Search Results

Search found 11906 results on 477 pages for 'ip restrictions'.

Page 15/477 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • Private IP getting routed over Internet

    - by WernerCD
    We are setting up an internal program, on an internal server that uses the private 172.30.x.x subnet... when we ping the address 172.30.138.2, it routes across the internet: C:\>tracert 172.30.138.2 Tracing route to 172.30.138.2 over a maximum of 30 hops 1 6 ms 1 ms 1 ms xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.org [192.168.28.1] 2 * * * Request timed out. 3 12 ms 13 ms 9 ms xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxx.xx.xxx.xxxxxxx.net [68.85.xx.xx] 4 15 ms 11 ms 55 ms te-7-3-ar01.salisbury.md.bad.comcast.net [68.87.xx.xx] 5 13 ms 14 ms 18 ms xe-11-0-3-0-ar04.capitolhghts.md.bad.comcast.net [68.85.xx.xx] 6 19 ms 18 ms 14 ms te-1-0-0-4-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.xx.xx] 7 28 ms 30 ms 30 ms pos-4-12-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.xx.xx] 8 30 ms 43 ms 30 ms 68.86.xx.xx 9 30 ms 29 ms 31 ms 172.30.138.2 Trace complete. This has a number of us confused. If we had a VPN setup, it wouldn't show up as being routed across the internet. If it hit an internet server, Private IP's (such as 192.168) shouldn't get routed. What would let a private IP address get routed across servers? would the fact that it's all comcast mean that they have their routers setup wrong?

    Read the article

  • Two network interfaces and two IP addresses on the same subnet in Linux

    - by Scott Duckworth
    I recently ran into a situation where I needed two IP addresses on the same subnet assigned to one Linux host so that we could run two SSL/TLS sites. My first approach was to use IP aliasing, e.g. using eth0:0, eth0:1, etc, but our network admins have some fairly strict settings in place for security that squashed this idea: They use DHCP snooping and normally don't allow static IP addresses. Static addressing is accomplished by using static DHCP entries, so the same MAC address always gets the same IP assignment. This feature can be disabled per switchport if you ask and you have a reason for it (thankfully I have a good relationship with the network guys and this isn't hard to do). With the DHCP snooping disabled on the switchport, they had to put in a rule on the switch that said MAC address X is allowed to have IP address Y. Unfortunately this had the side effect of also saying that MAC address X is ONLY allowed to have IP address Y. IP aliasing required that MAC address X was assigned two IP addresses, so this didn't work. There may have been a way around these issues on the switch configuration, but in an attempt to preserve good relations with the network admins I tried to find another way. Having two network interfaces seemed like the next logical step. Thankfully this Linux system is a virtual machine, so I was able to easily add a second network interface (without rebooting, I might add - pretty cool). A few keystrokes later I had two network interfaces up and running and both pulled IP addresses from DHCP. But then the problem came in: the network admins could see (on the switch) the ARP entry for both interfaces, but only the first network interface that I brought up would respond to pings or any sort of TCP or UDP traffic. After lots of digging and poking, here's what I came up with. It seems to work, but it also seems to be a lot of work for something that seems like it should be simple. Any alternate ideas out there? Step 1: Enable ARP filtering on all interfaces: # sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_filter=1 # echo "net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_filter = 1" >> /etc/sysctl.conf From the file networking/ip-sysctl.txt in the Linux kernel docs: arp_filter - BOOLEAN 1 - Allows you to have multiple network interfaces on the same subnet, and have the ARPs for each interface be answered based on whether or not the kernel would route a packet from the ARP'd IP out that interface (therefore you must use source based routing for this to work). In other words it allows control of which cards (usually 1) will respond to an arp request. 0 - (default) The kernel can respond to arp requests with addresses from other interfaces. This may seem wrong but it usually makes sense, because it increases the chance of successful communication. IP addresses are owned by the complete host on Linux, not by particular interfaces. Only for more complex setups like load- balancing, does this behaviour cause problems. arp_filter for the interface will be enabled if at least one of conf/{all,interface}/arp_filter is set to TRUE, it will be disabled otherwise Step 2: Implement source-based routing I basically just followed directions from http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html, although that page was written with a different goal in mind (dealing with two ISPs). Assume that the subnet is 10.0.0.0/24, the gateway is 10.0.0.1, the IP address for eth0 is 10.0.0.100, and the IP address for eth1 is 10.0.0.101. Define two new routing tables named eth0 and eth1 in /etc/iproute2/rt_tables: ... top of file omitted ... 1 eth0 2 eth1 Define the routes for these two tables: # ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 table eth0 # ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 table eth1 # ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 dev eth0 src 10.0.0.100 table eth0 # ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 src 10.0.0.101 table eth1 Define the rules for when to use the new routing tables: # ip rule add from 10.0.0.100 table eth0 # ip rule add from 10.0.0.101 table eth1 The main routing table was already taken care of by DHCP (and it's not even clear that its strictly necessary in this case), but it basically equates to this: # ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 dev eth0 # ip route add 130.127.48.0/23 dev eth0 src 10.0.0.100 # ip route add 130.127.48.0/23 dev eth1 src 10.0.0.101 And voila! Everything seems to work just fine. Sending pings to both IP addresses works fine. Sending pings from this system to other systems and forcing the ping to use a specific interface works fine (ping -I eth0 10.0.0.1, ping -I eth1 10.0.0.1). And most importantly, all TCP and UDP traffic to/from either IP address works as expected. So again, my question is: is there a better way to do this? This seems like a lot of work for a seemingly simple problem.

    Read the article

  • How can I change the location of my ip address to Orlando, FL from other city where I live and using forum/chat-room? [on hold]

    - by MSEUCF
    I live in West Palm Beach, Florida. However, I am attending to school at University of Center Florida for materials science and engineering. Right now, I am on vacation and live in WPB, FL. There is one certainly problem when I login at private forum I'm getting error for not same the ip-address so I had to make new account with false information in city and still unable to success. Of course, it won't do that due to policy from forum required the ip-address has to be same in Orlando, FL. local only. How can I change the location of my ip address to Orlando? Also, in chat-room from forum it would show my ip-address so I'd be in trouble if they find out that I am not live in Orlando. Please help with me. Tell me how to change ip adress step and step. Thank you. *I use AT&T and Belkin Router Wifi. Forgiven me for my English is not very well. ESL. I am a foreign student.

    Read the article

  • Calculating and billing IP multicast usage on the Internet

    - by obvio171
    I've been searching for the reasons why IP multicast isn't widely supported on the Public Internet, and a commonly-cited reason is the difficulty ISPs have in tracking Multicast usage for later billing. Given this difficulty, since ISPs control the routers and they're not forced to support Multicast (as per IPv4), they just disable it. I couldn't find what this difficulty was though. Since an ISP has full control of any inbound and outbound traffic, be it Unicast or Multicast, what's the difficulty in tracking and billing the latter that does not exist in the former?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04: apt-get "failed to fetch"; apt is trying to fetch via old static IP

    - by gabe
    Sample error: W: Failed to fetch http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/precise-security/universe/i18n/Translation-en Unable to connect to 192.168.1.70:8118: Now this was working just fine until I changed the IP this morning. I have the server set to a static IP of 10.0.1.70 and for years it has been 192.168.1.70 - the IP apt-get is trying to use right now. I use privoxy and tor thus the 8118 port. Like I said it all worked until I changed the static IP from 192.168.1.70 to 10.0.1.70. I was forced to do so because of router issues. (Long and involved story, I didn't really want to change the IP because I know something like this would happen.) The setup for TOR/Privoxy requires that has you point Privoxy at TOR via 127.0.0.1:9050. Then point curl, etc to Privoxy via $HOME/.bashrc. Typically you would set the listen to IP for Privoxy to 127.0.0.1 but if you want it accessible to the rest of the LAN you set the IP to the server's LAN IP. Which I did a long time ago and was working fine until this morning. I have changed all instances of 192.168.1.70 to 10.0.1.70 in both /etc/privoxy/config and $HOME/.bashrc. What makes this really strange for me is that curl is working fine. I curl icanhazip.com and voila I get a new IP every 10 minutes or so. I curl CNN.com and I get the short but sweet permanently moved to www.cnn.com message I expect. Firefox works fine. Ping works fine. And I've tested all of this via Remote Desktop over my LAN. So the connection appears to be fine for everything except apt. I've also rebooted hoping that would clear 192.168.1.70 from apt. So the connection to the internet and DNS aren't an issue for these programs. And they are, as far as I can tell, using Privoxy/TOR just fine. The real irony here is that I've tried to open up Privoxy to go to Ubuntu's servers directly without going through TOR to speed up the downloads from Ubuntu (did this months ago). So somewhere that I have not been able to find, apt has stored the IP 192.168.1.70. And 192.168.1.70 is no longer valid. Thanks for the help

    Read the article

  • Restrict VPN client traffic to certain domains/IP

    - by mr-euro
    Hi Is there any way to restrict a VPN client to only route certain traffic via the VPN and the rest via their local gateway? For example: traffic to a certain IP or domain gets routed across the VPN and all other requests do not. Let me know if you need more details. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Issues with static IP (Ubuntu Server 10.04)

    - by letseatfood
    I am following this tutorial for setting up a testing server for my web development projects. When I attempt setting up a static IP address (using the configuration below), I receive the error "ping: unknown host www.google.com" when I attempt using ping. auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.0.100 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.0.0 broadcast 192.168.0.255 gateway 192.168.0.1 Ping works fine when the configuration is: auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static I am a novice to server setup and administration.

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 - one MAC Address, assign multiple external IP's to VirtualBoxes running as guests on host

    - by Sise
    Couldn't find any help @ google or here. The scenario: Windows Server 2008 Std x64 on i7-975, 12 GB RAM. The server is running in a data centre. One hardware NIC - RealTek PCIe GBE - one MAC Address. The data centre provides us 4 static external IP's. The first is assigned to the host by default of course. I have ordered all 4 IP's, the data centre can assign the available IP's to the physical MAC address of the given NIC only. This means one NIC, one MAC Address, 4 IP's. Everything works fine so far. Now, what I would like to have: Installed VirtualBox with 1-3 guests running, each gets it's own external IP assigned. Each of it should be an standalone Win Server 2008. It looks like the easiest way would be to put the guests into an virtual subnet and routing all data coming to the 2nd till 4th external IP through to this guests using there subnet IP's. I have been through the VirtualBox User Manuel regarding networking. What's not working: I can't use bridged networking without anything else, because the IP's are assigned to the one MAC address only. I can't use NAT networking because it does not allow access from outside or the host to the guest. I do not wanna use port forwarding. Host-only networking itself would not allow internet access, by sharing the default internet connection of the host, internet is granted from the guest to the outside but not from outside or the host to the guest. InternalNetworking is not really an option here. What I have tried is to create an additional MS Loopback adapter for a routed subnet, where the Vbox guests are in, now the idea was to NAT the internet connection to the loopback 'subnet'. But I can't ping the gateway from the guests. By using route command in the command shell or RRAS (static route, NAT) I didn't get there as well. Solutions like the following do work for the one way, but not for the way back: For your situation, it might be best to use the Host-Only adapter for ICS. Go to the preferences of VB itself and select network. There you can change the configuration for the interface. Set the IP address to 192.168.0.1, netmask 255.255.255.0. Disable the DHCP server if it isn't already and that's it. Now the Guest should get an IP from Windows itself and be able to get onto the internet, while you can also access the Host. Slowly I'm pretty stucked with this topic. There is a possibility I've just overlooked something or just didn't getting it by trying, especially using RRAS, but it's kinda hard to find useful howto's or something in the web. Thanks in advance! Best regards, Simon

    Read the article

  • How to access an IP address as if on a different network using SSH

    - by NT3RP
    In preparation for a lengthy business trip, I set up my router such that I can access my home computer over the internet via port forwarding over SSH. One thing I neglected to do was setup access to my router remotely. Normally, I can just access the router configuration page via 192.168.1.1. I know that it's possible to tunnel traffic through SSH, but how do I access an IP address as if I were on my home network using SSH?

    Read the article

  • IP not Pinging!

    - by Paddy
    I have an apache server running on Mac. i had windows before on the same machine and i had apache running there too. i could access my public sites by just typing in my ip in the web browser. now its not working. its working with localhost though!!!

    Read the article

  • Big IP F5 Basics (show run/show conf/term len 0)

    - by PP
    I've tried to find the basics in a Big IP manual but it seems to me the device is marketed towards GUI users only. Meanwhile I want to write a few scripts to automate tasks on the load balancer. Namely: how do I turn off more - when I issue a command I want the output to stream out without waiting for me to press a key for the next page how do I show the running configuration (I think list all is the way to do it but cannot find it documented anywhere) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to reach subdomain with IP

    - by metdos
    Here website which I want to access http://elele.cmpe.boun.edu.tr/ I guess there is a problem with DNS, so I can reach it via Ip adress : http://79.123.177.252/ but how I gonna reach subdomain: http://projects.elele.cmpe.boun.edu.tr Edit: I added 79.123.177.252 elele.cmpe.boun.edu.tr to host.txt under %windir%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts elele.cmpe.boun.edu.tr works http://projects.elele.cmpe.boun.edu.tr/ doesn't work

    Read the article

  • Assign IP's to certian mac addresses in dd-wrt

    - by MrStatic.
    I have a Linksys WRT54G/GL/GS that I am running DD-WRT v24-sp2 (10/10/09) vpn - build 13064 on it and for the life of me I can not find a way to assign ip's based on Mac address. Basically I have a few laptops and Windows really has no decent way to have separate profiles for each network.

    Read the article

  • Another domain name pointing to my server IP?

    - by Tom
    Hi guys, I was checking out my reverse-DNS entry of my domain the other day which is run from a dedicated server. I noticed that another person/company had their domain pointing to my server? I have no idea who this company is or why they are pointing their domain at my server IP? How can I go about stopping this or forcing them to change?

    Read the article

  • Use-cases for assigning multiple IP addresses to 1 NIC

    - by Harry
    What would be some of major use-cases in which you would want to assign multiple IP addresses to your NIC? Knowing of any standard/well-known 'gotchas' associated with each use-case would also be helpful. For example, I heard someone saying that a user with access to such a machine will automatically get access to both networks, which could be a security issue. You can assume a Linux-based environment.

    Read the article

  • Windows Server 2008 - one MAC Address, assign multiple external IP's to VirtualBoxes running as guests on host

    - by Sise
    Couldn't find any help @ google or here. The scenario: Windows Server 2008 Std x64 on i7-975, 12 GB RAM. The server is running in a data centre. One hardware NIC - RealTek PCIe GBE - one MAC Address. The data centre provides us 4 static external IP's. The first is assigned to the host by default of course. I have ordered all 4 IP's, the data centre can assign the available IP's to the physical MAC address of the given NIC only. This means one NIC, one MAC Address, 4 IP's. Everything works fine so far. Now, what I would like to have: Installed VirtualBox with 1-3 guests running, each gets it's own external IP assigned. Each of it should be an standalone Win Server 2008. It looks like the easiest way would be to put the guests into an virtual subnet and routing all data coming to the 2nd till 4th external IP through to this guests using there subnet IP's. I have been through the VirtualBox User Manuel regarding networking. What's not working: I can't use bridged networking without anything else, because the IP's are assigned to the one MAC address only. I can't use NAT networking because it does not allow access from outside or the host to the guest. I do not wanna use port forwarding. Host-only networking itself would not allow internet access, by sharing the default internet connection of the host, internet is granted from the guest to the outside but not from outside or the host to the guest. InternalNetworking is not really an option here. What I have tried is to create an additional MS Loopback adapter for a routed subnet, where the Vbox guests are in, now the idea was to NAT the internet connection to the loopback 'subnet'. But I can't ping the gateway from the guests. By using route command in the command shell or RRAS (static route, NAT) I didn't get there as well. Solutions like the following do work for the one way, but not for the way back: For your situation, it might be best to use the Host-Only adapter for ICS. Go to the preferences of VB itself and select network. There you can change the configuration for the interface. Set the IP address to 192.168.0.1, netmask 255.255.255.0. Disable the DHCP server if it isn't already and that's it. Now the Guest should get an IP from Windows itself and be able to get onto the internet, while you can also access the Host. Slowly I'm pretty stucked with this topic. There is a possibility I've just overlooked something or just didn't getting it by trying, especially using RRAS, but it's kinda hard to find useful howto's or something in the web. Thanks in advance! Best regards, Simon

    Read the article

  • Local IP address same as Google's external

    - by GRIGORE-TURBODISEL
    I'm exampling Google's IPs, but you get the idea. What happens if somebody configures a router's LAN address pool to range from 62.231.75.2 to 62.231.75.255, then his computer's IP address to 62.231.75.232 and someone else on the network tries to access Google? Or better off, is there any case in which someone in that network can, by merely attempting to access Google, accidentally bump into another computer on the network?

    Read the article

  • Why does pinging 192.168.072 (only 2 dots) return a response from 192.168.0.58?

    - by George Duckett
    I mistakenly missed the dot off of an IP address and typed in 192.168.072. To my surprise I connected to a machine at 192.168.0.58 If I ping 192.168.072 I get responses from 192.168.0.58. Why is this? I'm on a Windows PC on a Windows domain. If I ping 192.168.72 I get a response from 192.168.0.72, so it seems the 0 in 072 (in my original mistake) is significant. This question was a Super User Question of the Week. Read the blog entry for more details or contribute to the blog yourself

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >