Search Results

Search found 14837 results on 594 pages for 'duplicate ip'.

Page 175/594 | < Previous Page | 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182  | Next Page >

  • I go to www.facebook.com, but a completely different site appears.

    - by Rosarch
    I am going to www.facebook.com, but the site that appears is totally different. This occurs on Chrome 6+, IE9, and FF 3+. What could be happening? Is this a security risk? Facebook was working just fine, then all of a sudden this happened. Update: The same problem occurs on my netbook. Update 2: When I go to http://69.63.189.11/, it works fine. So... DNS problem? How do I fix? Update 3: Checked the hosts file: # Copyright (c) 1993-2009 Microsoft Corp. # # This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows. # # This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each # entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should # be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name. # The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one # space. # # Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual # lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol. # # For example: # # 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server # 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host # localhost name resolution is handled within DNS itself. # 127.0.0.1 localhost # ::1 localhost Looks like it hasn't been altered.

    Read the article

  • Understanding tcptraceroute versus http response

    - by kojiro
    I'm debugging a web server that has a very high wait time before responding. The server itself is quite fast and has no load, so I strongly suspect a network problem. Basically, I make a web request: wget -O/dev/null http://hostname/ --2013-10-18 11:03:08-- http://hostname/ Resolving hostname... 10.9.211.129 Connecting to hostname|10.9.211.129|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: ‘/dev/null’ 2013-10-18 11:04:11 (88.0 KB/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [13641] So you see it took about a minute to give me the page, but it does give it to me with a 200 response. So I try a tcptraceroute to see what's up: $ sudo tcptraceroute hostname 80 Password: Selected device en2, address 192.168.113.74, port 54699 for outgoing packets Tracing the path to hostname (10.9.211.129) on TCP port 80 (http), 30 hops max 1 192.168.113.1 0.842 ms 2.216 ms 2.130 ms 2 10.141.12.77 0.707 ms 0.767 ms 0.738 ms 3 10.141.12.33 1.227 ms 1.012 ms 1.120 ms 4 10.141.3.107 0.372 ms 0.305 ms 0.368 ms 5 12.112.4.41 6.688 ms 6.514 ms 6.467 ms 6 cr84.phlpa.ip.att.net (12.122.107.214) 19.892 ms 18.814 ms 15.804 ms 7 cr2.phlpa.ip.att.net (12.122.107.117) 17.554 ms 15.693 ms 16.122 ms 8 cr1.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.4.54) 15.838 ms 15.353 ms 15.511 ms 9 cr83.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.123.10.110) 17.451 ms 15.183 ms 16.198 ms 10 12.84.5.93 9.982 ms 9.817 ms 9.784 ms 11 12.84.5.94 14.587 ms 14.301 ms 14.238 ms 12 10.141.3.209 13.870 ms 13.845 ms 13.696 ms 13 * * * … 30 * * * I tried it again with 100 hops, just to be sure – the packets never get there. So how is it that the server does respond to requests via http, even after a minute? Shouldn't all requests just die? I'm not sure how to proceed debugging why this server is slow (as opposed to why it responds at all).

    Read the article

  • VPN sharing on Mac OS X 10.5 machine

    - by Jens
    I have a rather weird problem. I want to share a VPN connection that has been established by my Mac OS X 10.5 computer with another machine in my network. This is what I did: In the /etc/hostcongig file on the main computer I added the line: IPFORWARDING=-YES- I assigned a fixed IP address to my computer (192.168.178.30), a fixed one to the other machine (192.168.178.60) and my computer's IP address as gateway on the other machine. I connected to my VPN using the internal Mac OS X VPN client (PPTP connection) I run this script: #!/bin/sh natd -same_ports -use_sockets -unregistered_only -dynamic -interface ppp0 -clamp_mss ipfw -f flush ipfw add divert natd ip from any to any via ppp0 ipfw add pass all from any to any sysctl -w net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 Source: Using (and sharing) a VPN connection on your Mac Now everthing works smootly, however speed is an issue. I get 1,8 MBit/s on my main machine and only 0,3 - 0,6 MBit/s on the other one. My question: What could possibly be wrong? Do I have to tweak MTU settings, is there any packet inspection ongoing that needs time....? Any help appreciated!

    Read the article

  • UDP blocked by Windows XP Firewall when sending to local machine

    - by user36367
    Hi there, I work for a software development company but the issue doesn't seem to be programming-related. Here is my setup: - Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3, all updated - Program that sends UDP datagrams - Program that receives UDP datagrams - Windows Firewall set to allow inbound UDP datagrams on a specific port (Scope: Subnet) If I send a UDP datagram on any port to other, similar machines, it goes through. If I send the UDP datagram to the same computer running the program that sends (whether using broadcast, localhost IP or the specific IP of the machine), the receiver program gets nothing. I've traced the problem down to the Windows XP Firewall, as Windows 7 does not have this problem (and I do not wish to sully my hands with Vista). If the exception I create for that UDP port in the WinXP firewall is set for a Scope of Subnet the datagram is blocked, but if I set it to All Computers or specifically enter my network settings (192.168.2.161 or 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0) it works fine. Using different UDP ports makes no difference. I've tried different programs to reproduce this problem (ServerTalk to send and either IP Port Spy or PortPeeker to receive) to make sure it's not our code that's the issue, and those programs' datagrams were blocked as well. Also, that computer only has one network interface, so there are no additional network weirdness. I receive my IP from a DHCP server, so this is a straightforward setup. Given that it doesn't happen in Windows 7 I must assume it's a defect in the Windows XP Firewall, but I'd think someone else would have encountered this problem before. Has anyone encountered anything like this? Any ideas? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Virtualbox port forwarding with iptables

    - by jverdeyen
    I'm using a virtualmachine (virtualbox) as mailserver. The host is an Ubuntu 12.04 and the guest is an Ubuntu 10.04 system. At first I forwarded port 25 to 2550 on the host and added a port forward rule in VirtualBox from 2550 to 25 on the guest. This works for all ports needed for the mailserver. The guest has a host only connection and a NAT (with the port-forwarding). My mailserver was receiving and sending mail properly. But all connections are comming from the virtualbox internal ip, so every host connection is allowed, and that's not what I want. So.. I'm trying to skip the VirtualBox forwarding part and just forward port 25 to my host only ip of the guest system. I used these rules: iptables -F iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P PREROUTING ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P POSTROUTING ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT --protocol tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.99.0/24 -i vboxnet0 -j ACCEPT echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -i eth0 -d xxx.host.ip.xxx --dport 25 -j DNAT --to 192.168.99.105:25 iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.99.0/24 -i vboxnet0 -p tcp --dport 25 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.99.0 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -L -n But after these changes I still can't connect with a simple telnet. (Which was possible with my first solution). The guest machine doesn't have any firewall. I only have one network interface on the host (eth0) and a host interface (vboxnet0). Any suggestions? Or should I go back to my old solution (which I don't really like). Edit: bridge mode isn't an option, I have only on IP available for the moment. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What are these isolated resource requests in Apache's access_log?

    - by Greg
    I was looking at my Apache access log and came across some strange requests. A single IP address will access several resources (mostly css style sheets and images), but no actual pages. Sometimes they are requesting a resource that no longer exists on the server, or one that is still under the web root but no longer used (e.g. a resource in an old WordPress theme). Also: The requests list no referrer I get no useful information on the IP address by looking it up There doesn't seem to be any pattern among the IP addresses that are making these requests (e.g. different countries) Are these just links from a stale cache somewhere? Could it be a sign of an attack of some sort? Here is a typical example: GET /wp-content/themes/my-theme/images/old-image.gif HTTP/1.1" 500 809 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;)" This was one of about 10 similar requests, some for existing resources, some for older resources. There is no other sign of this IP address in access_log. Note the internal server error, which is a topic for a different thread. What I'm asking here is where would isolated requests like this come from?

    Read the article

  • Default IPv6 route on debian squeeze does not come up after boot

    - by Georg Bretschneider
    I have a problem with my default IPv6 route not coming up after boot on a Debian Squeeze system. This is my config (/etc/network/interfaces): # Loopback device: auto lo iface lo inet loopback iface lo inet6 loopback # device: br0 auto br0 iface br0 inet static bridge_ports eth0 bridge_fd 0 address 88.198.62.xx broadcast 88.198.62.63 netmask 255.255.255.224 gateway 88.198.62.33 up route add -net 88.198.62.32 netmask 255.255.255.224 gw 88.198.62.33 br0 iface br0 inet6 static address 2a01:4f8:131:10x::2 netmask 64 gateway 2a01:4f8:131:100::1 up route -A inet6 add 2a01:4f8:131:100::1/59 dev br0 My inet comes up alright, but I have to exec the route command manually after boot to make IPv6 work. Otherwise I can't even reach my gateway. This is the output of ip -6 route show after boot: 2a01:4f8:131:10x::/64 dev br0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 unreachable fe80::/64 dev lo proto kernel metric 256 error -101 mtu 16436 advmss 16376 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev br0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 I already tried it with: up ip -6 route add 2a01:4f8:131:100::1 dev br0 up ip -6 route add default via 2a01:4f8:131:100::1 dev br0 in /etc/network/interfaces, but with the same results. If I execute those commands manually on my shell, everything starts working nicely. And yes, I tried with post-up instead of up, too. Only other changes I made was to activate ip forwarding for IPv6, because I want to run some LXC containers on that system.

    Read the article

  • server dosnt produce syn-ack

    - by steve
    I have a small program that take packets from the nfqueue . change the ip.dst to my server dst (and ttl), recalc checksum and return the packet to the nfqueue. The server and the client are linux and apache web server is run on the server and listen on port 80. i open telnet in the client to fake ip on port 80 . the packet is changed by my program and sent to the server, but the target server (the new dst ip) get the syn , but dosnt generate syn-ack (the server also belong to me , so i can see that it get the syn with checksum correct , but dosnt generate syn-ack). if i do the same , but with the real server ip as the dest, the tcp handshake is done correct (in this case i just change the ttl and checksum. The change that i did to the ttl is just a test to see that my checksum calc is ok). i compare the sys's , but didnt find and difference. Any idea? Ps. i saw this topic : Server not sending a SYN/ACK packet in response to a SYN packet and i set all flags the same , but this didnt help. Thank you

    Read the article

  • How can I connect my Xbox to my Mac on my network

    - by codecowboy
    I have a wireless router/modem (Router 1) in my living room. This is connected to the internet (cable). Wireless is disabled as the router has a terrible wireless range. My Xbox is connected via ethernet to Router 1. Another LAN output from Router 1 connects to a powerline adapter. Router 1 acts as a DHCP server on 192.168.0.x and has the IP 192.168.0.1 In a second room I have Router 2. This has the powerline feed from Router 1 going into the WAN socket. This router runs the Tomato Firmware and acts as a wireless router for the rest of the house using the IP range 192.168.1.x. Router 2 IP is 192.168.1.1. My Mac is connected to Router 2 using a LAN cable and has the IP 192.168.0.133. Several mobile devices need wireless access. I want an ethernet connection to my Mac, not wireless. I should be able to use software like Connect360 to share media from my Mac to the XBox but the XBox does not see my Mac. I can ping 192.168.0.1 from the Mac. Is this possible using my current setup? If so, how?

    Read the article

  • Cherrypy web application won't communicate outside localhost via VPN

    - by Geoffrey Shea
    I'm trying to run a Python2.7/Cherrypy web server on Win 7 which is connected to a VPN to establish a dedicate IP address. (If I run the exact same application on Win XP connected to the VPN it works fine.) On Win 7 I tried configuring it to use port 8080, 8005, or 80 with no improvements. I turned off Windows Firewall altogether to test and there was no improvement. If I run Apache on the Win 7 machine on port 80 it works fine so I'm pretty sure it's not the VPN service or router. If I go to WhatismyIP.com it shows that I have the IP address being provided by the VPN. Here is the Python code, but I suspect the problem is the network configuration: import cherrypy class HelloWorld: def index(self): return "Hello world!3" index.exposed = True cherrypy.root = HelloWorld() cherrypy.config.update({"global":{ "server.environment": "production", "server.socketPort": 8005 } }) cherrypy.server.start() This will return a web page if I go to localhost:8005, but not if I go to the VPN IP address:8005 from another machine. As I said, if I run Apache on the Win 7 machine on port 80 I can see it at localhost:80 AND at the VPN IP address:80 from another machine. Thanks for any light you can shed! Geoffrey

    Read the article

  • Having problems VPN'ing into our Windows server network.

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, When two people (on their notebooks) try to VPN to our office, only the first user gets a connection. the second user always times out. Is it possible for VPN to allow two or more people, using / sharing the same EXTERNAL PUBLIC IP to connect/authenticate? Now for some specifics (cause those two statements are very broad). I'm not in the IT Dept. I'm a developer. Our IT Dept don't really care (sigh) so it's up to me to fix this crap. Our office is all Microsoft shop stuff - servers and clients. We also have a firewall (watchguard brand?) and some other crazy setups (yes i know, it's very vague :( ). So i'm wondering - is it possible for multiple users, from the same public IP, to connect via VPN to a windows server? i'm under the impression - yes. But it is possible that this only happens when the clients (who are all behind the single, public IP .. otherwise they will have their OWN ip's) need to have UPnP running or something? this is killing me and i need to start asking the right questions cause these guys don't know what they are doing and i can't work without this happening. I know this is a vauge question with so many 'if-what's-etc' but maybe some questions/suggestions from you guys might start to lead to solving this problem. EDIT: Network Connection: WAN Miniport (PPTP)

    Read the article

  • What is proper relationship between /etc/hosts and DNS A records for a Linux server?

    - by MountainX
    I have an Ubuntu server. It is going to be a web server with a URI of www.example.com. I have a DNS A record pointing www.example.com to the server's IP address. Let's say I pick "trinity" as the hostname for this server. I want to set up the DNS records correctly. I need reverse DNS to www.example.com, so a CNAME for www.example.com doesn't seem appropriate. Here's my question: Is it considered best practice to set up two DNS records (which in my case would likely be two A records), one for www.example.com and one for trinity.example.com, both pointing to this server's IP address? (Or, even if it is not accepted as a best practice, is it a good idea?) If so, would the following be a proper /etc/hosts file? $ cat /etc/hosts 127.0.1.1 trinity.local trinity 99.100.101.102 trinity.example.com trinity www.example.com This server is a Linode and Linode's docs seem to imply that the above approach is best (if I am reading them correctly). Here's the relevant section. I bolded the line that seems to apply here. Update /etc/hosts Next, edit your /etc/hosts file to resemble the following example, replacing "plato" with your chosen hostname, "example.com" with your system's domain name, and "12.34.56.78" with your system's IP address. As with the hostname, the domain name part of your FQDN does not necesarily need to have any relationship to websites or other services hosted on the server (although it may if you wish). As an example, you might host "www.something.com" on your server, but the system's FQDN might be "mars.somethingelse.com." File:/etc/hosts 127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost 12.34.56.78 plato.example.com plato The value you assign as your system's FQDN should have an "A" record in DNS pointing to your Linode's IP address. For more information on configuring DNS, please see our guide on configuring DNS with the Linode Manager.

    Read the article

  • Parking domains and avoiding so called "search engine penalities"

    - by senthilkumar-c
    I have purchased two domains from one particular registrar and hosting from GoDaddy. Assume they are domain1.com and domain2.com Assume my hosting IP address is 111.111.111.111 I added both domain1.com and domain2.com in my domain management control panel and gave the same two nameservers for both domains at my registrar's control panel. So, now, both domains should show the same website. When I ping "domain1.com" or "domain2.com" the results say - Pinging domain1.com [111.111.111.111] with 32 bytes of data: Pinging domain2.com [111.111.111.111] with 32 bytes of data: respectively. So, they both point to the same hosting IP. BUT, internally, I have configured IIS to point them to different folders so that different websites are shown. (My hosting plan is expensive and I intend to use the space and bandwidth for many websites). But still, technically, all domains point to same IP address. Is this a bad thing? Is this what is called "domain parking"? I read some search engine forum posts that two domains pointing to the same IP/Website will be penalised by search engines and stuff. I have also read that simply "parking" the domains won't attract penality. I don't know whether what I have done is parking or the so called "wrong" thing. Can someone shed light on what I have done and what I should do? I don't want to be blacklisted by any search engine. P.S. I know this is not a search engine forum, but I am new to website hosting and domains and I am very weak in nearly all technical terms and concepts relating to web hosting and domains. I thought this will be a good place to understand these things.

    Read the article

  • How browsers handle multiple IPs

    - by Sandman4
    Can someone direct me to information on exact browsers behavior when browser gets multiple A records for a given hostname (say ip1 and ip2), and one of them is not accessible. I interested in EXACT details, like (but not limited to): Will browser get 2 IPs from OS, or it will get only one ? Which ip will browser try first (random or always the first one) ? Now, let's say browser started with the failed ip1 For how long will browser try ip1 ? If user hits "stop" while it waits for ip1, and then clicks refresh which IP will browser try ? What will happen when it times-out - will it start trying ip2 or give error ? (And if error, which ip will browser try when user clicks refresh). When user clicks refresh, will any browser attempt new DNS lookup ? Now let's assume browser tried working ip2 first. For the next page request, will browser still use ip2, or it may randomly switch ips ? For how long browsers keep IPs in their cache ? When browsers sends a new DNS request, and get SAME ips, will it CONTINUE to use the same known-to-be-working IP, or the process starts from scratch and it may try any of the two ? Of course it all may be browser dependent, and may also vary between versions and platforms, I'd be happy to have maximum of details. The purpose of this - I'm trying to understand what exactly users will experience when round-robin DNS based used and one of the hosts fails. Please, I'm NOT asking about how bad DNS load balancing is, and please refrain from answering "don't do it", "it's a bad idea", "you need heartbeat/proxy/BGP/whatever" and so on.

    Read the article

  • How to set up daisy-chained routers for separate sub-nets?

    - by joe
    This question seems to be similar to others, but I'll take a shot anyway. A client recently switched ISPs from TDS to Comcast Business Class. Before the switch, they had 5 static IP addresses assigned. Now they'll have a single IP address that will change whenever Comcast decides to do so. The issue is that this internet connection will be shared among two companies, both having (and wanting to keep) their own private subnets. Because TDS was supplying multiple IP addresses to the one location, this allowed me to put each router on the switch. Now, with Comcast, they only get one IP address, meaning there has to be a main router before the subnet routers. Luckily, the cable modem has a built-in router, which I would like to connect to each company's router, and still have DHCP enabled on all accounts. Question: What do I need to do to the subnet routers to keep them separate from each other, but still allow internet access from the main router. I would love to say "I tried this", and give you links, but everything I find on the internet only mentions daisy-chaining routers with DCHP disabled.

    Read the article

  • In Icinga (Nagios), how do I configure hosts with multiple IPs?

    - by gertvdijk
    I'm setting up Icinga (Nagios fork) and I have some machines with multiple interfaces. Some services are only listening on one of them and to check them correctly, I like to know if it's possible to have multiple IP addresses configured for a single host in Icinga. Here's a minimal example: Remote Server: eth0: 1.2.3.4 (public IP) eth1: 10.1.2.3 (private IP, secure tunnel) Apache listening on 1.2.3.4:80. (public only) OpenSSH listening on 10.1.2.3:22. (internal network only) Postfix SMTP listening on 0.0.0.0:25 (all interfaces) Icinga Server: eth0: 10.2.3.4 (private IP, internet access) Now if I define a host: define host { use generic-host host_name server1 alias server1.gertvandijk.net address 10.1.2.3 } This will not check the HTTP status correctly. And defining an additional host: define host { use generic-host host_name server1-public alias server1.gertvandijk.net address 1.2.3.4 } will check everything, but shows up as two independent hosts. Now I want to 'aggregate' these two hosts to show up as a single host, yet providing an easy configuration to check the services on their proper address. What is the most elegant number-of-configuration-lines-saving solution to this? I read about several plugins available to workaround this, but I can't figure out what is the current way to address it. Solutions go back to 2003, but I'm running Icinga 1.7.1, already capable of the address6 option, yet that triggers IPv6-only resolving on the hostname... Ideally, I wish to configure Icinga to be intelligent enough to know that the Postfix instance running on 10.1.2.3:25 is the same as 1.2.3.4:25 and thus not triggering two alarms. I guess this must have been tackled before and sysadmins have it set up now. Please share your solution to this. Thanks! :)

    Read the article

  • How can I avoid my web browser from redirecting to localhost using WAMP in Windows7?

    - by Josh
    I'm currently using Windows 7 with WAMP to try and work on some software, but my web browsers will not accept cookies from the "localhost" domain. I tried creating a few bogus domains in my hosts file by pointing them to 127.0.0.1 but when I type them in I am automatically redirected back to localhost. I have also configured virtualhosts in apache to correspond with the domains I added to the hosts file and it still redirects back to localhost. Is there anything special I must do on Windows 7 to get around this localhost redirect? Thanks for looking :) I'll include my host file here: # Copyright (c) 1993-2009 Microsoft Corp. # # This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows. # # This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each # entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should # be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name. # The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one # space. # # Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual # lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol. # # For example: # # 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server # 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host # localhost name resolution is handled within DNS itself. # 127.0.0.1 localhost # ::1 localhost 127.0.0.1 magento.localhost.com www.localhost.com Thanks for looking :)

    Read the article

  • How to host an ssh server?

    - by balki
    Hi, I have a broadband internet connection. I have an wireless modem (Airtel India). I don't have a static ip address. I want to host a ssh/web/ftp server to be visible to the outside world just for testing and learning purpose so I can ask my friend to connect to my current ip address and test. My modem has an admin interface which allows to port forward and open ports. I set up ssh server as shown and checked if port 22 is open using this website , Port Scan And port 22 is open. I have an openssh server running and it works if i do, ssh [email protected] which is my local ip address but doesn't work if i do ssh [email protected] where 122.xx.xx.xx is my external ip address of my modem which i checked from whatismyipaddress.com. Since it looks like the port is open, I wonder if there is some setting I need to change in my server config to expose my server. How should I go about solving this?

    Read the article

  • trying to route between two openvpn clients

    - by user42055
    I have two openvpn clients on the 10.0.1.0 (client1) and 192.168.0.0 (client2) subnets with the server's openvpn connection having the ip 192.168.150.1 The server has ip forwarding enabled. Currently, client1's vpn ip is 192.168.150.10 and the P-t-P ip is 192.168.150.9 I have created the following static route on client1: route add -net 10.0.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.150.9 The routing table on client1 looks like this: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 192.168.150.9 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.150.1 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tun0 10.0.1.0 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 I thought this would be correct to allow traffic from client1 to reach computers on client2's network, but it does not work. Is 192.168.150.9 (the P-t-P address) the correct one to be routing through ? I tried using 192.168.150.1 but I couldn't create the route. I hope this is clear.

    Read the article

  • IIS 7 and ASP.NET State Service Configuration

    - by Shawn
    We have 2 web servers load balanced and we wanted to get away from sticky sessions for obvious reasons. Our attempted approach is to use the ASP.NET State service on one of the boxes to store the session state for both. I realize that it's best to have a server dedicated to storing sessions but we don't have the resources for that. I've followed these instructions to no avail. The session still isn't being shared between the two servers. I'm not receiving any errors. I have the same machine key for both servers, and I've set the application ID to a unique value that matches between the two servers. Any suggestions on how I can troubleshoot this issue? Update: I turned on the session state service on my local machine and pointed both servers to the ip address on my local machine and it worked as expected. The session was shared between both servers. This leads me to believe that the problem might be that I'm not using a standalone server as my state service. Perhaps the problem is because I am using the ip address 127.0.0.1 on one server and then using a different ip address on the other server. Unfortunately when I try to use the network ip address as opposed to localhost the connection doesn't seem to work from the host server. Any insight on whether my suspicions are correct would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Hide/Replace Nginx Location Header?

    - by Steven Ou
    I am trying to pass a PCI compliance test, and I'm getting a single "high risk vulnerability". The problem is described as: Information on the machine which a web server is located is sometimes included in the header of a web page. Under certain circumstances that information may include local information from behind a firewall or proxy server such as the local IP address. It looks like Nginx is responding with: Service: https Received: HTTP/1.1 302 Found Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Location: http://ip-10-194-73-254/ Server: nginx/1.0.4 + Phusion Passenger 3.0.7 (mod_rails/mod_rack) Status: 302 X-Powered-By: Phusion Passenger (mod_rails/mod_rack) 3.0.7 X-Runtime: 0 Content-Length: 90 Connection: Close <html><body>You are being <a href="http://ip-10-194-73-254/">redirect ed</a>.</body></html> I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong: but from what I gathered, I think the problem is that the Location header is returning http://ip-10-194-73-254/, which is a private address, when it should be returning our domain name (which is ravn.com). So, I'm guessing I need to either hide or replace the Location header somehow? I'm a programmer and not a server admin so I have no idea what to do... Any help would be greatly appreciated! Also, might I add that we're running more than 1 server, so the configuration would need to be transferable to any server with any private address.

    Read the article

  • Trouble connecting to a local SQL server instance from the web

    - by dfarney
    We have a small network behind a firewall (WatchGuard XTM 2 series) and network switch. On our network we have multiple instances of SQL server, but 1 in specific that I would like to be able to access remotely from our website. We have a static IP address from our ISP and then all the machines on the network have a locally assigned dynamic IP address. When trying to connect to the database from outside our network how do I get the request to be directed to the proper machine / SQL instance? Is it a parameter in my connection string or something in my firewall? A few things to rule out: 1) The firewall is allowing access from the website to our network. I added the site's IP and opened up port 1433. Also, when trying to connect and monitoring the firewall no exceptions come up as they did before I added the proper IP address. 2) Remote connections on the SQL server has been setup and enabled. I've done a lot of reading up on remote connections and I am sure it has been setup properly. I am currently getting this error message on my site: A network-related or instance-specific error occurred while establishing a connection to SQL Server. The server was not found or was not accessible. Verify that the instance name is correct and that SQL Server is configured to allow remote connections. (provider: TCP Provider, error: 0 - A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.)

    Read the article

  • Windows thinks outgoing connections are incoming connections?

    - by Slayer537
    I have a rather weird issue.. I'm trying to configure Windows Firewall to block all outgoing connections to a certain app, but allow all incoming. This app is used to transfer files across a network. The reason for this type of setup is to only allow certain users (IP Address) access to the files I have, but to still allow others to see what's available. Since Windows Firewall defaults to allowing all outgoing connections, I made a rule to deny all outgoing connections that were not in the IP ranges I specified. For the incoming connections, I'd like to leave it at allow all, but at the moment it is set to only allow the connections that also have outgoing permissions set. If I blanket say allow all incoming connections, I observe that unauthorized IP Address are able to actually download files, even though their IP was blocked in the outgoing connections. To shed a little more visibility on this, I used NetLimiter to see what was going on. NetLimiter showed me that the connection was an incoming connection. Shouldn't this be an outgoing connection, as I am uploading files to them, not the other way around? Is there a way to make the connection type be correct and show up as outgoing instead of incoming?

    Read the article

  • How can I avoid my web browser from redirecting to localhost using WAMP in Windows7?

    - by Josh
    I'm currently using Windows 7 with WAMP to try and work on some software, but my web browsers will not accept cookies from the "localhost" domain. I tried creating a few bogus domains in my hosts file by pointing them to 127.0.0.1 but when I type them in I am automatically redirected back to localhost. I have also configured virtualhosts in apache to correspond with the domains I added to the hosts file and it still redirects back to localhost. Is there anything special I must do on Windows 7 to get around this localhost redirect? Thanks for looking :) I'll include my host file here: # Copyright (c) 1993-2009 Microsoft Corp. # # This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows. # # This file contains the mappings of IP addresses to host names. Each # entry should be kept on an individual line. The IP address should # be placed in the first column followed by the corresponding host name. # The IP address and the host name should be separated by at least one # space. # # Additionally, comments (such as these) may be inserted on individual # lines or following the machine name denoted by a '#' symbol. # # For example: # # 102.54.94.97 rhino.acme.com # source server # 38.25.63.10 x.acme.com # x client host # localhost name resolution is handled within DNS itself. # 127.0.0.1 localhost # ::1 localhost 127.0.0.1 magento.localhost.com www.localhost.com Thanks for looking :)

    Read the article

  • How to configure network on Windows Server 2008

    - by Gokhan Ozturk
    I have a IBM x3400 Server Machine with Windows Server 2008 R2 installed on it. But, since I am not expert on networking I have some problems. These roles installed on my server: Active Directory DNS File Sharing Hyper-V ISS VPN There is two network card on them. I configured them like this: Local Connection 1: 192.168.30.3 255.255.255.0 192.168.30.2 127.0.0.1 Local Connection 2: 192.168.30.101 255.255.255.0 192.168.30.6 127.0.0.1 My problem is, when I use this Ip gateways, It is sharing internet to all computers. This is not I want. I want to use Local Connection 1 for internal network. I am giving all computers gateway and DNS IP as 192.168.30.3 The Local Connection 2 is for Hyper-V and VPN connections. 192.168.30.2 and 192.168.30.6 are my modem's gateways. I am using 192.168.30.6 external IP for VPN connections. There is two 24 port switches. There is a connection between them and this two ethernet card connected directly to them. And modems are connected to switches as well (Morems are not near the server. They are somewhere in the building). I disabled network Bridge and removed all ethernet cards from it. With this configuration, all computers can ping my server's IP (192.168.30.3) but on server I cannot ping any clients (Request timeout). What is the best way to configure my network? Thank you. Redgards

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182  | Next Page >