Search Results

Search found 1454 results on 59 pages for 'eth0'.

Page 18/59 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

• Netinstalling CentOS if the gateway is in a different subnet

  - by James Lawrie

  I have a KVM host (A) running a virtual machine (B). They each have their own external IP address and the networking is setup using bridging between eth0 and br0 on A. B uses eth0, with A being the gateway. The problem is that the two external IP addresses are on different subnets (different /8s in fact) so by default, B claims it cannot reach A (Network Unreachable). I can resolve this by adding a static route on B: echo "any host gateway_ip dev eth0" > /etc/sysconfig/static-routes Modifying /etc/init.d/networking to reload the gateway after applying static routes (I only added the final line before fi): if [ -f /etc/sysconfig/static-routes ]; then grep "^any" /etc/sysconfig/static-routes | while read ignore args ; do /sbin/route add -$args done route add default gw "${GATEWAY}" fi If I then restart networking, it comes online. How can I do this (or work around it some other way) prior to the system being installed, ideally inside an Anaconda kickstart file?

  Read the article

• Proxmox 31 + KVM routing + IP subnet + csf

  - by KeyJey

  We have proxmox 3.1 server in netzner with routuing network and IP subnet block. We want to implement csf firewall without interfering the traffic of the KVM VMs, what would be the easiest way? We readed that we should add this lines to /etc/csf/csfpost.sh: iptables -A FORWARD -d 144.76.223.155 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -d 144.76.223.156 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -d 144.76.223.157 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -d 144.76.223.158 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -d 144.76.223.159 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -d 144.99.183.323 -j ACCEPT But when we enable csf the ping breaks, this is the network config (IPs are modified): auto lo iface lo inet loopback # device: eth0 auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 144.76.166.100 netmask 255.255.255.255 pointopoint 144.76.183.97 gateway 144.76.183.97 # for single IPs auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 144.76.166.100 netmask 255.255.255.255 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 up ip route add 144.99.183.323/32 dev vmbr0 # for a subnet auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet static address 144.76.166.100 netmask 255.255.255.248 bridge_ports none bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 Thanks in advanced ! :)

  Read the article

• Force an LXC container to use its own IP address

  - by emma sculateur

  Sorry if this question has already been asked. I could not find it, I have this setup : +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |HOST | | | | +-------------------------------------------------+ | | | UBUNTU-VM | | | | | | | | +-------------------+ | | | | |UBUNTU-LXC | | +------------------+ | | | | 10.0.0.3/24 | 10.0.0.1/24 | |OTHER VM | | | | | eth0-----lxcbr0----------eth0-----------br0----------eth0 | | | | | | 192.168.100.2/24| 192.168.100.1/24 |192.168.100.3/24 | | | | +-------------------+ | +------------------+ | | +-------------------------------------------------+ | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ When I ping 192.168.100.3 from my UBUNTU-LXC, the source IP address is automatically changed to 192.168.100.2 by UBUNTU-VM. It's like having a NAT, whereas I really want my UBUNTU-LXC to talk with it own IP address. Is there any way to do this ? Edit : these info may be relevant : I am using KVM +libvirt to set up my VMs Here is how I create my interface in UBUNTU-VM : <interface type='bridge'> <mac address='52:54:00:cb:aa:74'/> <source bridge='br0'/> <model type='e1000'/> <address type='pci' domain='0x0000' bus='0x00' slot='0x09' function='0x0'/> </interface>

  Read the article

• KVM Guest not reachable from host

  - by Paul

  Hello, I'm running Ubuntu server 9.10, installed KVM etc. Created the bridge network following instructions on help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM/Networking Created a windows 2008 guest using virt-install command line (using virt-manager GUI from a remote Ubuntu desktop would not let me select the ISO location). I can however use a remote virt-manager to connect to the guest and complete the windows install. Within windows 2008 I changed the IP address but cannot ping from outside world. The bridge network appears fine - I'm not sure what else to look at! Here is the interfaces file: The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback The primary network interface auto eth0 iface eth0 inet manual # auto br0 iface br0 inet static address 60.234.64.50 netmask 255.255.255.248 network 60.234.0.0 broadcast 60.234.0.255 gateway 60.234.64.49 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 bridge_maxwait 0 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.12.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.12.255 The ip of the windows server is 60.234.64.52 What else should I check? Regards Paul.

  Read the article

• collectd:Monitoring server not showing clients

  - by Quintin Par

  I have setup a monitoring server with the following setup. <Plugin network> Listen "0.0.0.0" "25826" </Plugin> Now my clients are sending data to the monitoring server(verified through tcpdump). Even the collection folder shows that the data is being dumped /var/lib/collectd/rrd [ec2-user at x rrd]$ ll total 4 drwxr-xr-x 11 root root 4096 Nov 20 17:53 x-web-1.y.com [ec2-user at x rrd]$ I have also verified with find . -mmin 1 to see if its being constantly updated. [ec2-user@x rrd]$ find . -mmin 1 ./x-web-1.y.com/interface-eth0/if_errors.rrd ./x-web-1.y.com/interface-eth0/if_packets.rrd ./x-web-1.y.com/interface-eth0/if_octets.rrd ./x-web-1.y.com/disk-xvda1/disk_time.rrd ./x-web-1.y.com/disk-xvda1/disk_ops.rrd ./x-web-1.y.com/disk-xvda1/disk_octets.rrd ./x-web-1.y.com/disk-xvda1/disk_merged.rrd But when i look it up through collectd-web, I don't see the clients What might be wrong in my setup?

  Read the article

• Routing traffic to specific web sites through Ethernet, rest via wifi on Mac OS X 10.6?

  - by user32448

  Hi I have two separate Internet connections connected to a Mac and I'd like one of them (via Ethernet eth0 gateway 192.168.2.1) to serve for just backing up to an remote online storage, and the other one (via Airport en1 gateway 192.168.1.1) for all other Internet traffic. I tried using "route" from the terminal as follows: sudo route add -host 98.207.226.113 -interface eth0 (just for testing against the site www.whatismyip.org whose IP is 98.207.226.113, to see through which gateway the traffic is routed) I can see using netstat that the route is added: $ netstat -rn -f inet Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire default 192.168.1.1 UGSc 49 0 en1 98.207.226.113 192.168.2.1 UGSc 0 0 eth0 However, the traffic in this case does NOT get routed properly through Ethernet, as if the routing definition I made is ignored. Any ideas? Thanks!

  Read the article

• OpenVPN and PPTP on XEN VPS

  - by amiv

  I have Debian based system (Ubuntu 11.10) on XEN VPS. I've installed OpenVPN and works great. I need to install PPTP too, so did it and clients can connect, but they have no internet on client side. If I connect to VPN over PPTP I can ping and access to only my VPS by its IP, but ony that. There's no "internet" on client side. It looks it's not DNS problems (I'm using 8.8.8.8) because I can't ping known IPs. I bet the solution is simple, but don't have any idea. Any guess? /etc/pptpd.conf option /etc/ppp/pptpd-options logwtmp localip 46.38.xx.xx remoteip 10.1.0.1-10 /etc/ppp/pptpd-options name pptpd refuse-pap refuse-chap refuse-mschap require-mschap-v2 require-mppe-128 ms-dns 8.8.8.8 ms-dns 8.8.4.4 proxyarp nodefaultroute lock nobsdcomp /etc/ppp/ip-up [...] ifconfig ppp0 mtu 1400 /etc/sysctl.conf [...] net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 Command which I run: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j SNAT --to-source 46.38.xx.xx (IP of my VPS) The client can connect, first one gets IP 10.1.0.1 and DNS from Google. I bet it's iptables problem, am I right? I'm iptables noob and I don't have idea what's wrong. And here's the ifconfig and route command before client connect via PPTP: root@vps3780:~# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default xx.xx.tel.ru 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.8.0.0 10.8.0.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 10.8.0.2 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 46.38.xx.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 root@vps3780:~# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:16:3e:56:xx:xx inet addr:46.38.xx.xx Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::216:xx:xx:dfb6/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:22671 errors:0 dropped:81 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:2266 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:1813358 (1.8 MB) TX bytes:667626 (667.6 KB) Interrupt:24 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:100 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:100 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:10778 (10.7 KB) TX bytes:10778 (10.7 KB) tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:10.8.0.1 P-t-P:10.8.0.2 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:602 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:612 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:90850 (90.8 KB) TX bytes:418904 (418.9 KB) And here's the ifconfig and route command after client connect via PPTP: root@vps3780:~# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default xx.xx.tel.ru 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.1.0.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 10.8.0.0 10.8.0.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 10.8.0.2 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 46.38.xx.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 root@vps3780:~# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:16:3e:56:xx:xx inet addr:46.38.xx.xx Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::216:xx:xx:dfb6/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:22989 errors:0 dropped:82 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:2352 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:1841310 (1.8 MB) TX bytes:678456 (678.4 KB) Interrupt:24 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:112 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:112 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:12102 (12.1 KB) TX bytes:12102 (12.1 KB) ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol inet addr:46.38.xx.xx P-t-P:10.1.0.1 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1400 Metric:1 RX packets:66 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:15 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:3 RX bytes:10028 (10.0 KB) TX bytes:660 (660.0 B) tun0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:10.8.0.1 P-t-P:10.8.0.2 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:602 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:612 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:90850 (90.8 KB) TX bytes:418904 (418.9 KB) And ugly iptables --list output: root@vps3780:~# iptables --list Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED ACCEPT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-port-unreachable And ugly iptables -t nat -L output: root@vps3780:~# iptables -t nat -L Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination SNAT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx MASQUERADE all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere SNAT all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx SNAT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx SNAT all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx MASQUERADE all -- anywhere anywhere SNAT all -- anywhere anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx SNAT all -- 10.8.0.0/24 anywhere to:46.38.xx.xx MASQUERADE all -- anywhere anywhere MASQUERADE all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere MASQUERADE all -- anywhere anywhere MASQUERADE all -- 10.1.0.0/24 anywhere As I said - OpenVPN works very good. 10.8.0.0/24 for OpenVPN (on tun0). PPTP won't work. 10.1.0.0/24 for PPTP (on ppp0). Clients can connect, but they haven't "internet". Any suggestions will be appreciated. Second whole day fighting with no results. EDIT: iptables -t filter -F - it resolved my problem :-)

  Read the article

• Where is debian storing its network settings?

  - by user13743

  I have a debian machine that is supposed to have a static ip, but insists on getting its address from the DHCP server. Here's this settings file: $> cat /etc/network/interfaces # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system # and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5). # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.1.99 gateway 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.1.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255 Yet $> sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart Reconfiguring network interfaces...done. $> sudo ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:e0:03:09:05:2e inet addr:192.168.1.205 Bcast:255.255.255.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 ... Where is it being told to use dhcp?

  Read the article

• NAT rules betweek 2 network interfaces (with iptables)

  - by Simone Falcini

  this is the current network that I have: UBUNTU: eth0: ip: 212.83.10.10 bcast: 212.83.10.10 netmask 255.255.255.255 gateway 62.x.x.x eth1: ip: 192.168.1.1 bcast: 192.168.1.255 netmask: 255.255.255.0 gateway ? CENTOS: eth0: ip: 192.168.1.2 bcast: 192.168.1.255 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.1 I basically want this: Make specific NAT rules from the internet to specific internal servers depending on the port: Connections incoming to port 80 must be redirected to 192.168.1.2:80 Connections incoming to port 3306 must be redirected to 192.168.1.3:3306 and so on... I also need one NAT rule to allow the servers in the subnet 192.168.1.x to browse the internet. I need to route the requests on eth0 to eth1 to be able to exit to internet. Can I do this on the UBUNTU machine with iptables? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Routing Traffic on Ubuntu to give Raspberry PI Internet Access

  - by Scruffers

  I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction for setting up my Linux (Ubuntu 12.04) box to route traffic from eth0 to wlan0. I'll try and explain the problem I am trying to solve: I currently have two separate networks: [RaspberryPi/eth0] 192.168.2.2 / 255.255.255.0 ^ | v [Ubuntu/eth0] 192.168.2.1 / 255.255.255.0 And: [Ubuntu/wlan0] 192.168.1.100 / 255.255.255.0 ^ | v [ADSL router] 192.168.1.1 / 255.255.255.0 So currently if I want to access the RaspberryPI I can SSH from the Ubuntu box to the PI. And if I want to use the Internet, I have full access from the Ubuntu box, but nothing from the RaspberryPI - the two networks are partitioned. What I would like to do is configure things so that the RaspberryPI has Internet access via the Ubuntu box and out to the Internet. I tried to create a bridge, but got the message "wlan0: operation not supported" (wireless chipset is Ralink RT3062). I'm sure giving the Raspberry PI Internet access should be easy to do in this configuration, but I am a bit lost - can someone point me in the right direction please?

  Read the article

• Configuring Wireless Network

  - by Vinod K

  I have vyataa router on VMware with 2 interfaces eth0 and eth1 eth0 is facing the internet eth0 is in Nat mode with dhcp on eth1 is in bridged mode with my ethernet with ip 10.0.2.34/24 The ethernet card is at ip 10.0.2.95/24 i have defined the nat rule. Hence internet is available at eth1 too. Now i am connecting a wireless router at "eth1" iball router, I have connected the router using a cable to the ethernet interface of my laptop. I have configured the WAN connection type as "Static IP" and given "10.0.2.34/24" All the clients that connect using wireless router cannot connect to the internet though. Could anyone provide me a solution for this.. Thank You!!

  Read the article

• ip routing policy in linux

  - by Dragos

  I have a linux system with two network interfaces (eth0 in x.x.x.0 and eth1 in x.x.y.0). Is there any posibility to add some route policy to send all the traffic to network x.x.y.0. I would like even the traffic from eth0 to be send to eth1's network. I cannot delete the direct connected networks from the routing table so all the traffic from x.x.x.0 network is send to eth0. I would like to send all traffic to eth1.

  Read the article

• Configure iptables with a bridge and static IPs

  - by Andrew Koester

  I have my server set up with several public IP addresses, with a network configuration as follows (with example IPs): eth0 \- br0 - 1.1.1.2 |- [VM 1's eth0] | |- 1.1.1.3 | \- 1.1.1.4 \- [VM 2's eth0] \- 1.1.1.5 My question is, how do I set up iptables with different rules for the actual physical server as well as the VMs? I don't mind having the VMs doing their own iptables, but I'd like br0 to have a different set of rules. Right now I can only let everything through, which is not the desired behavior (as br0 is exposed). Thanks!

  Read the article

• Firewall still blocking port 53 despite listing otherwise?

  - by Tom

  I have 3 nodes with virtually the same iptables rules loaded from a bash script, but one particular node is blocking traffic on port 53 despite listing it's accepting it: $ iptables --list -v Chain INPUT (policy DROP 8886 packets, 657K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT all -- lo any anywhere anywhere 2 122 ACCEPT icmp -- any any anywhere anywhere icmp echo-request 20738 5600K ACCEPT all -- any any anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- eth1 any anywhere node1.com multiport dports http,smtp 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- eth1 any anywhere ns.node1.com udp dpt:domain 0 0 ACCEPT tcp -- eth1 any anywhere ns.node1.com tcp dpt:domain 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 any node2.backend anywhere 21 1260 ACCEPT all -- eth0 any node3.backend anywhere 0 0 ACCEPT all -- eth0 any node4.backend anywhere Chain FORWARD (policy DROP 0 packets, 0 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 15804 packets, 26M bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination nmap -sV -p 53 ns.node1.com // From remote server Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2011-02-24 11:44 EST Interesting ports on ns.node1.com (1.2.3.4): PORT STATE SERVICE VERSION 53/tcp filtered domain Nmap finished: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.336 seconds Any ideas? Thanks

  Read the article

• XenServer 5.6.1-fp1. Can't get network working

  - by casey_miller

  I have a PC where XenServer 5.6.1 fp-1 has been successfully installed. I've manually set the network settings: 192.168.1.50 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1 but it's set to xenbr0 iface. While eth0 is empty. When I click on "Configure Management Inteface" it shows that eth0 is connected. But when I ping a default gateway (which is 100% should be accessible) it fails. I used to another shell (Alt+F3) and logged as root. I also failed to ping. with both: ping -I eth0 192.168.1.1 and ping -I xenbr0 192.168.1.1 Be assured that: Cable works Ethernet adapter is 100% functional (prev OS was Ubuntu it was working) There is no firewall rule to deny anything. (everything is allowed) So the question is: What is a problem???

  Read the article

• OpenVZ multiple networks on CTs

  - by user6733

  I have Hardware Node (HN) which has 2 physical interfaces (eth0, eth1). I'm playing with OpenVZ and want to let my containers (CTs) have access to both of those interfaces. I'm using basic configuration - venet. CTs are fine to access eth0 (public interface). But I can't get CTs to get access to eth1 (private network). I tried: # on HN vzctl set 101 --ipadd 192.168.1.101 --save vzctl enter 101 ping 192.168.1.2 # no response here ifconfig # on CT returns lo (127.0.0.1), venet0 (127.0.0.1), venet0:0 (95.168.xxx.xxx), venet0:1 (192.168.1.101) I believe that the main problem is that all packets flows through eth0 on HN (figured out using tcpdump). So the problem might be in routes on HN. Or is my logic here all wrong? I just need access to both interfaces (networks) on HN from CTs. Nothing complicated.

  Read the article

• controlling the bandwidth using tc

  - by Supratik

  Hi I have two NIC etho is connected to the internet and eth1 is connected to the LAN. I want to restrict the download limit using iptables and linux tc. So I wrote a test script to verify if it is working. My iptables configuration is as below. iptables -t mangle -N INBOUND iptables -t mangle -I PREROUTING -i eth0 -j INBOUND iptables -t mangle -A INBOUND -j MARK --set-mark 60 My ingress configuration is as below. tc qdisc add dev eth0 handle 1: ingress tc filter add dev eth0 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle 60 fw police rate 100kbit burst 20kbit drop flowid :1 Can you please tell me what I am missing here ?

  Read the article

• Is it necessary to have firewalls rules between trusted nodes communicating on their backend interfaces?

  - by Tom

  I have 6 nodes that have internet access on eth1 and private access to one another on eth0. Currently I have firewall rules for eth0, for things like memcached and NFS. Is this necessary? It's a real headache as NFS for example communicates on loads of different ports, and I recently introduced glusterfs which needs more still. Is the headache of figuring out what backend ports to unblock worth the security enhancement? I should mention that I will of course still have a firewall rule on eth0 to block servers owned by others in the same datacenter. Thanks

  Read the article

• Troubles doing transparent proxy for virtual machines

  - by Dan H

  Hi iptables gurus. First here is the basic topology: Internet | Gateway | Workstation---eth0---virbr0 | +-----+-----+ | | | vm1 vm2 vm3 I need to test a traffic analyzer running on my workstation, listening on some port (say 8990) on eth0. The rule [I think] I want is "any packets leaving virbr0 going anywhere to port 80 must instead go to port 8990 on eth0". My software running on port 8990 does its own check of the NAT packet mangling to push the packets through after it inspects them. I've been banging my head on this, with different variants of: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i virbr0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT \ --to 10.0.0.10:8990 And I've tried the more generic method of using the mangle table with --set-mark and ip rule add fwmark, but I'm not getting it. I guess what's confusing me is that everything runs on the same box. Thanks for any guidance.

  Read the article

• Squid3 not working. Access denied

  - by Nitish

  I installed SQUID3 on a Linux machine with two ethernet interfaces (eth0 and eth1). I used the default settings in the squid.conf file and uncommented the two lines acl localnet src 192.168.0.0/16 and http_access allow localnet. eth0 is connected to a router, which provides Internet access. It is assigned an IP 192.168.1.2 by the router. I manually configured eth1 to have an IP address 192.168.5.1. It is connected to a switch. Systems having IP addresses 192.168.5.x are connected to this switch. I ran these two commands for NAT: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.5.1:3128 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 3128 But when I try to access internet from a system having IP 192.168.5.2 through the proxy I get an error that says "Access denied". What is wrong with my configuration?

  Read the article

• Is there a suitable chain for iptables when eth is in Promisc mode?

  - by user1495181

  I have a fron-end machine. Machine have2 eth cards. I want to use netfilter queue to do some checks on the packets. I set eth like this: ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 promisc up ifconfig eth1 0.0.0.0 promisc up I want to have an iptable rule like this(only example): iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix " eth0 packet " but the packet is no passed through the iptables ,because it dosnt target to this MAC. Promisc mode didnt help. I saw that there is a way to add iptables chain for PROMISC, but need compilation... Is there any simplier way to have iptables rule when packet is not target to this eth. Currently i bypass this by creating a bridge between 2 eth and put rule on the FORWARD, but i done want to create bridge.

  Read the article

• Squid3 not working. Access denied.

  - by Nitish

  I installed SQUID3 on a Linux machine with two ethernet interfaces (eth0 and eth1). I used the default settings in the squid.conf file and uncommented the two lines acl localnet src 192.168.0.0/16 and http_access allow localnet. eth0 is connected to a router, which provides Internet access. It is assigned an IP 192.168.1.2 by the router. I manually configured eth1 to have an IP address 192.168.5.1. It is connected to a switch. Systems having IP addresses 192.168.5.x are connected to this switch. I ran these two commands for NAT: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth1 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.5.1:3128 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 3128 But when I try to access internet from a system having IP 192.168.5.2 through the proxy I get an error that says "Access denied". What is wrong with my configuration?

  Read the article

• Vicious net widget and dynamic interface

  - by tdi

  Ive got pretty standard vicious net widget for the eth0, yet this is my laptop and I move a lot, sometimes I use wlan0, sometimes ppp0. Is there a way in vicious to dynamically choose the active iface? netwidget = widget({ type = "textbox" }) -- Register widget vicious.register(netwidget, vicious.widgets.net, '<span color="' .. beautiful.fg_netdn_widget ..'">${eth0 down_kb}</span> <span color="' .. beautiful.fg_netup_widget ..'">${eth0 up_kb}</span>', 3)

  Read the article

• route command not being executed in rc.local

  - by user1265478

  I tried adding route add -net 224.0.0.0 netmask 240.0.0.0 dev eth0 to my Fedora rc.local file, but it's not being executed when Fedora boots up. What can I do to fix this? update: i changed to the full path cmd in my rc.local /sbin/route add -net 224.0.0.0 netmask 240.0.0.0 dev eth0 but its not being executed. I change it to sudo /sbin/route add -net 224.0.0.0 netmask 240.0.0.0 dev eth0 it still doesnt work although it works when i manually enter it in the terminal.

  Read the article

• Iptables port mapping from two PCs to one

  - by Anton

  We have 3 PCs, two of it are connected to internet (both of it have 2 NIC) PC1: eth0 - 1.0.0.1 (external IP) eth1 - 172.16.0.1 (internal IP) PC2: eth0 - 1.0.0.2 (external IP) eth1 - 172.16.0.2 (internal IP) PC3: eth0 - 172.16.0.3 (internal IP) Now we want to map port 80 from PC1 and PC2 to PC3. But there is the problem: iptables port forwarding works well from PC1 or PC2, but only in case if PC3 have PC1 or PC2 as gateway. So, question is: can we have port mapping from both PC1 and PC2 regardless of gateway settings on PC3? Thank you in advance.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >