Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 14/50 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Open ports broken from internal network

    - by ksvi
    Quick summary: Forwarded port works from the outside world, but from the internal network using the external IP the connection is refused. This is a simplified situation to make the explanation easier: I have a computer that is running a service on port 12345. This computer has an internal IP 192.168.1.100 and is connected directly to a modem/router which has internal IP 192.168.1.1 and external (public, static) IP 1.2.3.4. (The router is TP-LINK TD-w8960N) I have set up port forwarding (virtual server) at port 12345 to go to port 12345 at 192.168.1.100. If I run telnet 192.168.1.100 12345 from the same computer everything works. But running telnet 1.2.3.4 12345 says connection refused. If I do this on another computer (on the same internal network, connected to the router) the same thing happens. This would seem like the port forwarding is not working. However... If I run a online port checking service on my external IP and the service port it says the port is open and I can see the remote server connecting and immediately closing connection. And using another computer that is connected to the internet using a mobile connection I can also use telnet 1.2.3.4 12345 and I get a working connection. So the port forwarding seems to be working, however using external IP from the internal network doesn't. I have no idea what can be causing this, since another setup very much like this (different router) works for me. I can access a service running on a server from inside the network both through the internal and external IP.

    Read the article

  • Bridging and iptables SNAT conflict

    - by sad_admin
    Hello I am working on a setup here and have it working with one minor exception. Devices on one side of my bridge aren't getting SNAT'd to the Internet. The Diagram / Overview: Primary_Network (Site_A) | | Internet ------- Linux_Bridge_GW (GW) | | Secondary/CoLo Site (Site_B) Here is the setup: 1.) Site_A has all the production servers and workstations. 2.) Site_B has a set of servers that we would like to fail-over to and also serve our internet facing services from. 3.) GW has two interfaces that are trunked and carrying the appropriate VLAN traffic (allow layer-2 propagation of traffic between sites) //this all works perfectly fine. 4.) The problem that is being encountered is, hosts from Site_B have their default GW at Site_A (same subnet) GW does not have IPs on the VLANs that are being passed. 5.) All hosts at Site_A can reach the Internet without problem. 6.) GW has an addresses on a subnet that is ONLY for Internet destined traffic. (This was done so that Websense would not have to parse unnecessary traffic. We use this VLAN as the monitor port's source on the switch where Websense is sitting). What I think is happening: 1.) Packet/Frame comes in on physdev at Site_B destined for Internet. 2.) Kernel sees packet, and forwards it out the other side of the bridge to that host's default GW. 3.) Site_A (containing core-network's Default-GW) sees that packet is destined for a host it doesn't know about, so it sends it to it's default GW (the linux bridge, since it's Internet bound). 4.) The kernel says "Hey, I've seen you before" and therefore doesn't do SNAT'ing on the packet and sends it out to the Internet where it's black-holed. Why I think it's happening: 1.) A tcpdump on the internet facing NIC shows the packet leaving the interface with the private address as it's source. What I would like: 1.) Have the packet SNAT'd. 2.) Something like the below would be awesome a.) packet comes in from Site_B b.) kernel sees that the packet is NOT destined for itself or any private address c.) kernel says "OK, well since you're destined for the Internet I'm going to send you out this interface rather than forward you to your normal default GW that's WAAAY over there." d.) packet comes in from internet and is sent out the appropriate bridge physdev depending on which site the host it's destined for is at. Thanks for any assistance or guidance that you are willing to offer. Best Regards, Sad Admin

    Read the article

  • Routing DHCP traffic over the internet

    - by rmanna
    i'd like to know if it's possible for the internet to be between a DHCP server and the network it's "assigned" to? so basically, something like this: -------------- ------------- ------------- | DHCP Server | | DHCP | | Clients | | |-----Internet-----| Relay Agent |------| 192.168.0.* | | | | 192.168.0.1 | | | -------------- ------------- ------------- the behavior i'm seeing is that the DHCP server is offering 192.168.0.* IPs and sending them back to 192.168.0.1, which it can't reach. i tried masquerading the packets sent by the relay agent but that doesn't seem to work. from what i've been reading, this is normal behavior since the DHCP server uses the GIADDR as the destination address for its OFFERs, and not the actual source IP of the packets it receives from the relay agent. sooo, given that my DHCP server needs to be "on the other side of the internet" as depicted above, how can i get this working? are there settings for dhcpd to do this or is creating a VPN containing the DHCP server and the relay agent the only way? thanks!

    Read the article

  • Configure clients to navigate through specific wan. Pfsense

    - by leandronn
    I have a machine with a pfsense running. It is configured with three ethernet cards. LAN 192.168.2.1/21 WAN1 200.41.X.2/24 WAN2 200.41.X.3/24 ISP Gateway 200.41.X.1 This is a connection with 5 different IP addresses. WAN1 and WAN2 are directly connected to my ISP router. I need a way to configure some clients navigating through WAN1 and some through WAN2. I am new to pfsense so, please, if you can send me some examples to do this. I can add two squids if it is necessary. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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