Search Results

Search found 7164 results on 287 pages for 'powerline networking'.

Page 160/287 | < Previous Page | 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167  | Next Page >

• how to use iptables to block the IP of device connected to openwrt router

  - by scola

  I have two routers(A,B).the A connect to internet with IP:192.168.1.1 The openwrt router B connect the lan of A by bridge with static IP:192.168.1.111. I am learning to use iptables to control the devices connected to B(wlan) . I use my phone to connect wifi of B,the phone's IP is IP:192.168.1.100.it can surf the internet normally. I want to block the phone's IP to make the phone can not connect to internet. refer to http://bredsaal.dk/some-small-iptables-on-openwrt-tips iptables -A input_wan -s 192.168.1.100 --jump REJECT iptables -A forwarding_rule -d 192.168.1.100 --jump REJECT but it do not work.the phone still connect to internet normally. and I tried other chain(INPUT,OUTPUT,FORWARD).so many chains confused me. iptables -I OUTPUT -o br-lan -s 192.168.1.100 -j DROP and it do not work again. I'm sure that the iptables have no problem. root@OpenWrt:/etc# iptables -L|grep Chain Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) Chain FORWARD (policy DROP) Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) Chain forward (1 references) Chain forwarding_lan (1 references) Chain forwarding_rule (1 references) Chain forwarding_wan (1 references) Chain input (1 references) Chain input_lan (1 references) Chain input_rule (1 references) Chain input_wan (1 references) Chain output (1 references) root@OpenWrt:/etc# ifconfig br-lan Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 0C:82:68:97:57:BA inet addr:192.168.1.111 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::e82:68ff:fe97:57ba/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:14976 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:7656 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:2851980 (2.7 MiB) TX bytes:1902785 (1.8 MiB) eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 0C:82:68:97:57:BA UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:58201 errors:0 dropped:11 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:45012 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:54591348 (52.0 MiB) TX bytes:5711142 (5.4 MiB) Interrupt:4 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:312 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:312 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:39961 (39.0 KiB) TX bytes:39961 (39.0 KiB) mon.wlan0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 0C-82-68-97-57-BA-00-48-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:4900 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:32 RX bytes:1223807 (1.1 MiB) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 0C:82:68:97:57:BA UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:37346 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:49662 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:32 RX bytes:3808021 (3.6 MiB) TX bytes:54486310 (51.9 MiB) root@OpenWrt:/etc/config# cat network config 'interface' 'loopback' option 'ifname' 'lo' option 'proto' 'static' option 'ipaddr' '127.0.0.1' option 'netmask' '255.0.0.0' config 'interface' 'lan' option 'ifname' 'eth0' option 'type' 'bridge' option 'proto' 'static' option 'ipaddr' '192.168.1.111' option 'netmask' '255.255.255.0' option 'gateway' '192.168.1.1' option dns 192.168.1.1 and how to use iptables to control the network of wlan? Thanks in advance and sorry for poor English.

  Read the article

• Any way to stop VMWare workstation from dropping SSH connections?

  - by oljones

  I have VMWare workstation 8 with a few Linux guests. I have had problems maintaining an active SSH connection to my VMs when they are in bridged mode. I first read that the onboard realtek network cards were not well supported so I bought a Intel Pro/1000 GT card. This supposedly had support. But this made no difference. Connections via SSH are active for about the first 3 minutes then hang and die. I have changed the TCP Checksum offload on the Intel and Realtek NICs, but this only works some of the time and even then not for very long. The best I could do was about 20 minutes before the connection was dropped. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• How secure is a subnet?

  - by HorusKol

  I have an unfortunate complication in my network - some users/computers are attached to a completely private and firewalled office network that we administer (10.n.n.x/24 intranet), but others are attached to a subnet provided by a third party (129.n.n.x/25) as they need to access the internet via the third party's proxy. I have previously set up a gateway/router to allow the 10.n.n.x/24 network internet access: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interface iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT However, I now need to enable access to users on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet to some private servers on the 10.n.n.x/24 network. I figured that I could do something like: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.n.n.x/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.n.n.x/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two public connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT My concern is that I know that the computers on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet can be accessed via a VPN through the larger network operated by the provider - therefore, would it be possible for someone on the provider's supernet (correct term? inverse of subnet?) to be able to access our private 10.n.n.x/24 intranet?

  Read the article

• Looking for a router with multiple WAN ports and load balancing

  - by Cyrcle

  I'm going to be moving in a few months. The location I'm moving to is great except it's on a road with very few people, so the internet access option is limited to DSL at 1.6Mbps down, 384kbps up. This is much slower than I'm used to. One option is to get at least two of the DSL lines. There's also good possibility that I'll be able to get WiMax or similar. I've been looking around a bit and it seems like what I need is a load balancing router with multiple WAN ports. Can anyone recommend some good ones? I could also go with a small power efficient Linux box with multiple NICs. What would be good software for that? It'd need to be able to handle around 10Mbps. Thanks for any help

  Read the article

• Local or public NTP servers?

  - by BeeOnRope

  For a relatively large network (thousands of hosts) - what are the arguments for and against running a locally managed (pool of) NTP server(s) (perhaps periodically set via some public NTP server) and having all other hosts on the network use that (pool of) NTP server(s) versus having all hosts simply use public NTP servers directly, say via ntp.pool.org? Aside from the pros and cons, What is typical best practice today?

  Read the article

• VirtualBox no network access

  - by Frantumn

  I'm on a work machine, setting up a virtual ubuntu image using virtual box. After I installed the image, I can't seem to connect to the internet. If I look at network and sharing center on my host OS (W7) I see that the VirtualBox Host-Only Network reads as "no network access" How can I set it up so that it uses the same network as the host OS. UPDATE! Okay, is there a way I can tell virtual box host-only network to use a proxy script?

  Read the article

• Does WCN (Windows Connect Now) work on Windows 7?

  - by WilliamKF

  I'm trying to add a Canon printer wirelessly and I can't just enter the WEP settings, I'm forced to use this WCN which is says is in Vista, but I'm not finding it on Windows 7. Where can I find this in Windows 7?

  Read the article

• Superscope DHCP leases and configuration set up

  - by Vdub

  Hello I wanted to see if someone could help with a network problem I am having. Right now we have a super-scope and scopes of 192.168.50.1 and 192.168.51.1, as of now both are activated but only 192.168.50.1 is handing our leases, 192.168.51 wont. here is a summary of our network Gateway: watchguard firebox x750e for our router/gateway at 192.168.50.1 I set up as a secondary IP address 192.168.51.1 Server: Server 2008 r2 standard, running our DNS @ 192.168.50.242 and 8.8.8.8 as a secondary, AD, and DHCP. On that NIC card i have 192.168.50.242 as the IP address and 192.168.51.242 as a secondary. 192.168.50.1 as the default gateway and 192.168.51.1 as a secondary. Im am not very knowledgeable at this but as far as i have researched after adding a super scope and activating scopes, they should automatically start handing out addresses and I cant figure out why only one does. any help at all would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• How do I prevent internet access to a group of computers on my network?

  - by Kevin Boyd

  Well I have the following setup... Computer A , B and C are networked.... Computer A is connected to the internet, computer B and C are not setup for internet access currently but I guess its possible with some kind of setting they would eventually be able to access the internet and this is what I would like to prevent. In summary only A should have internet access while A and B and C should still be on intranet. Is this kind of config possible?, what kind of software or setup or tools would I need to achive this?

  Read the article

• How to connect the virtual networks of vmware guests running on different hosts?

  - by gyrolf

  In a test setup, we are running several virtual machines on a single vmware workstation host. All virtual machines are connected via a "host only" network. This runs fine up to 2 or 3 virtual machines (depending on the host hardware). To allow more virtual machines, we want to use more host machines. Details about the environment and applications: Host PCs are running Windows XP in a corporate intranet. VMware used is Workstation 6.5 Guests are running Windows Server 2003 All guests act as Web Servers One of the guests additionally acts as Windows File server, offering shared folders for the other guests to connect to. Restrictions: VMware guests shall not be visible from the intranet. Changes to the host PC are restricted by corporate policy. In the virtual network, no domain controller exists. All virtual machines are member of the same workgroup. Running the virtual network as NAT is possible. Port forwarding might be used if it does not conflict with ports used by the host PC. Looking for a solution, I found hints about using router or vpn software on the hosts, but without any details how to setup. (I found a similar question Sharing the network between 2 VMware hosts, but the answer was not sufficient for me.)

  Read the article

• Choosing gateway router/firewall for small datacenter network [closed]

  - by rvs

  I'm choosing a gateway router/firewall for small internal network for medium-sized web service. Currently there are 5 servers in internal network, up to 50 http(s) requests/second, up to 1000 simultaneous connections, uplink is 100 Mbit. So, network is relatively small and not very busy and we don't like to buy some pricey monster like cisco or jupiper for this site. Instead we'd like to buy two affordable devices (one for spare), which can handle our workload now and some time in future (it might be up to 2x more in 1 year). I had some experience with Sonicwall NSA, but it seems to be too complex for this site (we don't need most of its features) and even too pricey when buying two of them. So, after some research I've come up with following options: Netgear Prosecure UTM Series (probably UTM25) Zyxel ZyWall Series (USG100 or USG200) Sonicwall TZ 210 Is this a good idea? All of the above seems to be more office products, not datacenter ones. Or we should stick with Sonicwall NSA? Does anyone have any hands-on experience with this models? Maybe some other advices? Thanks.

  Read the article

• ip conflict error

  - by mhay

  how to resolve ip conflict error ? i m getting my server's ip address when i m downloading from rapidshare ? and my ip address is different.

  Read the article

• xen + debian network after upgrade squeeze to wheeze

  - by rush

  I've got a Debian + Xen server. After a system upgrade to the stable version the network doesn't come up after boot. Every time after reboot I need to bring it up manually. The network configuration was not changed during upgrade. Here is /etc/network/interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 11.22.33.44 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 11.22.33.1 nameserver 8.8.8.8 After boot ip r shows no route and eth0 has no ip address. Manually ip and route setup goes fine and network starts working. Messages from dmesg about network I've found (looks like nothing interesting) [ 3.894401] ACPI: Fan [FAN3] (off) [ 3.894444] ACPI: Fan [FAN4] (off) [ 4.178348] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: eth0: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x1) 00:1e:67:14:66:c9 [ 4.178351] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection [ 4.178392] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: eth0: MAC: 10, PHY: 11, PBA No: 0100FF-0FF [ 4.178413] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: Disabling ASPM L0s L1 [ 4.178432] xen: registering gsi 16 triggering 0 polarity 1 -- [ 4.223667] ata5: DUMMY [ 4.223668] ata6: DUMMY [ 4.289153] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: eth1: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x1) 00:1e:67:14:66:c8 [ 4.289155] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: eth1: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection [ 4.289245] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: eth1: MAC: 3, PHY: 8, PBA No: 1000FF-0FF [ 4.506908] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci_hcd [ 4.542920] ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) -- [ 10.362999] EXT4-fs (dm-23): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) [ 10.419103] EXT4-fs (dm-3): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) [ 10.988255] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth1: link is not ready [ 13.175533] Event-channel device installed. [ 13.287555] XENBUS: Unable to read cpu state -- [ 13.288670] XENBUS: Unable to read cpu state [ 13.965939] Bridge firewalling registered [ 14.134048] e1000e: eth1 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx [ 14.283862] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): peth0: link is not ready [ 14.284543] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth1: link becomes ready [ 17.800627] e1000e: peth0 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx [ 17.801377] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): peth0: link becomes ready [ 18.307278] device peth0 entered promiscuous mode [ 24.538899] eth1: no IPv6 routers present [ 28.570902] peth0: no IPv6 routers present I've upgraded two servers and I've such behaviour on two of them. How to fix this and get network starts automatically on boot?

  Read the article

• Slow write speeds on new Gigabit home file server

  - by Ryan Holder

  So I finally got all my parts delivered to setup a home file/backup server this week. It's currently running Ubuntu Server and I'm using Samba to share files on my network. The server currently has a 2TB WD Green drive in it connected to a Asus M5A78L-M This is then connected via CAT6a to my new Gigabit switch (TP-Link TL-SG1005D). My home desktop is then also connected to this switch and again also through CAT6a cable. Currently when transfering files I will get a perfect 100MB/s read from the server to my Windows machine. When copying from my Windows machine to the server I get around 30/38MB/s. I know this drive is capable is faster speeds so would anybody have an idea of where the bottleneck is? Any help would be greatly appreciated :) EDIT: I have found ftp's write speed is much closer to what my Samba read speed is so I'm going to give it a guess that is a software problem rather than hardware

  Read the article

• Why are there so few Wireless N Dual Band adapter PCI cards, only USB adapters instead?

  - by daiphoenix

  There has been several Wireless N Dual Band routers/APs out in the market for quite some time now, and there are several Wireless N Dual Band USB adapters out there. But as for PCI/PCI-X card adapters, there seems to be only one (the Linksys WMP600N). Why is that? I find it very strange. Is it because the USB adapters are easier to install, and can be used on multiple computers? But if so, why isn't it the same case with single band (2.4 Ghz) wireless N adapters? Because for these ones there as many PCI card adapters as there are USB adapters. Also, can the USB adapters, despite the lack of external antenna, offer the same level of performance as a card with external antennas?

  Read the article

• Cannot increase MTU on gigabit network

  - by RayQuang

  Hi, I have just set up my new gigabit network and when I was about to increase the MTU to use jumbo frames, I get this error: root@rayquang-desktop:~# ifconfig eth1 mtu 9000 SIOCSIFMTU: Invalid argument Could anyone help me to increase the MTU. Details: NIC: NETGEAR GA311; Switch: NETGEAR GS105, running Ubuntu 10.10 and Debian Lenny on desktop, server respectively. Help would be greatly appreciated, RayQuang

  Read the article

• RS-232 vs. RS-485

  - by user60524

  Doing a little research on the two to figure out which one may better suit my purposes (communications amongst different hardware). How do they fare against one another? Im far from being a specialist and have no idea where I would even start looking for data to compare and contrast. If possible can someone please answer the following questions in regards to each of these. Can they be networked amongst each other? Can they be easily networked over ethernet? What speeds do they transfer at? (Min, Max, Etc.) Reliability? Best framework to build on top of to support the above? Any standard communications programs? Debugging capability? Any help would be very much appreciated, thanks.

  Read the article

• Setting up a DNS port redirect?

  - by Svetlana

  I have a domain using CloudFlare's DNS, I want to make it redirect to my server's IP (dynamic IP, port 21 blocked by ISP) which at the moment uses a No-IP DNS. The current setup is that I have a subdomain as a CNAME targetting the No-IP domain, but that only works for things like the Minecraft server (which looks for a set port that isn't blocked by my ISP), and I'd like a solution that lets me redirect port 21 from the CloudFlare domain to port 2121 on the No-IP domain, or something else that points to my dynamic IP, where an FTP server is already set up and running. I've had SRV records mentioned to me but without any further help, and it only made me more confused. Thanks in advance for the help.

  Read the article

• How to use aliases for remote hosts when accessing locally

  - by alexloh

  I would like to use an alias for a remote host. For example, when instead of "ping giraffe.foo.bar.com" I want to do "ping giraffe", but only when I do it from my own machine. I am able to do this for raw IP addresses by adding an entry in /etc/hosts (ie "123.456.1.0 giraffe"), but it does not seem to work for host names.

  Read the article

• Capabilities of business and SOHO routers

  - by Q8Y

  I'm currently studying for the CCNA certifications (especially for Cisco routers and configuration). I know that business routers provide more features than SOHO routers, the processing speed and RAM can be enough. Assume I need to connect a number of users through a network (accessing internet, share files, printers, ...). I have a high speed connection to the internet and I already applied QoS. How can I find out how many users such a single (SOHO) router could handle? In my case I'd attach to it multiple switches until I have the number of ports needed. Would everything work well and smoothly with 50 users? What about 300? At which point would I need a business router instead? If I implemented VLAN here, would it make any difference in the performance? When do I really need to use more than one router? (Both SOHO and business) I'm thinking that I may need them only if I want to increase the performance (instead of replacing the existing one) and if I have multiple locations, so in this situation I need to have multiple routers, right? Put differently: Is there is a need to have another router if my business all in one place?

  Read the article

• Can I use two internet connections simultaneously in Windows 7?

  - by Chibueze Opata

  I have two internet connections - one via a 3G modem, and the other via wireless. The modem is faster so I normally browse with it, but it does not support torrent downloads while my wireless does. When the two are connected, my PC automatically makes every connection through the modem. Is there a way I can force a particular program, eg. uTorrent to browse through my wireless internet connection instead? Thanks.

  Read the article

• How can I control wireless networks in Ubuntu without Network-Manager?

  - by Solignis

  Hi there, I recently installed Ubuntu on a laptop I got. I was having issues with the network manager just like I was having in my VM where it was not setting up the hostname correctly. Anyhow now I have a problem, since it is a laptop it will be moving.... But I have no way to discover new wireless networks. Anyway I can gain that functionality back? The problem I am running into is that I need to set the DNS search and domain for the machine so I can access my network but the network-manager was overriding the settings. Any help would be much appreciated.

  Read the article

• Best way to segment traffic, Vlan or subnet

  - by thebird

  We have a medium sized network of around 200 nodes and are currently in the process of replacing old daisy chained switches with stack-able or chassis style switches. Right now our network is broken up via subnet; production, management, IP, etc each on a separate subnet. Does anyone have an opinion on whether creating Vlan's instead of subnets would be more beneficial? Our general goal is to prevent bottlenecks, separate traffic for security, and to manage traffic with more ease.

  Read the article

• Hiding mapped drives for all users but letting programs access them

  - by AgainstClint

  What I'm looking for (and not sure if it's possible) is that we have 16 mapped network drives that are mapped when any user logs on, what I would like is to cut this down to just one visible drive yet leaving the other ones still usable to certain programs. I would just un-map them, however one of our constantly used programs writes to almost all of the drive letters so they need to be mapped for just that program, however they do not need to be visible to the user. Is this possible?

  Read the article

• Ping with explicit next-hop selection (aka Monitoring multiple default gateways)

  - by Michuelnik

  I have a linux (debian) router with two internet connections (A) and (B). (A) is preferred, (B) is fallback. I want to monitor the internet connection (and not only the availability of the gateways!) and change the default route appropriately. If (A) is not providing internet, switch to (B) If (A) is providing internet again, switch back to (A). Only problem I have is in case (2). My routing table points towards a working internet so I cannot easily detect whether internet is working over link (A) again. I am search for a ping or traceroute (or other diagnosis-tool) which can select the next-hop explicitly. ping -r looks promising, but can only ping a host on the lan. (It only has to write another destination address in the packet, damnit!) traceroute -g gateway looks even more promising and nearly does what I want - but sets source routing options which my next-hops deny. (Not within my administrative boundary...) I just want a $ping, that can: select a source interface (and address) select a next-hop on that interface ping any arbitrary ip address I could do evil trickery with policy-based routing but that would have production impact for all users. I would like to see a side-effect-free solution....

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167  | Next Page >