Search Results

Search found 489 results on 20 pages for 'routed'.

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

• Configure Domino to use SMTP routing and hMailServer

  - by Sébastien Lachance

  I have been trying for a couple of days to set up a Domino 8.5 server. Basically, I want everything to be run inside a local network. Right now I can send email to other user in the Domino directory without any mail address. I am pretty new to all this stuff, so maybe the answer will be really obvious. What I need to do is be able to send a mail from somewhere else to a domino user that will be redirected to his account. On the Domino server, I also have hMailServer installed on port 25. I configured Domino to use port 26. I followed those step to get where I am now. -I have set the Fully qualified Internet host name to "preview.notes". -Smtp Listener task changed to Enabled to turn on the Listener so that the server can receive messages routed via SMTP routing -Setting up SMTP routing within the local Internet domain (http://www.h2l.com/help/help85%5Fadmin.nsf/f4b82fbb75e942a6852566ac0037f284/7f9738a49efc4f58852574d500097b01?OpenDocument) -I modified the person to use the [email protected] address. -I'm using the hMailServer (which have the local "preview.local" domain name) to send mail to [email protected]. When sending mail I got an error telling that the DNS is not set up correctly. Is using the Domino Smtp server instead of hMailServer will solve the problem? I can Telnet the Domino Smtp Server.

  Read the article

• Linux/hostapd: AP can ping clients, clients can access internet, can't access www@wlan1 with more than 5-6 packets at once

  - by mhambra

  Please edit the title, can't make it sound better. -- OP. Hi all, I have a Wifi USB dongle in a PC, that serves as an AP for laptop. wlan1: 192.168.2.1, netmask 255.255.255.0, routed: route add -net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.2.1 ping 192.168.2.2 (laptop): ping was ok for lot of packets. Now, I try to access 192.168.2.1:80/myindex.html (apache) from laptop, and can see that own 1kb test page. But, trying to access 192.168.2.1:80/my.jpg, I see the following: GET /my.jpg HTTP/1.1 200 OK <jpg header, about a kilobyte> <TCP packet retransmisson> <TCP packet retransmisson> <end of stream> It seems to be a hostapd's problem (networked stuff worked fine with Ad-Hoc), but it may be also forwarding/routing problem too. What to google for? Even more strange, SSH to that host works fine.

  Read the article

• mod rewrite works fine apart from for missing directory index files

  - by j w

  I have a legacy web site hosted on Apache. It has a number of web pages sitting in the public web root and its subfolders. publicDocs/ directorywith_no_defaultfile/ some-legacy-flat-page.htm .htaccess index.php some-legacy-flat-page.htm I would like to start using Zend MVC for some of the newer pages. I have got a .htaccess mod rewrite rule working so that any request for a non-existent file is sent to be handled by the MVC bootstrap file (/index.php). With my current set-up, the following types of requests are routed to '/index.php', the MVC bootstrap: /index.php /blah /directorywith_no_defaultfile/bloo The following types of request are served by old legacy (flat) pages /some-legacy-flat-page.htm /directorywith_no_defaultfile/some-legacy-flat-page.htm But, when I a request a non-existent file that is a directory like these: /directorywith_no_defaultfile or /directorywith_no_defaultfile/ I get an error: Forbidden You don't have permission to access /directorywith_no_defaultfile/ on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. I suspect this may have something to do with the way Apache handles default files. Do you know which Apache directives could be causing this?

  Read the article

• How does Tunlr work?

  - by gravyface

  For those of you not in the US, Tunlr uses DNS witchcraft to allow you to access US-only (and UK-only stuff like BBC radio online) services and Websites like Hulu.com, etc. without using traditional methods like a VPN or Web proxy. From their FAQ: Tunlr does not provide a virtual private network (VPN). Tunlr is a DNS (domain name system) unblocking service. We’re using sophisticated technologies (a.k.a. the Tunlr Secret Sauce ©) to re-adress certain data envelopes, tricking the receiver into thinking the envelope originated from within the U.S. For these data envelopes, Tunlr is transparently creating a network tunnel from your location to our U.S.-based servers. Any data that’s not directly related to the video or music content providers which Tunlr supports is not only left untouched, it’s also not even routed through Tunlr. In order to use Tunlr, you will have to change the DNS address. See Get started for more information. I can't really wrap my head around how this works; I have always assumed that these services performed a geolocation lookup via your client IP. Just really curious as to how this works. EDIT 2 I believe they're only proxying the initial geo check and then modifying the data stream request to include your real IP address so that the streaming is direct, not proxied.

  Read the article

• Route all wlan0 traffic over tun0

  - by Tuinslak

  I'm looking for a way to route all wlan0 traffic (tcp and udp) over tun0 (openvpn). However, all other traffic originating from the device itself should not be routed through tun0. I'm guessing this could be realized using iptables or route, but none of my options seem to work. # route add -net 0.0.0.0 gw 172.27.0.1 dev wlan0 SIOCADDRT: No such process Info: This is because the VPN server is not redundant, and wlan users are not really important. However, all services running on the device are fairly important and having a VPN virtual machine with no SLA on it is just a bad idea. Trying to minimize the odds of something going wrong. So setting the VPN server as default gateway is not really an option. I also want all wlan0 user to use the VPN server's IP address as external IP. Edit with the script provided: root@ft-genesi-xxx ~ # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 172.27.0.17 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.13.37.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 wlan0 172.27.0.0 172.27.0.17 255.255.192.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 root@ft-genesi-xxx ~ # ./test.sh RTNETLINK answers: No such process root@ft-genesi-xxx ~ # cat test.sh #!/bin/sh IP=/sbin/ip # replace with the range of your wlan network, or use fwmark instead ${IP} rule add from 10.13.37.0/24 table from-wlan ${IP} route add default dev tun0 via 127.72.0.1 table from-wlan ${IP} route add 10.13.37.0/24 dev wlan0 table from-wlan

  Read the article

• Find slow network nodes between two data centers

  - by 2called-chaos

  I've got a problem with syncing big amount of data between two data centers. Both machines have got a gigabit connection and are not fully occupied but the fastest that I am able to get is something between 6 and 10 Mbit = not acceptable! Yesterday I made some traceroute which indicates huge load on a LEVEL3 router but the problem exists for weeks now and the high response time is gone (20ms instead of 300ms). How can I trace this to find the actual slow node? Thought about a traceroute with bigger packages but will this work? In addition this problem might not be related to one of our servers as there are much higher transmission rates to other servers or clients. Actually office = server is faster than server <= server! Any idea is appreciated ;) Update We actually use rsync over ssh to copy the files. As encryption tends to have more bottlenecks I tried a HTTP request but unfortunately it is just as slow. We have a SLA with one of the data centers. They said they already tried to change the routing because they say this is related to a cheap network where the traffic gets routed through. It is true that it will route through a "cheapnet" but only the other way around. Our direction goes through LEVEL3 and the other way goes through lambdanet (which they said is not a good network). If I got it right (I'm a network intermediate) they simulated a longer path to force routing through LEVEL3 and they announce LEVEL3 in the AS path. I basically want to know if they're right or they're just trying to abdicate their responsibility. The thing is that the problem exists in both directions (while different routes), so I think it is in the responsibility of our hoster. And honestly, I don't believe that there is a DC2DC connection which only can handle 600kb/s - 1,5 MB/s for weeks! The question is how to detect WHERE this bottleneck is

  Read the article

• Route return traffic to correct gateway depending on service

  - by Marnix van Valen

  On my office network I have two internet connections and one CentOS server running a website (HTTPS on port 443). The website should be publicly accessible through the public IP of the first internet connection (ISP-1). The other internet connection, ISP-2, id the default gateway on the network. Both internet connections have routers (the household-kind) with NAT, SPI firewalls etc. The router on ISP-2 is a Netgear WNDR3700 (aka N600) with original firmware. The problem is that the website is unreachable. Looks like incoming traffic on ISP-1 will reach the server but the returning traffic is routed through ISP-2, effectively making the site unreachable. As far as I can tell I can't do port based routing on the WNDR3700. What are my options to make this work? I've been looking at implementing an iptables / routing based solution on the server itself but haven't been able to make that work. Update: Note that the server has one network interface connecting it to both routers.

  Read the article

• Access server using IP on another interface

  - by Markos

  I am using Windows Server 2012 instead of a router for my home network. Currently I am using RRAS and computers from local network can access Internet correctly. Here is a map of the current setup: [PC1] ---| |---- (lan ip)[Server](wan ip)--> internet [PC2] ---| I have applications running on Server, such as IIS and others. All can be accessed from internet using wan ip and from lan using lan ip. I have a domain, lets say its my-domain.com, which is resolved to my wan ip. What I want is to enable my LAN computers to be able to connect to services on my server using the very same address as internet users: eg http://my-domain.com/. However this does not work for my lan computers. What I understand is that I need to set up some kind of loopback route in a way that packets comming to LAN interface get routed to WAN interface. But I haven't found how to achieve this (in fact, I don't know WHAT to search for). Feel free to ask for additional informations and I will try to update the question.

  Read the article

• which virtualization technology is right for me?

  - by Chris

  I need a little help with this getting this sorted out. I want to setup a linux virtual server that I can use to run both sever and desktop systems. I want a linux system that is minimalist in nature as all the main os will be doing is acting as a hypervisor. The system I'm trying to setup will be running a file server, windows 7, ubuntu 10.04, windows xp and a firewall/gateway security system. All the client OS'es accessing and storing files on the file server. Also all network traffic will be routed through the gateway guest os. The file sever will need direct disk access while the other guests can run one disk images. All of this will be running on the same computer so I wont be romoting in to access the guests OS'es. Also if possible I would like to be able to use my triple head setup in the guest OS'es. I've looked at Xen, kvm and virtualbox but I don't know which is the best for me. I'm really debating between kvm and virtual box as kvm seem to support direct hardware access.

  Read the article

• Configuring IE to resolve DNS at the proxy rather than locally.

  - by dankilman

  With the intention of tunneling web traffic through an SSH connection, the following has been done: I've manually configured a PAC file in IE7 in the LAN Settings dialog. I've verified that traffic is routed through my SSH tunnel that is setup for SOCKS5 dynamic port forwarding. I see that IE7 is always trying to resolve the name locally first. What I'm looking for is the ability to have the DNS name resolved at the proxy, rather than locally by the browser. There's a setting in Firefox that specifies DNS remote resolution, and Safari does it automatically. I've verified correct operation for these 2 other browsers. It would be nice if I could get IE to work also. This is for reference so you could understand where does the question originate from. Notice: The question was actually found by the help of google but with no answers available. Considering how it is exactly my question I figured I should just copy/paste over here because I don't think I could describe any better (there is a small introduction though).

  Read the article

• pptp server 2003 hands out gateway from nic not dhcp server

  - by Pete

  I have created a pptp RRAS server for a handful of clients to connect to. I would like them to use the servers default gateway (.1) for internet access. They are able to successfully connect (& see LAN) but it then cuts them off the internet. I understand that all internet traffic would be routed through the pptp server but that's ok since I have enough pipe. The problem seems to be that: the clients gateway shows as their assigned RAS ip. The clients assigned DNS settings seem to be what is set to the servers nic not what I have specified in dhcp (which is the same server). DHCP relay agent properties points to the nic DHCP is running on (192.168.100.163). .1 is gateway in nic hw properties & dhcp. I have different dns secondary & third entries on my nic properties than what dhcp is configured for. The problem is that I have a 10.10.1.x network that people can not see if they uncheck the gateway option but, they are then unable to see our other hosted sites on the internet.

  Read the article

• Nginx order of servers

  - by scrat

  I have 3 sites on my server. All are running on gunicorn and use unix sockets to communicate with nginx which routes requests. I got three records in nginx.conf like: server { listen 80; server_name site1.com; location / { proxy_pass http://unix:/tmp/site1.sock; proxy_redirect off; proxy_set_header Host $host; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; } } For site1, site2, site3. If they are ordered as config for site1 goes first, and then goes config for site2 and site3 everything works good. But when I change the order for example to site2, site1, site3, then site1 becomes routed to site2. What am I doing wrong? Full server nginx.conf before servers configs: user www-data; worker_processes 4; pid /var/run/nginx.pid; events { worker_connections 768; # multi_accept on; } http { ## # Basic Settings ## sendfile on; tcp_nopush on; tcp_nodelay on; keepalive_timeout 65; types_hash_max_size 2048; include /etc/nginx/mime.types; default_type application/octet-stream; ## # Logging Settings ## access_log /var/log/nginx/access.log; error_log /var/log/nginx/error.log; ## # Gzip Settings ## gzip on; gzip_types text/css application/x-javascript text/x-component text/richtext image/svg+xml text/plain text/xsd text/xsl text/xml image/x-icon;

  Read the article

• How can I setup OpenVPN with IPv4 and IPv6 using a tap device?

  - by Lekensteyn

  I've managed to setup OpenVPN for full IPv4 connectivity using tap0. Now I want to do the same for IPv6. Addresses and network setup (note that my real prefix is replaced by 2001:db8): 2001:db8::100:0:0/96 my assigned IPv6 range 2001:db8::100:abc:0/112 OpenVPN IPv6 range 2001:db8::100:abc:1 tap0 (on server) (set as gateway on client) 2001:db8::100:abc:2 tap0 (on client) 2001:db8::1:2:3:4 gateway for server Home laptop (tap0: 2001:db8::100:abc:2/112 gateway 2001:db8::100:abc:1/112) | | | (running Kubuntu 10.10; OpenVPN 2.1.0-3ubuntu1) | wifi | | router | | OpenVPN INTERNET | eth0 | /tap0 VPS (eth0:2001:db8::1:2:3:4/64 gateway 2001:db8::1) (tap0: 2001:db8::100:abc:1/112) (running Debian 6; OpenVPN 2.1.3-2) The server has both native IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, the client has only IPv4. I can ping6 to and from my server over OpenVPN, but not to other machines (for example, ipv6.google.com). net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding is set to 1, I've tried disabling net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra as well, without luck. Using tcpdump on both the server and client, I can see that packets are actually transferred over tap0 to eth0. The router (2001:db8::1) send a neighbor solicitation for the client (2001:db8::100:abc:2) to eth0 after it receives the ICMP6 echo-request. The server does not respond to that solicitation, which causes the ICMP6 echo-request not be routed to the destination. How can I make this IPv6 connection work?

  Read the article

• How can I make IPv6 on OpenVPN work using a tap device?

  - by Lekensteyn

  I've managed to setup OpenVPN for full IPv4 connectivity using tap0. Now I want to do the same for IPv6. Addresses and network setup (note that my real prefix is replaced by 2001:db8): 2001:db8::100:0:0/96 my assigned IPv6 range 2001:db8::100:abc:0/112 OpenVPN IPv6 range 2001:db8::100:abc:1 tap0 server side (set as gateway on client) 2001:db8::100:abc:2 tap0 client side 2001:db8::1:2:3:4 gateway for server Home laptop (tap0: 2001:db8::100:abc:2/112 gateway 2001:db8::100:abc:1/112) | | | (running Kubuntu 10.10; OpenVPN 2.1.0-3ubuntu1) | wifi | | router | | OpenVPN INTERNET | eth0 | /tap0 VPS (eth0:2001:db8::1:2:3:4/64 gateway 2001:db8::1) (tap0: 2001:db8::100:abc:1/112) (running Debian 6; OpenVPN 2.1.3-2) The server has both native IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, the client has only IPv4. I can ping6 to and from my server over OpenVPN, but not to other machines (for example, ipv6.google.com). Using tcpdump on both the server and client, I can see that packets are actually transferred over tap0 to eth0. The router (2001:db8::1) send a neighbor solicitation for the client (2001:db8::100:abc:2) to eth0 after it receives the ICMP6 echo-request. The server does not respond to that solicitation, which causes the ICMP6 echo-request not be routed to the destination. How can I make this IPv6 connection work?

  Read the article

• Access server using IP on another interface

  - by Markos

  I am using Windows Server 2012 instead of a router for my home network. Currently I am using RRAS and computers from local network can access Internet correctly. Here is a map of the current setup: [PC1] ---| |---- (lan ip)[Server](wan ip)--> internet [PC2] ---| I have applications running on Server, such as IIS and others. All can be accessed from internet using wan ip and from lan using lan ip. I have a domain, lets say its my-domain.com, which is resolved to my wan ip. What I want is to enable my LAN computers to be able to connect to services on my server using the very same address as internet users: eg http://my-domain.com/. However this does not work for my lan computers. What I understand is that I need to set up some kind of loopback route in a way that packets comming to LAN interface get routed to WAN interface. But I haven't found how to achieve this (in fact, I don't know WHAT to search for). Feel free to ask for additional informations and I will try to update the question.

  Read the article

• How to route broadcast packets from machine with two network interfaces on same subnet

  - by Syam

  I run RHEL 5 and have two NICs on one machine connected to the same subnet: eth0 192.168.100.10 eth1 192.168.100.11 My application needs to receive and transmit UDP packets (both unicast & broadcast) via these interfaces. I've found the way to handle the ARP problem and I've added routes to handle the routing problem: ip rule add from 192.168.100.10 lookup 10 ip route add table 10 default src 192.168.100.10 dev eth0 (and similarly, table 11 for eth1) The problem is that only unicast packets gets routed properly. Broadcast packets always go out through eth0. I tried removing the rule for 192.168.100.0 & 192.168.100.255 from table 255 and adding them to my tables. But then I see ARP requests being given out for packets to 192.168.100.255 (obviously, no nodes respond and nobody gets any data). Due to several techno-political issues, I'm stuck with this configuration and can't change subnets or try something different. I've tried SO_BINDTODEVICE and it works, but I'd prefer a solution that doesn't need my application to run as root. Is there a way to get this working? Any help is highly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Routing public IPs (each a /32) through a VPN to another server

  - by Lee S

  Hopefully the title makes sense; I have a server currently in a colo facility, with many IP addresses routed to it. They are individual IPs and not in a contiguous block. Due to vastly improved connectivity (fibre) at home I am slowly bringing my infrastructure in-house for managability and eventually, cost savings. What I would like to do though is use the IP addresses allocated to my existing server, at home. I have an IP block allocated to me on my new ISP connection, but for a couple of reasons I'd like to make use of the colo ones for now: Ease of transition - lots of domains, dns, hard-coded IPs in programs, etc. Connectivity fallback. If my primary line goes down and switches to fallback 1 (dsl) or fallback 2 (4G), I lose access to the ISP-allocated IP block of IPs that are only presented on the primary WAN interface. What I'd like to achieve is my home virtualisation server (Proxmox/Debian-based) "dials in" to the colo server in the colo facility (also Proxmox/Debian) via VPN or similar, and gets to make use of the IP addresses that currently terminate on the colo box. If the primary connection to my ISP goes down and one of the fallback routes kicks in, the VPN tunnel will just time out and then be re-established on the backup connection instead. I'm sure this is doable, but I have no idea how. I'm not afraid to get my hands dirty, I just don't really know where to start?

  Read the article

• Faster, secure, protocol/code required for long-distance transfer.

  - by Chopper3

  I've ran into a problem and I'm looking for a new secure protocol/client/server that's faster over a 1Gb/s fibre link - let me tell you the story... I have a pair of redundant, diversely-routed, 1Gb/s links over a distance of around 250 miles or so (not dark fibre but a dedicated point to point link, not a mesh). At the 'client' end I have a HP DL380 G5 (2 x dual-core 2.66Ghz Xeon's, 4GB, Windows 2003EE 32-bit), at the 'server' end I have a HP BL460c G6 (2 x quad-core 2.53Ghz Xeons, 48GB, Oracle Linux 5.3 64-bit). I need to transfer around 500 x 2GB files per week from the client to the server machines per week - but the transfer NEEDS to be secure. Using both iPerf or regular FTP I can get ~80MB/s of transfer pretty consistently, which is great. Using WinSCP or Windows SFTP I can't seem to get more that ~3-4MB/s, at this point the server's CPU is 3% busy while CPU0 of the client goes to ~30% utilised. We've tried editing various TCP window sizes with little success. Both ends are connected to quite low-usage Cisco Cat6509's with Sup720's. I can replace the client machine with a newer machine and/or move it to Linux - but this will take time. Clearly these single-threaded secure Windows clients are introducing too much latency doing their encryption. So a few questions/thoughts; Are there any higher performing secure protocols or client software for Windows that I could try? I'm pretty protocol-gnostic so long as it'll work between Windows and Linux. Should I be using hardware to do the encryption, either in the client or the network parts? If so what would you recommend? I'm not convinced that just swapping the server would be that much faster, the CPU was only at 30% but then again that's higher than I'd have expected given the load - moving to Linux at the client end may be a better idea but would be quite disruptive. Am I missing a trick? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• .htaccess with godaddy not working in subdomain

  - by explorex

  Hi, i have a site uploaded to shared subdomain (which is inside a folder). and htaccess is not working. please get details from here. EDIT::copied from stack overflow Hi, i uploaded as website to a subdomain, and every page is not working except the front page please check it here. what could be the possible reason? i shoud have 8 pages in front level and many more on admin level but i am getting 404 error as you can see, does anyone has idea or suggestion? UPDATE:: .htaccess file RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} -s [OR] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} -l [OR] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} -d RewriteRule ^.*$ - [NC,L] RewriteRule ^.*$ index.php [NC,L] UPDATE to url rounting i do have few url router like below BUT i dont have any default router $router->addRoute( 'get-destination', new Zend_Controller_Router_Route('destination/get/:id/:dest-name', array( 'controller' => 'destination', 'action' => 'get', 'id' => 'id', 'dest-name' => 'dest-name' )) ); just to make look cooler and on my navigation (which is loaded from xml i have) something like <nav> <home> <label>HOME</label> <controller>index</controller> <action>index</action> <route>default</route> </home> since i was getting url problem from where url was routed and please check phpinfo at http://websmartus.com/demo/globaltours/public_html/phpinfo.php

  Read the article

• Internet setup for my office

  - by prakash

  We have two internet connections to our office and our current setup is like this.. The internet connections require pppoe log in so i take each cable and plug it into a wifi router and configure the router to log in to the pppoe and then plug in a cable from the router to a switch and distribute the internet throughout my office. The problem with this setup is it is really hard to monitor and im not able to monitor who is hogging internet usage and what he or she is actually using it for. apart from this we also have a nas setup which is routed through another switch . Could someone please throw a little light on how i can restructure this setup for easy monitoring and better transparency... ? each wan router is connected to a different switch and is distributed to users accordingly.. we have around 40 users in the office.. we want to setup a single linux box to which i want to connect the two wan connections and from there distribute it to all our users.... im looking for a solution where we do not have to invest more that buying a single pc and a couple of nics

  Read the article

• Managed LAMP platform for maximizing availability and global reach, not scalability

  - by user66819

  Assume a Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP application for a small base of registered users. With small userbase, there are no traffic peaks so the scalability that cloud platforms offer is not imperative. But the system is mission-critical, so availability is the primary goal. Users are also distributed across Asia, Europe, and US, so multiple server locations that minimize users' network hops would be highly desirable. The dream: a managed VPS platform where we would configure a single server (uploading PHP and other files, manipulating database, etc.), and the platform would automatically mirror the server in a handful of key places around the world (say one on each US coast, one in Europe, one in east Asia). File system synchronization and MySQL replication would happen automatically. Core operating system is managed, so we don't need to do full system administration and security, and low-level backups are also done by service provider, though we also do our own backups as well. Couple this with some sort of DNS geo-detection, so users are routed to the nearest operational server... with support for https, of course. Does such a dream exist? If not, what are some approaches to accomplish the same end with minimal time investment and minimal monthly hosting costs?

  Read the article

• SSH not working through Double NAT

  - by d_inevitable

  I am trying to setup port forwarding for ssh through 2 NATs The first Router translates my internet IP to my outer network (10.1.7.0). In the outer network there's a second Router that does NAT to my inner network (192.168.1.0). The target server is connected to both, the outer network and the inner network. I cannot change the port forwarding options for outer router. It is currently configured to forward the SSH and HTTP port to the router for the inner network. Internet + | v +-----------------+ +------------------+ | Outer Router | | Inner Router | |-----------------| |------------------| | | SSH HTTP | | +----+ +--------------------->| | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------+---------+ +------+---------+-+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +------------------+ | SSH | | | | Server | | | | | |------------------| | | | +-----------> |<-------+ | | | | |HTTP (testing) | +------------------+ | | | +------v------------------+ | | Outer Workstation | +-------------------+ | |-------------------------| | Inner Workstation| | | | |-------------------| | | | | |<----------------+ +-------------------------+ | | +-------------------+ When connecting from a outer workstation to the address of the inner router, then both SSH and HTTP work fine. When connecting from the internet to my public ip with HTTP, the connection works fine as well. However SSH just times out. Most likely because the reply is not routed back properly. I suspect its either because of the SSH itself, or because the server is connected to both, the inner and outer network. Any ideas how I could resolve this issue? The routes on the server are currently: ip route show default via 10.1.7.254 dev eth0 metric 100 10.1.7.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.7.1 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.2 Do I have to change this? If so how?

  Read the article

• Combat server downtime by duplicating server and re-routing when main server is down

  - by Wasim

  I have a CentOS server which at times either crashes or gets attacked with DDOS. At the moment I have an off site backup which is filled up with 1.7TB of data. I'm currently paying as much for the backup as I am for the server and I was looking for advice from experienced people as to what option is best to proceed from here. Would it be a viable solution to ditch the offsite backup, and instead purchase an additional server which is an exact duplication of the first server. So if the first server is down, users are re-routed to the second server without noticing the first server is even down. This would create an automatic backup of the first server (albeit not offsite) and relinquish the need for the expensive offsite backup. Is the above solution a true solution to pricey backup or is offsite backup absolutely necessary? How would I go about doing this (obviously it's pretty complex so just links to some reading material or the terminology of the procedure would be great)? Appreciate the help and advice.

  Read the article

• Exim, hot to route local mail to other adress

  - by kheraud

  I have setuped an Exim4 server on my debian wheezy server. This mail server only sends mail coming from localhost. The purpose is sending mail for my website. I have cron tasks and other services generating mails for root user. These mails are not stored in /var/mail as before, but sent by exim to [email protected]. I try to make exim send mails for root to [email protected] rather than [email protected]. I tried adding a .forward in /root with [email protected] as content. I tried also changing /etc/aliases with root: [email protected]. The fact is that routing works for root@localhost but not for root which is resolved as [email protected] I tested how routing is resolved with exim -bt : root@srv02:~# exim -bt root@localhost R: system_aliases for root@localhost R: dnslookup for [email protected] [email protected] <-- root@localhost router = dnslookup, transport = remote_smtp host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [173.194.67.27] MX=5 host alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [74.125.143.27] MX=10 host alt2.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [74.125.25.27] MX=20 host alt3.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [173.194.64.27] MX=30 host alt4.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [74.125.142.27] MX=40 root@srv02:~# exim -bt root R: dnslookup for [email protected] [email protected] router = dnslookup, transport = remote_smtp host aspmx.l.google.com [173.194.78.27] MX=1 host alt1.aspmx.l.google.com [74.125.143.27] MX=5 host alt2.aspmx.l.google.com [74.125.25.27] MX=5 host alt4.aspmx.l.google.com [74.125.142.27] MX=10 host alt3.aspmx.l.google.com [173.194.64.27] MX=10 I bet this is a matter of how my server is configured (rather than how exim is configured). But to understand well I would like to have a solution for both : how to have root resolved as root@localhost ? how to have [email protected] routed to [email protected] ?

  Read the article

• Small maximum number of connections on a Linux router

  - by Eugene

  I have a Linux box acting as a router with no iptables or other firewall and no networking applications running on it, just pure router. I've put it in a test environment that generates many TCP connections, each having unique source and destination IP, and those connections go through this router. I'm observing that number of connections successfully created rise to approximately 500 and then no more connections can be created for several minutes, then another 100 connections can be created and there is another pause, and so on. If 10 connections for each source-destination pair are created, then maximum numbers go about 10 times up, so the problem is probably with many connections from different IPs. As traffic is simply routed, it doesn't have to do with number of file descriptors, iptables connection tracking and other things often proposed to check in similar cases. The box has plenty of free RAM and CPU, both NICs are gigabit. The kernel is 2.6.32. I've already tried increasing net.core.*mem_max, net.core.netdev_max_backlog and txqueuelen on both NICs, with completely no effect. What else should I check ? Is there some rate-limit in the kernel itself ?

  Read the article

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