAdmin and svn cannot establish connections with the server. http://w.x.y.z:5432/phppgadmin cannot connect. The svn command from above returns: svn: E730061: Unable to connect to a repository at URL 'svn://w.x.y.z/' svn: E730061: Can't connect to host 'w.x.y.z': No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. Tomcat manager and the other web apps we have deployed work fine. Netstat -a from the server shows this: Proto Local Address Foreign Address State TCP SERVERNAME:3690 SERVERNAME:0 LISTENING TCP SERVERNAME:5432 SERVERNAME:0 LISTENING Windows Firewall was off, but just in case I also tried to enable it and open ports 3690 (svn) and 5432 (postgres). No change. I don't have access to the router/switch because it just doesn't work that way in Port-au-Prince and our sysadmin is on R&R. Is there anything that might be causing the problem from the server side?

  Read the article

• how to setup sonicwall tz210 to port forward packets received from external ip to another external ip

  - by lplp

  i have a sonicwall tz210 on a fixed ip, say ip1. And then i have, let's say a legacy server, with external ip ip2, which sends data to ip1 (and I have another server on ip1 behind the sonicwall which receives and processes that data). I would like to set up a new server on a different external ip ip3 that will receive and process data from the legacy server. How can I setup the sonicwall so that the packets received from the legacy server (from an external ip) are port forwarded to the external ip address ip3?

  Read the article

• Vyatta internet connection + hosted site on same IP

  - by boburob

  Having a small issue setting up a vyatta. The company internet and two different websites are both on the same IP. Server 1 - Has websites hosted on ports 1000 and 3000 and also has a proxy server installed to provide internet connection to the domain Server 2 - Has a website hosted on ports 80 and 433 The vyatta is correctly natting the appropriate traffic to each server, and allowing the proxy to get internet traffic, however I have a problem getting to the websites hosted on these two servers inside the domain. I believe the problem is that the HTTP request is being sent with an IP, eg: 12.34.56.78. The request will reach the website and the server will attempt to send the request back to the IP, however this is the IP of the Vyatta, so it has nowhere else to go. I thought the solution would be something like this: rule 50 { destination { address 12.34.56.78 port 1000 } inbound-interface eth1 inside-address { address 10.19.2.3 } protocol tcp type destination } But this doesnt seem to do it! UPDATE I changed the rules to the following: rule 50 { destination { address 12.34.56.78 port 443 } outbound-interface eth1 protocol tcp source { address 10.19.2.3 } type masquerade } rule 51 { destination { address 12.34.56.78 port 443 } inbound-interface eth1 inside-address { address 10.19.2.2 } protocol tcp type destination } I am now seeing traffic going between the two with Wireshark, but the website will still fail to load.

  Read the article

• Webserver Responses Hanging

  - by drscroogemcduck

  From some networks requesting certain images on our webserver is very flakey. I've looked at tcpdumps on both sides and the server sends back part of the file and the client ACKs the TCP packet but the server never receives the ACK. The servers view: 41 19.941136 212.169.34.114 209.20.73.85 TCP 52456 > http [SYN] Seq=0 Win=8192 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=2 42 19.941136 209.20.73.85 212.169.34.114 TCP http > 52456 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=5440 Len=0 MSS=1360 46 20.041142 212.169.34.114 209.20.73.85 TCP 52456 > http [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=65280 Len=0 47 20.045142 212.169.34.114 209.20.73.85 HTTP GET /map/map/s+74-WBkWk0aR28Yy-YjXA== HTTP/1.1 48 20.045142 209.20.73.85 212.169.34.114 TCP http > 52456 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=522 Win=6432 Len=0 49 20.045142 209.20.73.85 212.169.34.114 TCP [TCP segment of a reassembled PDU] (Part of the content of the image 2720 bytes. i assume it is reassembled in tcpdump and it is fragmented over the wire.) ** never receives the ACK sent in frame 282 and will eventually resend the tcp segment ** The clients view: 274 26.161773 10.0.16.67 209.20.73.85 TCP 52456 > http [SYN] Seq=0 Win=8192 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=2 276 26.262867 209.20.73.85 10.0.16.67 TCP http > 52456 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=5440 Len=0 MSS=1360 277 26.263255 10.0.16.67 209.20.73.85 TCP 52456 > http [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=65280 Len=0 278 26.265193 10.0.16.67 209.20.73.85 HTTP GET /map/map/s+74-WBkWk0aR28Yy-YjXA== HTTP/1.1 279 26.365562 209.20.73.85 10.0.16.67 TCP http > 52456 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=522 Win=6432 Len=0 280 26.368002 209.20.73.85 10.0.16.67 TCP [TCP segment of a reassembled PDU] (Part of the content of the image. Only 1400 bytes.) 282 26.571380 10.0.16.67 209.20.73.85 TCP 52456 > http [ACK] Seq=522 Ack=1361 Win=65280 Len=0 The network we are having trouble with is NATd. Is there any kind of explanation for this weirdness?

  Read the article

• iptables and snatting to different networks

  - by codingfreak

  linuxbox (p.q.r.t) | | INTERNAL ------ ABCD ----- INTERNET (p.q.r.s) (m.n.o.k) ABCD has 3 interfaces connected to linuxbox, INTERNAL N/W, INTERNET. Linuxbox has a private address (p.q.r.t). At present I am snatting the packets from linuxbox to INTERNET at ABCD. I have a small doubt regarding the FTP from linuxbox since I have to support ftp from linuxbox to both INTERNAL N/W as well as in INTERNET. How can I right a rule in iptables present in ABCD where it can decide if the destination ip-address of ftp server is within INTERNAL N/W or in INTERNET and do natting accordingly.

  Read the article

• DIR-615 lose internet connection after 3 minutes

  - by Sirber

  I got a new DLink DIR-615 routeur. DSL model connects fine. Connected PCs connects to the internet fine (wireless, wired) fine too. After ~3 minutes, connected PCs cannot go to the internet. Web pages goes timeout, sometimes google talk stays on (working). From the router admin page, pings works correctly (on google.ca), so the connection is active. pc -- routeur -- internet: fail pc -- router: ok router -- internet: ok could it be firewall related? I've read there's a SPI firewall enabled.

  Read the article

• DIR-615 lose internet connection after 3 minutes

  - by user31375

  I got a new DLink DIR-615 routeur. DSL model connects fine. Connected PCs connects to the internet fine (wireless, wired) fine too. After ~3 minutes, connected PCs cannot go to the internet. Web pages goes timeout, sometimes google talk stays on (working). From the router admin page, pings works correctly (on google.ca), so the connection is active. pc -- routeur -- internet: fail pc -- router: ok router -- internet: ok could it be firewall related? I've read there's a SPI firewall enabled.

  Read the article

• unable to access a NAT'ed IP via a VPN on Windows 7

  - by crmpicco

  I connect to a range of servers hosted by one provider via a VPN. I can connect to the VPN fine, however when I then go and try and connect to the server(s) it fails. A NAT'ed IP address that has worked up until today, has stopped working either via SSH/SFTP. As you can see below, if I try and ping the IP then it responds with Destination host unreachable, but, for some reason it says the reply is from 192.168.0.8? If it enter this IP address in my browser, I get nothing. Where is this IP coming from and is there any good reason why I cannot access the IP I am trying to ping? C:\Users\crmpicco>ping 172.26.100.x Pinging 172.26.100.x with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.0.8: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.0.8: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.0.8: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.0.8: Destination host unreachable. Ping statistics for 172.26.100.x: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), I have the VPN remote host address of 80.75.67.x, which shows me as being connected. But i'm unsure if there is a config issue at the server side or my end that has caused this issue? I have had some recent Win7 (automatic) updates, but it's hard to tell if that's caused this problem. This is my output from arp: C:\Users\cmorton>arp -a Interface: 192.168.0.8 --- 0xe Internet Address Physical Address Type 192.168.0.1 00-18-4d-b9-68-5e dynami 192.168.0.6 00-f4-b9-68-0c-9a dynami 192.168.0.7 08-00-27-f2-9f-d6 dynami 192.168.0.255 ff-ff-ff-ff-ff-ff static 224.0.0.22 01-00-5e-00-00-16 static 224.0.0.251 01-00-5e-00-00-fb static 224.0.0.252 01-00-5e-00-00-fc static 239.255.255.250 01-00-5e-7f-ff-fa static 255.255.255.255 ff-ff-ff-ff-ff-ff static Interface: 192.168.56.1 --- 0x15 Internet Address Physical Address Type 192.168.56.255 ff-ff-ff-ff-ff-ff static 224.0.0.22 01-00-5e-00-00-16 static 224.0.0.251 01-00-5e-00-00-fb static 224.0.0.252 01-00-5e-00-00-fc static 255.255.255.255 ff-ff-ff-ff-ff-ff static

  Read the article

• How can I make my livebox route to my external IP address for a computer in the DMZ?

  - by Noli

  I have a sagem livebox 2 (Fiber optic model), and have placed my computer in a DMZ. People from outside of my network can access my comp fine via its external dyndns.org address, yet when I try to call the public dyndns.org address from inside my network, I get redirected to the internal admin site on the router. How can I make it so that I can see my comp from the public address like everyone else? What kinds of questions should I be asking or looking into? Thanks

  Read the article

• Routing application traffic through specific interface

  - by UnicornsAndRainbows

  Hello All! First question here, so please go easy: I have a debian linux 5.0 server with two public interfaces. I would like to route outbound traffic from one instance of an application via one interface and the second instance through the second interface. There are some challenges: both instances of the application use the same protocol both instances of the application can access the entire internet (can't route based on dest network) I can't change the code of the application I don't think a typical approach to load balancing all traffic is going to work well, because there are relatively few destination servers being accessed in the outbound traffic, and all traffic would really need to be distributed pretty evenly across these relatively few servers. I could probably run two virtualized servers on the box and bind each of them to a different external ip, but I'm looking for a simpler solution, maybe using iproute or iptables? Any ideas for me? Thanks in advance - and I'm happy to answer any questions.

  Read the article

• How to do port forwarding in D-link Glb802c?

  - by Manish

  I have some questions about port forwarding on my D-Link Router GLB-802C. For example: My local machine's IP is 117.1.1.81 My router's IP is 117.1.1.1 My Public (Web) IP is 117.16.1.1 My questions are: What will be my Global Address 'To'? What will be my Global Address 'From'? In Destination Port "From" and "To" what do I select in the drop down list and port no for forwarding HTTP traffic (for my website)? In Local Port, what do I select in drop down list and port no?

  Read the article

• How to do port forwarding in D-link Glb802c?

  - by Manish

  I have some questions about port forwarding on my D-Link Router GLB-802C. For example: My local machine's IP is 117.1.1.81 My router's IP is 117.1.1.1 My Public (Web) IP is 117.16.1.1 My questions are: What will be my Global Address 'To'? What will be my Global Address 'From'? In Destination Port "From" and "To" what do I select in the drop down list and port no for forwarding HTTP traffic (for my website)? In Local Port, what do I select in drop down list and port no?

  Read the article

• Juniper SSG20 IP settings for email server

  - by codemonkie

  We have 5 usable external static IP addresses leased by our ISP: .49 to .53, where .49 is assigned to the Juniper SSG20 firewall and NATed for 172.16.10.0/24 .50 is assigned to a windows box for web server and domain controller .51 is assigned to another windows box with exchange server (domain: mycompany1.com) mx record is pointing to 20x.xx.xxx.51 Currently there is a policy set for all SMTP incoming traffic addressed to .51 forward to the NATed address of the exchange server box (private IP: 172.16.10.194). We can send and receive emails for both internal and external, but the gmail is saying mails from mycomany1.com is not sent from the same IP as the mx lookup however is from 20x.xx.xxx.49: Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 20x.xx.xxx.49 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) client-ip=20x.xx.xxx.49; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 20x.xx.xxx.49 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of [email protected]) [email protected] and the mx record in global dns space as well as in the domain controller .50 for mail.mycompany1.com is set to 20x.xx.xxx.51 My attempt to resolve the above issue is to Update the mx record from 20x.xx.xxx.51 to 20x.xx.xxx.49 Create a new VIP for SMTP traffic addressed to 20x.xx.xxx.49 to forward to 172.16.10.194 After my changes incoming email stopped working, I believe it has something to do with the Juniper setting that SMTP addressed to .49 is not forwarded to 172.16.10.194 Also, I have been wondering is it mandatory to assign an external static IP address to the Juniper firewall? Any helps appreciated. TIA

  Read the article

• How to change dst ip after routing

  - by adolgarev

  How to change destination IP address after routing decision was made, i.e. in POSTROUTING chain of iptables?

  Read the article

• NATing with a single-homed machine possible?

  - by Harry

  I have the following setup: a) a single-homed machine, A, that can see the Internet. b) other machines B, C, and D that cannot see the Internet. c) A, B, C, and D can see each other. d) all machines are running either RHEL 5.3 or Fedora 16. Question: Is it possible to have B, C, and D share the Internet connection with A somehow? Note, again, that machine A does not have a second NIC installed. (The solutions that I am finding on the Net assume A to be a dual-homed system!) Also, could you please recommend a set of book(s) or online resources for a current and in-depth coverage of iptables for people with only a basic knowledge of TCP/IP?

  Read the article

• Forward request through IPTables

  - by Jeremy

  I have a server running CentOS with 50 IP addresses on it. I was looking to use it as a proxy server (not just HTTP), but can't find any examples on how to set up the IP Tables. I want to proxy into IP-X and have my request look like its coming from IP-X. I currently do this on squid, but we need to proxy more than just HTTP traffic. Here is an example of the squid config: acl users src 255.255.255.255 #Locked down IP address acl all src 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 # http access rules http_access deny !users http_access allow users http_reply_access deny !users http_reply_access allow users icp_access deny all #ip_addresses acl ip3 myip 10.1.1.3 tcp_outgoing_address 10.1.1.3 ip3 Do to IP restrictions I need access to IMAP, POP and SMTP through a proxy. I want to use the server I already pay for that has 50 IPs on it as the proxy server.

  Read the article

• Share internet connection in OSX through existing wireless network?

  - by baloo

  It's easy to share your Internet with AirPort by checking "Internet Sharing" in the system preferences, but this option asumes you want to create a new wireless network. Is there an easy way to configure Internet sharing if you want to use an already existing network? I want my laptop to use the existing wireless AP and share its internet to other clients within this network. Tried manually running natd -interface ppp0 without luck

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >