Search Results

Search found 82729 results on 3310 pages for 'system web routing'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 177/3310 | < Previous Page | 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184  | Next Page >

  • Why can't I route to some sites from my MacBook Pro that I can see from my iPad?

    - by Robert Atkins
    I am on M1 Cable (residential) broadband in Singapore. I have an intermittent problem routing to some sites from my MacBook Pro—often Google-related sites (arduino.googlecode.com and ajax.googleapis.com right now, but sometimes even gmail.com.) This prevents StackExchange chat from working, for instance. Funny thing is, my iPad can route to those sites and they're on the same wireless network! I can ping the sites, but not traceroute to them which I find odd. That I can get through via the iPad implies the problem is with the MBP. In any case, calling M1 support is... not helpful. I get the same behaviour when I bypass the Airport Express entirely and plug the MBP directly into the cable modem. Can anybody explain a) how this is even possible and b) how to fix it? mella:~ ratkins$ ping ajax.googleapis.com PING googleapis.l.google.com (209.85.132.95): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 209.85.132.95: icmp_seq=0 ttl=50 time=11.488 ms 64 bytes from 209.85.132.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=13.012 ms 64 bytes from 209.85.132.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=13.048 ms ^C --- googleapis.l.google.com ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 11.488/12.516/13.048/0.727 ms mella:~ ratkins$ traceroute ajax.googleapis.com traceroute to googleapis.l.google.com (209.85.132.95), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets traceroute: sendto: No route to host 1 traceroute: wrote googleapis.l.google.com 52 chars, ret=-1 *traceroute: sendto: No route to host traceroute: wrote googleapis.l.google.com 52 chars, ret=-1 ^C mella:~ ratkins$ The traceroute from the iPad goes (and I'm copying this by hand): 10.0.1.1 119.56.34.1 172.20.8.222 172.31.253.11 202.65.245.1 202.65.245.142 209.85.243.156 72.14.233.145 209.85.132.82 From the MBP, I can't traceroute to any of the IPs from 172.20.8.222 onwards. [For extra flavour, not being able to access the above appears to stop me logging in to Server Fault via OpenID and formatting the above traceroutes correctly. Anyone with sufficient rep here to do so, I'd be much obliged.]

    Read the article

  • DansGuardian/Squid Traffic doesn't get back to user

    - by DKNUCKLES
    I've purchased a Squid appliance that I'm attempting to implement, however the lack of documentation has left me a bit high and dry. Forgive me if this is a silly question, but this is my first attempt at implementing Squid. From what I can ascertain from the documentation (or lack thereof), the users connect to DansGuardian first at port 8080 where the filtering is done, at which point it forwards it to the Squid appliance at port 3128. The traffic is then sent to the internet. The setup I have is as follows Gateway (MikroTik router) : 192.168.88.1 Squid/DansGuardian :192.168.88.100 Client : 192.168.88.238 Client --- Gateway --- Proxy --- Internet I have set up a simple NAT rule to forward all traffic from the client machine (for testing purposes) to go to the DansGuardian. The traffic seems to get there, although I see a lot of SYN_RECV w/ a netstat -antp command on the virtual appliance machine. From this I gather that the traffic is NOT being routed back to the client machine. Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State PID/Program name tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:8080 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 192.168.88.100:8080 192.168.88.238:55786 SYN_RECV - tcp 0 0 192.168.88.100:8080 192.168.88.238:55787 SYN_RECV - tcp 0 0 192.168.88.100:8080 192.168.88.238:55785 SYN_RECV - tcp 0 0 192.168.88.100:8080 192.168.88.238:55788 SYN_RECV - tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:10000 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:22 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN - Is this a routing issue or an issue with the Squid Appliance?

