Search Results

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

Page 176/594 | < Previous Page | 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 | Next Page >

Easiest way to allow direct HTTPS connection in Intercept mode?

- by Nicolo

I know the SSL issue has been beaten to death I'm using DNS redirect to force my clients to use my intercept proxy. As we all know, intercepting HTTPS connection is not possible unless I provide a fake certificate. What I want to achieve here is to allow all HTTPS requests connect directly to the source server, thus bypassing Squid: HTTP connection Proxy by Squid HTTPS connection Bypass Squid and connect directly I spent the past few days goolging and trying different methods but none worked so far. I read about SSL tunneling using the CONNECT method but couldn't find any more information on it. I tried a similar method in using RINETD to forward all traffic going through port 443 of my Squid back to the original IP of www.pandora.com. Unfortunately, I did not realize all other HTTPS requests are also forwarded to the IP of www.pandora.com. For example, https://www.gmail.com also takes me to https://www.pandora.com Since I'm running the Intercept mode, the forwarding needs to be dynamic and match each HTTPS domain name with proper original IP. Can this be done in Squid or iptables? Lastly, I'm directing traffic to my Squid server using DNS zone redirect. For example, a client requests www.google.com, my DNS server directs that request to my Squid IP, then my transparent Squid will proxy that request. Will this set up affect what I'm trying to achieve? I tried many methods but couldn't get it to work. Any takes on how to do this?

Read the article
"Error 53" with local LAN machines after VPN session on server

- by tim11g

I have a Windows 2000 server with a Windows 7 client that occasionally gets "error 53" when accessing the server by name (net view \\server). It still works by IP address (net view \\192.168.0.1). The server's primary IP address (as shown in "routing and remote access" as "Gigabit Ethernet" is 192.168.0.1. There is also a secondary IP address shown as "Internal" which is 192.168.0.50 The server also supports VPN. When a VPN user connects, it gets an address in the range of 192.168.0.51 to .59. Normally (when there is no error), when the local LAN client runs "ping server", it resolves to 192.168.0.1. When the Error 53 problem happens, "ping server" resolves to 192.168.0.50. This problem seems to be related to when a user connects or has recently connected to the server VPN. Is there some connection between the VPN services on the server and the DNS services on the server that could cause a local LAN client to become confused about which IP address to use for the server? Or is there a misconfiguration in the VPN or DNS?

Read the article
OpenBSD pf - implementing the equivalent of an iptables DNAT

- by chutz

The IP address of an internal service is going to change. We have an OpenBSD access point (ssh + autpf rules) where clients connect and open a connection to the internal IP. To give us more time to reconfigure all clients to use the new IP address, I thought we can implement the equivalent of a DNAT on the authpf box. Basically, I want to write a rule similar to this iptables rule which lets me ping both $OLD_IP and $NEW_IP. iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -d $OLD_IP -j DNAT --to-dest $NEW_IP Our version of OpenBSD is 4.7, but we can upgrade if necessary. If this DNAT is not possible we can probably do a NAT on a firewall along the way. The closest I was able to accomplish on a test box is: pass out on em1 inet proto icmp from any to 10.68.31.99 nat-to 10.68.31.247 Unfortunately, pfctl -s state tells me that nat-to translates the source IP, while I need to translate the destination. $ sudo pfctl -s state all icmp 10.68.31.247:7263 (10.68.30.199:13437) -> 10.68.31.99:8 0:0 I also found lots of mentions about rules that start with rdr and include the -> symbol to express the translation, but it looks like this syntax has been obsoleted in 4.7 and I cannot get anything similar to work. Attempts to implement a rdr fail with a complaint that /etc/pf.conf:20: rdr-to can only be used inbound

Read the article
My server keeps sending emails to [email protected]

- by xtrimsky

When I type mailq on my server, I get: BB523653A62 4025 Wed Jun 4 10:40:07 MAILER-DAEMON (delivery temporarily suspended: host p3smtpout.secureserver.net[208.109.80.54] refused to talk to me: 554 p3plsmtpout002.prod.phx3.secureserver.net : DED : AJeb1o0334uf1Y801 : DED : You've reached your daily relay quota - IP.ADDRESS) [email protected] B33AD653A4A 4025 Wed Jun 4 08:20:07 MAILER-DAEMON (delivery temporarily suspended: host p3smtpout.secureserver.net[208.109.80.54] refused to talk to me: 554 p3plsmtpout002.prod.phx3.secureserver.net : DED : AJeb1o0334uf1Y801 : DED : You've reached your daily relay quota - IP.ADDRESS) [email protected] B77DF653A63 4025 Wed Jun 4 10:50:07 MAILER-DAEMON (delivery temporarily suspended: host p3smtpout.secureserver.net[208.109.80.54] refused to talk to me: 554 p3plsmtpout001.prod.phx3.secureserver.net : DED : AJvF1o00L4uf1Y801 : DED : You've reached your daily relay quota - IP.ADDRESS) [email protected] B943C653A3C 4025 Wed Jun 4 06:40:07 MAILER-DAEMON (delivery temporarily suspended: host p3smtpout.secureserver.net[208.109.80.54] refused to talk to me: 554 p3plsmtpout001.prod.phx3.secureserver.net : DED : AKBv1o00P4uf1Y801 : DED : You've reached your daily relay quota - IP.ADDRESS) [email protected] (there is probably about 50 of these, and I've cleared the queue today), do you know where these could be coming from ? is it my server sending some logs to "hostmaster" ? I've replaced my actual domain, with "MYDOMAIN". How can I find what could be sending these emails ? The server has recently been hacked so I'm also a bit worried. Thanks!

Read the article
Router that allows custom Dynamic DNS server [closed]

- by Thuy

I've made my own DDNS service and it works fine using an application running on clients to update the IP. But if for some reason I don't have the choice of using my software and instead I need to use a router to update the IP, it becomes troublesome. For example, I needed to setup IPsec from a customer to me and the customers router/firewall (netgear srx5308) has a dynamic IP which is given from the ISP which can't offer static IPs. So it needs to use dynamic dns for it to work. In this case there really isn't a client to run the software on since it's a router/firewall. Unfortunately it seems that most routers are rather unfriendly towards custom DDNS solutions and most offer only dyndns.com or similar templates. Which was the case with this router too. Leaving me with no way to use my own dynamic dns server IP. I have the option of switching out the customers router and I've been looking around for alternatives and other routers/solutions and I was wondering if anyone on this great site might have been in a similar situation or might just know about some router/firewall that is more friendly towards custom ddns solutions that I might be able to use. Thanks in advance for any help or guidance!

Read the article
Wireless Access Point stopped working

- by Alex Pritchard

I have a simple LAN set up at home using a Linksys WRT54GSV4 as my primary router and an Encore ENHWI-2AN3 as an access point. I connect the Encore to the Linksys by running a cable from one of the Linksys LAN ports into the Encore WAN input. I originally configured this using the Encore setup wizard, setting the device up in AP Router Mode. It detected the input network and worked about as expected, creating a second network that used my primary network to connect to the internet. It worked fine for about 2 weeks, then abruptly cut out today. I checked to make sure the network was still live through the cable going into the Encore (provides internet when connected to a laptop directly) and that devices are still able to connect to the network being broadcast by the Encore. When I try to rerun the connection wizard on the Encore, I receive the message "No Services found in WAN port." The WAN Settings is no longer retrieving a dynamic ip from the line. I tried providing a static IP, assigning an IP address within the subnet range of my primary router that wasn't being used and pointing the Default Gateway to the Linksys IP, but this did not work either. When I plug the cable into the WAN port, an internet light comes on that is not lit when a live network is not connected. I've tried doing a hard reset on the Encore (held down the rest button until the lights flashed, reconfigured from scratch), but the WAN settings are still not detected. Also tried powering off and on the modem, linksys, and encore. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

Read the article
Virtual box host-only adapter configuration

- by Xoundboy

I have VirtualBox 4 running on Win 7 with a Centos 6 guest VM set up for hosting my dev server. When I'm connected to my home network the guest can be accessed via a static IP address that I configured (192.168.56.2), but not when I'm in the office. I'm guessing that the DHCP server in the office doesn't have a gateway configured for the 192.168.56.x IP range. I read something about the VB host-only adapter that should allow me to set this guest VM up in such a way that I don't need to be on any network to be able to access the guest from the host using a static IP. I've not been able to find out exactly how to configure this though. Can anyone give me an example configuration, thanks. UPDATE: Thanks for your responses. I've now set up a single virtual network adapter in VirtualBox and set it to host-only: C:\Users\Ben>vboxmanage list hostonlyifs Name: VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter GUID: d419ef62-3c46-4525-ad2d-be506c90459a Dhcp: Disabled IPAddress: 192.168.56.2 NetworkMask: 255.255.255.0 IPV6Address: fe80:0000:0000:0000:78e3:b200:5af3:2a57 IPV6NetworkMaskPrefixLength: 64 HardwareAddress: 08:00:27:00:94:e8 MediumType: Ethernet Status: Up VBoxNetworkName: HostInterfaceNetworking-VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter On the guest I've set up eth0 to use the same IP address as the host-only adapter (192.168.56.2) but when I try to log in using Putty I still get "Network Error : connection refused". VirtualBox DHCP servier is enabled but I can't ping the gateway (192.168.56.1) from either host nor guest. There's no firewall running on either OS. What next?

Read the article
windows: force user to use specific network adapter

- by Chad

I'm looking for a configuration/hack to force a particular application or all traffic from a particular user to use a specific NIC. I have an legacy client/server app that has a "security feature" that limits connections based on IP address. I'm trying to find a way to migrate this app to a terminal server environment. The simple solution is for the development team to update the code in the application, however in this case that's not an option. I was thinking I might be able to install VMware NIC's installed for each user on the terminal server and do some type of scripting to force that user account to use a specific NIC. Anybody have any ideas on this? EDIT 1: I think I have a hack to work around my specific problem, however I'd love to hear of a more elegant solution. I got lucky in that the software reads the server IP address out of a config file. So I'm going to have to make a config file for each user and make a customer programs files for each user. Then add a VMware NIC for each user and make each server IP address reside on a different subnet. That will force the traffic for a particular user to a particular IP address, however its really messy and all the VM NIC's will slow down the terminal server. I'll setup a proof of concept Monday and let the group know how it affects performance.

Read the article
How to secure a group of Amazon EC2 instances

- by ks78

I have several Amazon EC2 instances running Ubuntu 10.04 and I've recently started using Amazon's Route 53 as my DNS. The purpose of doing that was to allow the instances to refer to each other by name rather than private IP (which can change). I've pointed my domain name (via GoDaddy) to Amazon's name servers, allowing me to access my EC2 webservers. However, I noticed I can now access the EC2 instances which I don't want to be public, such as the dedicated MySQL Server. I was thinking Amazon's Security Groups would still be in effect when using Route 53, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Before I started using Route 53, I was thinking of having one instance run a reverse proxy, which would help protect the web servers behind it. Then IP-restrict all the other instances. I know IP restricting can be done using the firewall within each instance, but should I ever need to access them from another IP address, I'd need a way in. Amazon's control panel made it a breeze to open a port when necessary. Does anyone have any suggestions for keeping EC2 instances secure, but also accessible to their administrator? Also, what's the best topology for a group of EC2 instances, consisting of web servers and a dedicated database server, from a security perspective? Does having a reverse proxy server even make sense?

Read the article
Certain websites redirect to 127.0.0.1. How do I fix this?

- by Dian

Facebook and Youtube in particular. Tried nslookup the address shows as 127.0.0.1. Checked the HOSTS file, it's fine. Ran Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (didn't find any problems) and SpyBot Search and Destroy (found 1 problem). (Not sure if the Spybot made this improvement) now pinging youtube shows the correct address (74.125.71.91) but the browser still says: Connection to 127.0.0.1 Failed The system returned: (111) Connection refused Tried ipconfig /flushdns but there are no changes. Switched to another user but the results are the same. 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 ipconfig all: Connection-specific DNS Suffix: DNS Servers: 10.1.1.30 208.67.220.220

Read the article
KVM virtual machine unable to access internet

- by peachykeen

I have KVM set up to run a virtual machine (Windows Home Server 2011 acting as a build agent) on a dedicated server (CentOS 6.3). Recently, I ran updates on the host, and the virtual machine is now unable to connect to the internet. The virtual network is running through NAT, the host has an interface (eth0:0) set up with a static IP (virt-manager shows the network and its IP correctly), and all connections to that IP should be sent to the guest. The host and guest can ping one another, but the guest cannot ping anything above the host, nor can I ping the guest from anywhere else (I can ping the host). Results from the guest to another server under my control and from an external system to the guest both return "Destination port unreachable". Running tcpdump on the host and destination shows the host replying to the ping, but the destination never sees it (it doesn't even look like the host is bothering to send it on at all, which leads me to suspect iptables). The ping output matches that, listing replies from 192.168.100.1. The guest can resolve DNS, however, which I find rather odd. The guest's network settings (connection TCP/IPv4 properties) are set up with a static local IP (192.168.100.128), mask of 255.255.255.0, and gateway and DNS at 192.168.100.1. When originally setting up the vm/net, I had set up some iptables rules to enable bridging, but after my hosting company complained about the bridge, I set up a new virtual net using NAT and believe I removed all the rules. The VM's network was working perfectly fine for the last few months, until yesterday. I haven't heard anything from the hosting company, didn't change anything on the guest, so as far as I know, nothing else has changed (unfortunately the list of packages updated has since fallen off scrollback and I didn't note it down).

Read the article
NAT via iptables and virtual interface

- by Alex

I'm trying to implement the following scenario: One VM-host, multiple guest VMs, each one gets its own IP-address (and domain). Our server has only one physical interface, so the intended use is to add virtual interfaces on eth0. To complicate our situation the provider uses port-security on their switches, so I can't run the guest interfaces in bridged mode, because then the switch detects a "spoofed" MAC-address and kills the interface (permanently, forcing me to call the support, which I'm sure will get them a little bit angry the third time ;) ). My first guess was to use iptables and NAT to forward all packages from one virtual interface to another one, but iptables doesn't seem to like virtual interfaces (at least I can't get it to work properly). So my second guess is to use the source IP of the packages to the public interface. Let's assume libvirt creates a virbr0-network with 192.168.100.0/24 and the guest uses 192.168.100.2 as IP-address. This is what I tried to use: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING --src public_ip_on_eth0:0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.100.2:80 That doesn't give me the intended results either (accessing the server times out). Is there a way to do what I'm trying to do, or even to route all traffic to a certain IP on a virtual interface to the VM's device?

Read the article
Linux as a router for public networks

- by nixnotwin

My ISP had given me a /30 network. Later, when I wanted more public ips, I requested for a /29 network. I was told to keep using my earlier /30 network on the interface which is facing ISP, and the newly given /29 network should be used on the other interface which connects to my NAT router and servers. This is what I got from the isp: WAN IP: 179.xxx.4.128/30 CUSTOMER IP : 179.xxx.4.130 ISP GATEWAY IP:179.xxx.4.129 SUBNET : 255.255.255.252 LAN IPS: 179.xxx.139.224/29 GATEWAY IP :179.xxx.139.225 SUBNET : 255.255.255.248 I have a Ubuntu pc which has two interfaces. So I am planning to do the following: eth0 will be given 179.xxx.4.130/30 gateway 179.xxx.4.129 eth1 will be given 179.xxx.139.225/29 And I will have the following in the /etc/sysctl.conf: net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 These will be iptables rules: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT My clients which have the ips 179.xxx.139.226/29 and 179.xxx.139.227/29 will be made to use 179.xxx.139.225/29 as gateway. Will this configuration work for me? Any comments? If it works, what iptables rules can I use to have a bit of security? P.S. Both networks are non-private and there is no NATing.

Read the article
Apache Virtual Hosts behind Cisco Router

- by Theo

I'm setting up an Apache 2.2 Ubuntu web server for internal services that is also supposed to be accessed from outside our LAN. Our LAN has a single external IP that is the external IP of our RV042 Cisco router. We have set up several A records on our external DNS server that point to this IP. Our internal DNS server resolve the same records to the internal IP of our web server, so computers from inside the network can access them using the same address as if they were outside. We forwarded the router's external 80 port to our web server's 80 port. I have set up one Virtual Host for each domain name in our list, and my httpd.conf is something like this: ServerName web.domain.com NameVirtualHost *:80 <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName alfresco.domain.com <Proxy *> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Proxy> ProxyPass /alfresco http://localhost:8080/alfresco ProxyPassReverse /alfresco http://localhost:8080/alfresco ProxyPass /share http://localhost:8080/share ProxyPassReverse /share http://localhost:8080/share </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName crm.domain.com DocumentRoot /var/www/sugarcrm </VirtualHost> Now, this works if we are in our LAN. However, if we are outside of our LAN we reach our web server's default page saying: It Works! This is the default web page for this server. But we can't reach the virtual hosts, as if the domain name is not being preserved when the router forward the packets to the web server. Am I doing something wrong? How can I check what is going on? What should be the settings to make this work from outside?

Read the article
Separate Certificate by Subdomain (With multiple IPs)

- by Brian

Note: Yes, I realize this problem is easier to solve by just using 1 multi-domain or wildcard certificate. I wish to have an ASP.NET site running on IIS with 2 SSL domains sharing 1 web application but using separate certificates. Assuming I have 2 certificates, this can be solved on IIS7 as follows: Web Application1: Binding 1: http, 80, IP Address *, Host Name * Binding 2: https, 443, IPADDRESS1, using CERTDOMAIN1 (DOMAIN1 resolves to IPADDRESS1) Binding 3: https, 443, IPADDRESS2, using CERTDOMAIN2 (DOMAIN2 resolves to IPADDRESS2) That is to say, 2 certificates and 2 ip addresses, but both mapped to the same web application. In IIS6, the closest I have been able to come to this configuration is: Web Application1: Binding 1: http, 80, IPADDRESS1 Binding 2: https, 443, IPADDRESS1, using CERTDOMAIN1 (DOMAIN1 resolves to IPADDRESS1) Web Application2: Binding 1: http, 80, IPADDRESS2 Binding 2: https, 443, IPADDRESS2, using CERTDOMAIN2 (DOMAIN2 resolves to IPADDRESS2) That is to say, 2 certificates and 2 IP addresses, 2 web applications, both mapped to the same file location. The IIS6 solution is not optimal. Even if sharing an application pool, there are still costs associated with running the same site as two applications. Is upgrading from IIS6 to IIS7 a legitimate way to resolve this problem? Is there an IIS6 way to map 2 IP addresses within the same web application to different certificates?

Read the article
Seeing traffic destined for other people's servers in wireshark

- by user350325

I rent a dedicated server from a hosting provider. I ran wireshark on my server so that I could see incoming HTTP traffic that was destined to my server. Once I ran wireshark and filtered for HTTP I noticed a load of traffic, but most of it was not for stuff that was hosted on my server and had a destination IP address that was not mine, there were various source IP addresses. My immediate reaction was to think that somebody was tunnelling their HTTP traffic through my server somehow. However when I looked closer I noticed that all of this traffic was going to hosts on the same subnet and all of these IP addresses belonged to the same hosting provider that I was using. So it appears that wireshark was intercepting traffic destined for other customers who's servers are attached to the same part of the network as mine. Now I always assumed that on a switch based network that this should not happen as the switch will only send data to the required host and not to every box attached. I assume in this case that other customers would also be able to see data going to my server. As well as potential privacy concerns, this would surely make ARP poising easy and allow others to steal IP addresses (and therefor domains and websites)? It would seem odd that a network provider would configure the network in such a way. Is there a more rational explanation here?

Read the article
LAN Webserver not accessible through PPTP VPN

- by Joe

I have this LAN Network with 10 clients and one server. The server has 4 virtual machines and a BIND DNS Server. When the router assigns an IP through the DHCP , it also gives the ip of the DNS Server, to resolve internal domains. Everything apparently works fine, the clients being able to access the server's vm's resources, but I also have to create the possibility of remote access. I installed the PPTP VPN on the server, and the vpn clients would get the same ip address range as the router's dhcp is assigning. Apparently everything is fine here also, except the fact that when we connect through the vpn , we cannot access the webserver on port 80 ( the webserver being one of the server's VM ). The iptables on the webserver has been turned off for testing purposes and the router's firewall is directing all the external traffic to the server. Can somebody suggest a solution to this? Extra details : VPN Server : PPTP Server Centos 6.3 x64 VPN Client : Windows 7 default PPTP VPN Connection The client is successfully connected to the server, everything works ( FTP/MYSQL/SSH/DNS ) , except the fact that when I try to access the webserver IP on the browser, it won't work.Pinging it works perfectly.

Read the article
Preventing endless forwarding with two routers

- by jarmund

The network in quesiton looks basically like this: /----Inet1 / H1---[111.0/24]---GW1---[99.0/24] \----GW2-----Inet2 Device explaination H1: Host with IP 192.168.111.47 GW1: Linux box with IPs 192.168.111.1 and 192.168.99.2, as well as its own route to the internet. GW2: Generic wireless router with IP 192.168.99.1 and its own route to the internet. Inet1 & Inet2: Two possible routes to the internet In short: H has more than one possible route to the internet. H is supposed to only access the internet via GW2 when that link is up, so GW1 has some policy based routing special just for H1: ip rule add from 192.168.111.47 table 991 ip route add default via 192.168.99.1 table 991 While this works as long as GW2 has a direct link to the internet, the problem occurs when that link is down. What then happens is that GW2 forwards the packet back to GW1, which again forwards back to GW2, creating an endless loop of TCP-pingpong. The preferred result would be that the packet was just dropped. Is there something that can be done with iptables on GW1 to prevent this? Basically, an iptables-friendly version of "If packet comes from GW2, but originated from H1, drop it" Note1: It is preferable not to change anything on GW2. Note2: H1 needs to be able to talk to both GW1 and GW2, and vice versa, but only GW2 should lead to the internet TLDR; H1 should only be allowed internet access via GW2, but still needs to be able to talk to both GW1 and GW2. EDIT: The interfaces for GW1 are br0.105 for the '99' network, and br0.111 for the '111' network. The sollution may or may not be obnoxiously simple, but i have not been able to produce the proper iptables syntax myself, so help would be most appreciated. PS: This is a follow-up question from this question

Read the article
VirtualBox with Ubuntu Server guest can't ping outside

- by Danidan

Here's my situation: an Ubuntu 12.04 Host running VirtualBox; two guest VMs running Ubuntu Server 12.04 home network, so my Host pc has a wireless connection to the router of my ISP. My problem is in one of the virtual machines: it has 3 NICs, one in NAT mode and the others in Host Only mode. My purpose is to use eth0 (NAT) for Internet access and eth1, eth2 (Host Only) for management of internal virtual network (eth1 uses a VBoxNet with this IP 192.168.69.254). Whenever I try to $ping 8.8.8.8 I get Destination Host Unreachable. While if I $ping 192.168.69.10, that is the IP of the other VM, it works. I can't also ping my Host nor my router My /etc/network/interfaces file is: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.69.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 auto eth2 iface ifconfig $IFACE 0.0.0.0 up up ip link set $IFACE promisc on down ip link set $IFASE promisc off down ifconfig $IFACE down $route -n returns: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 10.0.2.2 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.0.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.69.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 Forgetting for now what eth2 needs to do and its setup, why I can't go outside the Host box? What can I do to help you helping me? :-)

Read the article
OpenVZ container is running but does not show in vzlist nor can I find the private/conf files for the container

- by Kakeakeai

I was creating a new OpenVZ container on one of our VPS Nodes while the power went out for that machine. After bringing the machine back online I could no longer access the container CTID=101. I could not destroy it using "vzctl destroy 101", I can not enter or control it, and "vzlist -a" does NOT display any containers at all (this was a fresh node and the first container was being created). I decided to create a new container at this point assuming that the old container just was not saved for some reason. However when I go to add the ip/host to the new container I get a warning that the IP is already in use. After doing a ping to the IP I realized there was a machine on that IP. I SSH into the machine and discover it is the OLD container that some how is orphaned. I can not find it on the filesystem, I can not find it using VZ commands, and It is set to start on Node boot so it is impossible to shutdown (even ssh in and typing the "shutdown now" command just reboots the container not shut it down). Is this a flaw in OpenVZ or am I missing something? I have all the outputs and logs if needed. Thank you all so much in advance.

Read the article
Ubuntu 12.04 as router with 2 nic

- by Blue Gene

I have been trying this setup for weeks and still can not make this to work... ubuntu 12.04 64 bit with 2 nic nic1: eth0:192.168.2.33 -static ip with internet access (connected to modem) nic2: eth1:192.168.1.2 -static ip connected to LAN. enabled ip_forward on ubuntu box net_ip_forward = 1 on the LAN with ip address 192.168.1.5 specified gateway as 192.168.1.2 and able to ping gateway.But can not ping public address.What am i missing? on router box: route -n Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 tried ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.1.2 dev eth0 route -n on LAN 192.168.1.5 Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.2 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.2.0 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 iptables default policy is to accept all. tracepath 8.8.8.8 from LAN 1: 192.168.1.5 0.060ms pmtu 1500 1: 192.168.1.2 3.367ms 1: 192.168.1.2 3.764ms 2: no reply Is there a way to make this work,other than NAT ing.

Read the article
openvpn in a bridge?

- by sebelk

I have a somewhat tricky proble to solve. We have a wireless link between 2 building. One of them has an mikrotik and below there are some vlans. Some machines of one vlan need to use openvpn to connect to a remote private lan. I put a TP-Link WR1043ND (which those machines connect to) with openwrt with ebtables just in case I need it. I've configured openwrt in such a way that all ports belongs to the same vlan. My idea was to make things as transparent as I can. It has a bridge as follows: usr/sbin/brctl-full show br-lan bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br-lan 8000.f8d111565716 no eth0.1 eth0.2 Also I've added an ebtables rule: ebtables -t broute -A BROUTING -p ipv4 -j DROP So "bridge" has only one IP address. I've installed openvpn and I'm trying to bring up the tunnel but I can't still get working. Sure, someone can says why don't you use the vpn on the mikrotik, there are some reasons, the first one is I have little experience with mikrotik and I'd want to have the vpn at hand :) The problem is that openvpn is not working, because it is complaining that I have only one Ip Address on the server side. So I set up and alias interface with another IP address but is not working either: : Rejected connection attempt from IP-Client-Side:37801 due to --remote setting Is there a way to make it work?

Read the article
Upgrade of Ubuntu 8.10 distribution fails due to missing packages

- by Tim

I have a server that I've forgotten to upgrade for ages, which is still running Intrepid (8.10). I'd like to upgrade it to a newer version of the distribution, so that I can get security patches etc. I found some instructions that tell me to install the package update-manager-core. I tried the following: $ sudo apt-get install update-manager-core but this fails since some of the necessary packages can't be found: ... Err http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid/main python-apt 0.7.7.1ubuntu4 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.40 80] Err http://archive.ubuntu.com intrepid-updates/main update-manager-core 1:0.93.34 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.40 80] Failed to fetch http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/python-apt/python-apt_0.7.7.1ubuntu4_amd64.deb 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.40 80] Failed to fetch http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/u/update-manager/update-manager-core_0.93.34_amd64.deb 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.88.40 80] ... I know that Intrepid is no longer supported, and so I guess some of the necessary files may no longer be maintained. But this seems rather unhelpful: I can't upgrade because it's too old, and the only way to fix this would be to upgrade it. Is there a way round this? Is something else wrong?

Read the article
2 routers at home- how to connect with VNC?

- by Charles Leviton

I have two routers at home. First router is upstairs and is connected to the cable modem. 2nd router is downstairs and acts as "signal booster" for the 1st router. Devices connected to the upstairs router have IP addresses of the form 192.168.1.n Devices connected to the upstairs router have IP addresses of the form 192.168.2.n. I blindly followed instructions from a website to do this set up, just glad it works! Upstairs I have a PC running Win 7 64 bit. Its assigned IP is 192.168.1.7. I have a VNC viewer running on this. Downstairs I have a 2nd PC running Vista 32 Home edition bit that is connected to the 2nd router and has IP Address 192.168.2.114. VNC server is running on this. It's listening on 5900. There is no firewall. When I try to connect to this downstairs PC from upstairs it fails with message "Failed to connect to server". I cannot ping to this either. If I try to connect to this downstairs PC using VNC Viewer from another computer that's connected to the same downstairs router then it works like a charm. So what's the work around if the viewer is on a different "network"? I don't have any problems doing remote desktop connection from the downstairs PC to the upstairs PC even if they are connected to different routers. Router information- Upstairs- ASUS RTN13U, downstairs- DD-WRT v24 RC-5 Thanks! P.S. I posted this on the Ultra VNC forum as well but that doesn't seem to have a lot of activity, so taking the liberty to multipost.

Read the article
Two network adapters in one WindowsXP PC, how to make them work?

- by Deele

I have a need to set up network so I can use two ethernet cards inside one Windows (Windows XP SP2) based PC, one for internet connection, second, for internal LAN. How should I configure each NIC, with what IP's, subnet masks and gateways, so I can use inernet on my PC and get in touch with devices on my LAN? I have found that there are some sort of re routing nessesary inside my PC, but how does it work? I have already set up some configuration already, but I can't use it together with PC #1 NIC #1 connected. I need to disconnect, to access NIC WEB interface. Current configuration: Switch #1 and PC #1 NAS #2 are gigabit one's, so I could access NAS with gigabit speed. PC #1 NIC #1 IP XX.XXX.162.106 SN 255.255.255.248 GW XX.XXX.162.105 PC #1 NIC #2 IP 10.0.0.1 SN 255.255.0.0 GW 0.0.0.0 NAS #1 NIC #1 IP 10.0.0.12 SN 255.255.0.0 GW 0.0.0.0 My question is - what exact configuration should I do for every NIC in this LAN, so it would work? Is it possible to achieve internet access for Laptop, that is inside that NIC #2 LAN (should I just set up basic ICS)?

Read the article

< Previous Page | 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 | Next Page >