    Read the article

  • Cisco IOS policy route for router originated VPN traffic

    - by Paul
    We have a Cisco IOS router with two DSL connections. One of them is intended for general traffic (ADSL), the other for VPN links (BDSL) and various other traffic. So the default route is the ADSL link, and we have a combination of static routes for the VPN traffic, and policy routes for other traffic types that should go out the BDSL link. For site to site traffic, this is fine, we just static route the public IPs and remote networks out of the BDSL line. The policy based routing works fine for any internal traffic that matches an ACL. The problem is now that there are remote VPN sites originating from dynamic addresses, so we cannot use static routes. The replies to incoming ISAKMP requests are following the default route out of the ADSL (despite there being no crypto map on that interface). I want to route the outgoing VPN traffic out of the BDSL. I have tried adding udp/500 and esp to and from the route-map acl that pushes traffic out of the BDSL line, but it doesn't match, presumably because the route-map happen earlier than the IPSec stuff. Any ideas how I can do this? IOS ver: 12.4.13T.

    Read the article

  • NETKEY IPsec and ARP

    - by Shawn J. Goff
    I'm wondering if I have the correct routing setup for an IPsec tunnel. I have control over the IPsec endpoints and the hosts connected to one side. These hosts are connecting to the tunnel so that they have access to the network on the other side of what I will call the IPsec server. I don't have control of the network upstream of this server. Normally, the IPsec server will not respond to ARP requests for the hosts on the other side of the tunnel. So when a packet arrives for one of my hosts the server gets ARP requests, but the upstream router gets no response, and cannot construct the ethernet frame to send me the packets. If I was using one of the swan stacks, I would have a separate interface, and I'd probably just need to turn on proxyarp, but I'm using NETKEY, which doesn't use a separate interface for the tunnel. To solve the problem for now, I have added an eth0.5 vlan to the IPsec server, turned on proxyarp for that interface, and added all routes my hosts addresses to that interface so that it will respond to those ARP requests (and will therefore get relevant packets routed to it). This works, but it feels wrong. What is the correct way to get the upstream router to send me the traffic for these hosts?

    Read the article

  • Hubs/switches taking out switches?

    - by Bart Silverstrim
    Here's the issue...we have a network with a lot of Cisco switches. Someone plugged in a hub on the network, and then we started seeing "weird" behavior; errors in communication between clients and servers, or network timeouts, dropping network connections, etc. It seemed that somehow that hub (or SOHO switch) was particularly freaking out our Cisco 3700 series switches. Disconnect that hub or netgear-type SOHO switch and things settled down again. We're in the process of trying to get a centralized logging server for SNMP and management, etc., to see if we can trap errors or narrow down when someone does this sort of thing without our knowledge because things seem to work, for the most part, without issue, we just get freaky oddball incidents on particular switches that don't seem to have any explanation until we find out someone decided to take matters into their own hands to expand available ports in their room. Without getting into procedure changes or locking down ports or "in our organization they'd be fired" answers, can someone explain why adding a small switch or hub, not necessarily a SOHO router (even a dumb hub apparently caused the 3700's to freak out) sending DHCP request out, will cause issues? The boss said it's because the Cisco's are getting confused because that rogue hub/switch is bridging multiple MAC's/IP's into one port on the Cisco switches and they just choke on that, but I thought their routing tables should be able to handle multiple machines coming into the port. Anyone see that behavior before and have a clearer explanation of what's happening? I'd like to know for future troubleshooting and better understanding that just waving my hand and saying "you just can't".

    Read the article

  • Route all traffic via OpenVPN client

    - by Ilya
    I've got OpenVPN client running on 192.168.0.3. What I'd like to do is route all the traffic from the second computer with 192.168.0.100 via OpenVPN client that's running on the first computer. My router ip is 192.168.0.1 Network topology: Windows computer with OpenVPN client: 192.168.0.3 Windows computer whose traffic has to be rerouted: 192.168.0.100 Router: 192.168.0.1 I want it to work in the following way: 192.168.0.100 computer => 192.168.0.3 computer => OpenVPN => 192.168.0.1 How can I achieve that by only modifying windows' routing table? I've tried entering the following into windows shell(on computer without VPN), which didn't work (it just dropped my internet connection): route delete 0.0.0.0 mask 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.1 route add 0.0.0.0 mask 255.255.255.255 192.168.0.3 Should I also setup the computer that has OpenVPN client running? Does it have anything to do with windows tcp forwarding? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Two DHCP servers on the same network

    - by CesarGon
    We are setting up a routing link between the Windows Server 2008 networks of two different buildings in my organisation. Each network uses a different IP addressing scheme (one uses public addresses, the other one uses private), but the goal is having a single Windows Server domain across the gap between the buildings. The link is provided by a 100-Mbps point-to-point line. I have always understood that you should not have more than one DHCP server on a network. However, we are planning to put a domain controller on each building, and each domain controller will be a DNS server and a DHCP server as well. The intention is that a machine booting up in building A gets its IP address from the DHCP server closer to it, in building A, while a machine booting up in building B gets an address from the DHCP server in building B. Since the two buildings will be linked and the network will be only one, will this work? How can I avoid that a machine booting up in building A gets an address from the DHCP server in building B (or vice versa)? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Two DHCP servers on the same network

    - by CesarGon
    We are setting up a routing link between the Windows Server 2008 networks of two different buildings in my organisation. Each network uses a different IP addressing scheme (one uses public addresses, the other one uses private), but the goal is having a single Windows Server domain across the gap between the buildings. The link is provided by a 100-Mbps point-to-point line. I have always understood that you should not have more than one DHCP server on a network. However, we are planning to put a domain controller on each building, and each domain controller will be a DNS server and a DHCP server as well. The intention is that a machine booting up in building A gets its IP address from the DHCP server closer to it, in building A, while a machine booting up in building B gets an address from the DHCP server in building B. Since the two buildings will be linked and the network will be only one, will this work? How can I avoid that a machine booting up in building A gets an address from the DHCP server in building B (or vice versa)? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why can't I route to some sites from my MacBook Pro that I can see from my iPad? [closed]

    - by Robert Atkins
    I am on M1 Cable (residential) broadband in Singapore. I have an intermittent problem routing to some sites from my MacBook Pro—often Google-related sites (arduino.googlecode.com and ajax.googleapis.com right now, but sometimes even gmail.com.) This prevents StackExchange chat from working, for instance. Funny thing is, my iPad can route to those sites and they're on the same wireless network! I can ping the sites, but not traceroute to them which I find odd. That I can get through via the iPad implies the problem is with the MBP. In any case, calling M1 support is... not helpful. I get the same behaviour when I bypass the Airport Express entirely and plug the MBP directly into the cable modem. Can anybody explain a) how this is even possible and b) how to fix it? mella:~ ratkins$ ping ajax.googleapis.com PING googleapis.l.google.com (209.85.132.95): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 209.85.132.95: icmp_seq=0 ttl=50 time=11.488 ms 64 bytes from 209.85.132.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=13.012 ms 64 bytes from 209.85.132.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53 time=13.048 ms ^C --- googleapis.l.google.com ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 11.488/12.516/13.048/0.727 ms mella:~ ratkins$ traceroute ajax.googleapis.com traceroute to googleapis.l.google.com (209.85.132.95), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets traceroute: sendto: No route to host 1 traceroute: wrote googleapis.l.google.com 52 chars, ret=-1 *traceroute: sendto: No route to host traceroute: wrote googleapis.l.google.com 52 chars, ret=-1 ^C mella:~ ratkins$ The traceroute from the iPad goes (and I'm copying this by hand): 10.0.1.1 119.56.34.1 172.20.8.222 172.31.253.11 202.65.245.1 202.65.245.142 209.85.243.156 72.14.233.145 209.85.132.82 From the MBP, I can't traceroute to any of the IPs from 172.20.8.222 onwards. [For extra flavour, not being able to access the above appears to stop me logging in to Server Fault via OpenID and formatting the above traceroutes correctly. Anyone with sufficient rep here to do so, I'd be much obliged.]

    Read the article

  • Private staff network within public network

    - by pianohacker
    I'm the sysadmin at a small public library. Since I got here a few years ago, I've been trying to set up the network in a secure and simple way. Security is a little tricky; the staff and patron networks need to be separated, for security reasons. Even if I further isolated the public wireless, I'd still rather not trust the security of our public computers. However, the two networks also need to communicate; even if I set up enough VMs so they didn't share any servers, they need to use the same two printers at the very least. Currently, I'm solving this with some jerry-rigged commodity equipment. The patron network, linked together by switches, has a Windows server connected to it for DNS and DHCP and a DSL modem for a gateway. Also on the patron network is the WAN side of a Linksys router. This router is the "top" of the staff network, and has the same Windows server connected on a different port, providing DNS and DHCP, and another, faster DSL modem (separate connections are very useful, especially as we heavily depend on some cloud-hosted software). tl;dr: We have a public network, and a NATed staff network within it. My question is; is this really the best way to do this? The right equipment would likely make my job easier, but anything with more than four ports and even rudimentary management quickly becomes a heavy hit on our budget. (My original question was about an ungodly frustrating DHCP routing issue, but I thought I'd ask whether my network was broken rather than asking about the DHCP problem and being told my network was broken.)

    Read the article

  • How to hide subfolder when using Web.config for subdomains?

    - by mc-kay
    I have FTP access to my ASP.NET Websapce (IIS 7) and I route subdomains with a Web.config in the web root folder. She looks like this: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <configuration> <system.webServer> <rewrite> <rules> <rule name="route www and emtpy requests" stopProcessing="true"> <match url=".*" /> <conditions logicalGrouping="MatchAll" trackAllCaptures="false"> <add input="{HTTP_HOST}" pattern="^(www.)?example.com" /> <add input="{PATH_INFO}" pattern="^/www/" negate="true" /> </conditions> <action type="Rewrite" url="\www\{R:0}" /> </rule> <rule name="route to blog" stopProcessing="true"> <match url=".*" /> <conditions logicalGrouping="MatchAll" trackAllCaptures="false"> <add input="{HTTP_HOST}" pattern="^blog.example.com$" /> <add input="{PATH_INFO}" pattern="^/blog/" negate="true" /> </conditions> <action type="Rewrite" url="\blog\{R:0}" /> </rule> </rules> </rewrite> </system.webServer> </configuration> As you can see i have two folders in my root directory: "www" and "blog". When i now enter "blog.example.com" everythink is working fine, but when i click a link i will go to "blog.example.com/blog" What can I do to prevent this behavior ?

    Read the article

  • Home network with two isolated separate subnets, running on cablemodem/router and WRT-router.

    - by Johan Allgoth
    I have a new connection with a nice new router/cable-modem. I'd like to setup it up optimally and needs some pointers. I am a complete n00b when it comes to routing. I want to end up with two separate subnets, 10.1.2.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24 each available on their own wireless channel/SSID. Both firewalled. I want my wired computers on the gigabit switch, optimally with public ips. I want to be able to reach 192.168.1.0/24 from 10.1.2.0/24, but not vice versa. Everyone should have internet access. Hardware and capabilities: Netgear CG3100. Handles cable connection. Gigabit switch. 802.11n. Can do DHCP, firewall, NAT etc. Can choose subnet. Can turn of NAT and if so hand out up to 4 public ips. Somewhat challenged when it comes to configuration. WRT-router. Runs DD/Open-WRT very stable. 100 Mbit switch. 802.11.g Can do DHCP, firewall, NAT etc. Can choose subnet. Highly configurable. I hope to be able to keep 10.1.2.0/24 on the CG3100, for speed reasons and 192.168.0.0/24 on the WRT-router for quota and user control reasons. On my 10.1.2.0/24 network I plan on running servers for various services. Should I turn of NAT on the WRT-router? Or on the cable modem? Activate what in that case? Is double NAT always f-ed up?

    Read the article

  • How to Log Into a Web App Simultaneously with Different Account?

    - by Ngu Soon Hui
    I want to log into a web application, using at least ten account names at one single point of time ( I am not trying to do anything illegal, so don't worry). AFAIK, each tab in Chrome will share the same session, therefore, for one machine, one can use Google Chrome to log in at most 2 accounts, one in normal mode, another in Incognito mode. Is there anyway I can log into multiple accounts? I know I can open up IE and Firefox ( probably Safari etc) and login, but this is not really scalable as the number of web browsers is finite. Edit: My application is a localhost application; it resides on my computer. So proxy may not be that useful, and you now probably understand why it's nothing illegal. Edit2: CookieSwap seems like a good idea, but the problem is that once I swap the cookie, all the tabs and the FF apps' cookie are swap as well. Can the swapping be done on a tab basis or on application basis, so that on a dual-monitor, I can see the different login side-by-side?

    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

  • System Slow After Uprading Ubuntu

    - by Aragon N
    I have an Ubuntu network machine which has release of 10.04.1 LTS Lucid. On this system I have Apache, PostgreSQL and django. For some app. development I have to install PGP and php-curl. Due to being on network, I have exported a VMware machine to the Internet and firstly I have upgraded the system and then installed php5 packages on it. I don't know is it all about django or apache configuration. Maybe some Apache settings had changed. In this case in apache where I have to look at ? After all replacing it with its old place, I see that the new system query is slow according to another. Old system query time : 140 ms New system query time : 9.11 s I have checked /etc/network interface and it seems there is no problem. I have checked /etc/resolv.conf and it seems OK I have checked /etc/nsswitch.conf and only host section is different from old one which old system has hosts: files mdns4_minimal [NOTFOUND=return] dns mdns4 and then I have checked time host -t A services.myapp.com and I got real 0m0.355s user 0m0.010s sys 0m0.020s and I have checked apache2 HostnameLookups : find /etc/apache2/ -type f | xargs grep -i HostnameLookups It returned : /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:# HostnameLookups: Log the names of clients or just their IP addresses /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:HostnameLookups Off and now what can I have to check for boosting my system as before?

    Read the article

  • VLAN ACLs and when to go Layer 3

    - by wuckachucka
    I want to: a) segment several departments into VLANs with the hopes of restricting access between them completely (Sales never needs to talk to Support's workstations or printers and vice-versa) or b) certain IP addresses and TCP/UDP ports across VLANS -- i.e. permitting the Sales VLAN to access the CRM Web Server in the Server VLAN on port 443 only. Port-wise, I'll need a 48-port switch and another 24-port switch to go with the two existing 24-port Layer 2 switches (Linksys); I'm looking at going with D-Links or HP Procurves as Cisco is out of our price range. Question #1: From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), if the Servers (VLAN10) and Sales (VLAN20) are all on the same 48-port switch (or two stacked 24-port switches), afaik, the switch "knows" what VLANs and ports each device belongs to and will switch packets between them; I can also apply ACLs to restrict access between VLANs at this point. Is this correct? Question #2: Now lets say that Support (VLAN30) is on a different switch (one of the Linksys) switches. I'm assuming I'll need to trunk (tag) switch #2's VLANs across to switch #1, so switch #1 sees switch #2's VLAN30 (and vice-versa). Once Switch #1 can "see" VLAN30, I'm assuming I can then apply ACLs as stated in Question #1. Is this correct? Question #3: Once Switch #1 can see all the VLANs, can I achieve the seemingly "Layer 3" ACL filtering of restricting access to Server VLAN on only certain TCP/UDP ports and IP addresses (say, only permitting 3389 to the Terminal Server, 192.168.10.4/32). I say "seemingly" because some of the Layer 2 switches mention the ability to restrict ports and IP addresses through the ACLs; I (perhaps mistakenly) thought that in order to have Layer 3 ACLs (packet filtering), I'd need to have at least one Layer 3 switch acting as a core router. If my assumptions are incorrect, at which point do you need a Layer 3 switch for inter-VLAN routing vs. inter-VLAN switching? Is it generally only when you need that higher-level packet filtering ability between your departments?

    Read the article

  • How is route automatic metric calculated on Windows 7?

    - by e-t172
    KB299540 explains how Windows XP automatically assign metrics to IP routes: The following table outlines the criteria that is used to assign metrics for routes that are bound to network interfaces of various speeds. Greater than 200 Mb: 10 Greater than 20 Mb, and less than or equal to 200 Mb: 20 Greater than 4 Mb, and less than or equal to 20 Mb: 30 Greater than 500 kilobits (Kb), and less than or equal to 4 Mb: 40 Less than or equal to 500 Kb: 50 However, they seem to have changed their algorithm in Windows 7, as my routing table looks like this: IPv4 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.3 10 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.202.254.254 10.202.1.2 286 10.202.0.0 255.255.0.0 On-link 10.202.1.2 286 10.202.1.2 255.255.255.255 On-link 10.202.1.2 286 10.202.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 10.202.1.2 286 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.0.3 266 192.168.0.3 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.3 266 192.168.0.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.3 266 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.0.3 266 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 10.202.1.2 286 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 10.202.1.2 40 =========================================================================== The only "correct" metric is the first one (Gigabit connection = 10). However, other routes using the Gigabit connection have metric = 266, my VPN has metric = 286, and loopback is 306 (?!). Any idea what's going on?

    Read the article

  • Route all wlan0 traffic over tun0

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

    Read the article

  • Route specific network traffic through vpn in virtualbox guest

    - by Sander
    I am running OSX with a windows server 2008 guest in Virtualbox. My goal is to route some of the network traffic in the host through the server guest. This is because the win2008 server has a VPN connection to my workplace using a Smartcard solution which can not operate on OSX. My current set-up is like this: OSX (Host): connected to the internet via en01 Win2008 (Guest): connected to the internet using NAT (lan1 in guest) has a SSTP VPN connection to my workplace is connected to the guest using an Host Only Adapter vboxnet0 (LAN2 in guest) The important part is about the host (OSX). Primarily I want all network traffic to just go through en01. However, all traffic which can only be accessed through the VPN must go through the guest and through the VPN. I have one specific FQDN which can only be accessed through the VPN (say corp.mycompany.com). I do not know much about networking. I thought I would be able to get it to work by bridging together LAN2 and LAN1 but this didn't seem to work this: http://archives.aidanfindlater.com/blog/2010/02/03/use-vpn-for-specific-sites-on-mac-os-x/ using a loopback adapter on WinXP (when I did not have win2008 yet, but this doesn't work because I can't create a PPTP connection) And I've also read about Routing and Remote Access but I have no idea on how to use this. Can someone help me in the right direction?

    Read the article

  • Intermittently uncommunicative subnets

    - by mhd
    Last week proved me a veritable Cassandra: I've always said that it's a bad idea to have only one firewall/router, without a backup or failover. And thus our Cisco PIX went haywire, refusing to route properly. And of course, the only one available here on short notice is me, and while I'm quite grounded in Linux, I'm really a developer not a sysadmin (the fact that this hit me on sysadmin appreciation day is a bit ironic). Anyway, this weekend I tried to hack up a temporary solution: I used an old server with enough NICs (two built-in, four on a card) to serve as a gateway and firewall. Due to some problems with the raid controller, I got only two router distros running, and between Untangle and Ebox I decided for the latter. Now everything is quite okay. I've got all the different subnets we've got here (all with separate switches) talking to each other and even to the internet (Cisco 2800 router, T1 lines). But from time to time (20-60 minute intervals), I get a total routing failure. Our main, office subnet can't talk to our server subnet and can't connect to the internet. This is not the end of a gradual slowdown, either everything's working perfectly or I get a total lack of communication for about two minutes each time. Now I'm a bit at wits end what to check. At least with the default EBox setup, nothing in /var/log shows anything weird and it doesn't exactly have lots of built-in monitoring tools. So I'm hoping someone here could give me some pointers about what to look out for. I did change the ethernet cable from the office switch to the firewall, with no results. I might change switches, although within the switch it seems to work ok enough. Edit: I'm not sure whether this is the sole cause of the problem, but after I noticed a few DHCP entries just before the last drop of connectivity, I tried to reproduce that. And alas, whenever I renew a DHCP connection, I can't access other subnets anymore. Running ISC DHCPD 3.0.6.

    Read the article

  • IPv6 Addresses causing Exchange Relay whitelists to fail

    - by makerofthings7
    Several of our new Exchange servers are failing to relay messages because it is communicating over IPv6 and not matching any receive connector I previously set up. I'm not sure how we are using IP6 since we only have a IPv4 network and we are routing across subnets. I discovered this by typing helo in from the source to the server that is confused by my IP6 address. I saw the IPv6 message and the custom message I gave this receive connector. (connectors with more permission have a different helo) 220 HUB01 client helo asdf 250 HUB01.nfp.com Hello [fe80::cd8:6087:7b1e:99d4%11] More info about my environment: I have two dedicated Exchange forests each with a distinct purpose. They have no trust and only communicate by SMTP. They both share the same DNS infrastructure via stub zones. What are my options? This is my guess, but I'm no IPv6 expert so I don't know which one is the best option Disable IPv6 Add the IPv6 address to the whitelist (isn't that IP dynamic?) Tell Exchange to use IPv4 instead Figure out why we are using IPv6 instead of IP4

    Read the article

  • How should I deploy my JVM-based web application on ubuntu?

    - by Pieter Breed
    I've developed a web application using clojure/compojure (JVM based) and while developing I tested it using embedded jetty that runs on 0.0.0.0:8080. I would now like to deploy it to run on port 80 on ubuntu. I do dynamic virtual hosting, so any request for any host that arrives on port 80 should be handled by my application. The issues that worries me are: I can still run it embedded but I'm worried about running my app as root (needed for binding to port 80). I'm not sure if I can 'give up root' when in the JVM. Do I need to be concerned by this? besides, serving web applications is a known problem and I should be using known solutions for this (jetty or tomcat) but especially tomcat seems very heavy weight. Besides, I only have one application that listens to /* and does routing internally. (with compojure/ring). What I'm trying to say with this is that tomcat by default assigns WARs to subfolders which I don't want. So basically what I need is some very safe way of binding to port 80 on ubuntu that can with minimal interference send all requests to my app. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • sbs-server with 2 nics and 2 connections to the internet with different providers not working as it

    - by erik-van-gorp
    We have the following configuration : A sbs-2003 server in a domain (mydomain.com) with 2 network cards, each connected to a different network (provider), with different gateways, one for web and one for mail and clients. (we do this because the bandwitdh we get from our providers is too small to handle all the mail(+spam) traffic and webservices, so we took 2 providers) DNS is as follows : www.mydomain.com 1.2.3.4 mail.mydomain.com 5.6.7.8 NIC 1(192.168.1.3) is connected to to the internet through a firewall at 192.168.1.1, having wan address 1.2.3.4 NIC 2(10.0.0.3) is connected to to the internet through a firewall at 10.0.0.1, having wan address 5.6.7.8 Both nics have their default gateway installed at their corresponding routers. Also the metrics are set equal. (i know this isn't a supported config, but it works more or less). In this configuration i can use RDP on both wan adresses, and telnet to port 25 works as well on both. The issue now is that since a few weeks , we get regular disconnections, and website hickups(timeouts), several per hour. If we set one router to a higher metric, that route no longer works. In short, I want the mails to route through NIC2 and the web through NIC1. Any better configuration (without installing a second mail server) ?

    Read the article

  • Slow tracepath on local LAN

    - by Simone Falcini
    I am on EXSi and I have 2 instances: Ubuntu and CentOS. These are the network configurations Ubuntu eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:50:56:00:1f:68 inet addr:212.83.153.71 Bcast:212.83.153.71 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:76059 errors:0 dropped:26 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:7224 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:6482760 (6.4 MB) TX bytes:2080684 (2.0 MB) eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0c:29:46:5a:f2 inet addr:192.168.1.1 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:252 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:608 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:42460 (42.4 KB) TX bytes:82474 (82.4 KB) /etc/iptables.conf *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [142:12571] :INPUT ACCEPT [5:1076] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [8:496] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [8:496] -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.1.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [2:72] :FORWARD ACCEPT [4:336] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [6:328] -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth1 -p udp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i eth0 -p tcp --dport ssh -j ACCEPT COMMIT CentOS eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0C:29:74:1C:55 inet addr:192.168.1.2 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::20c:29ff:fe74:1c55/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:499 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:475 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:68326 (66.7 KiB) TX bytes:82641 (80.7 KiB) The main problem is that if i execute this command from the CentOS instance ssh 192.168.1.2 it takes more than 20s to connect. It seems like it's routing the connection to the wrong network. What could it be? Thanks!

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184  | Next Page >