Search Results

Search found 786 results on 32 pages for 'tunnel'.

Page 18/32 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • How to setup IPSec with Amazon EC2

    - by bonzi
    How to setup an IPSec connection from my ubuntu laptop to Amazon EC2 instance? I tried setting it up using elastic IP and VPC with the following openswan configuration but it is not working. conn host-to-host left=%defaultroute leftsubnet=EC2PRIVATEIP/32 # Local netmask leftid=ELASTICIP leftrsasigkey= connaddrfamily=ipv4 right=1laptopip # Remote IP address rightid=laptopip rightrsasigkey= ike=aes128 # IKE algorithms (AES cipher) esp=aes128 # ESP algorithns (AES cipher) auto=add pfs=yes forceencaps=yes type=tunnel

    Read the article

  • How to setup IPSec with Amazon EC2

    - by bonzi
    How to setup an IPSec connection from my ubuntu laptop to Amazon EC2 instance? I tried setting it up using elastic IP and VPC with the following openswan configuration but it is not working. conn host-to-host left=%defaultroute leftsubnet=EC2PRIVATEIP/32 # Local netmask leftid=ELASTICIP leftrsasigkey= connaddrfamily=ipv4 right=1laptopip # Remote IP address rightid=laptopip rightrsasigkey= ike=aes128 # IKE algorithms (AES cipher) esp=aes128 # ESP algorithns (AES cipher) auto=add pfs=yes forceencaps=yes type=tunnel

    Read the article

  • What if the Earth were Hollow? [Video]

    - by Asian Angel
    What would things be like if you dug a tunnel completely through the Earth for travel purposes or if our planet were hollow? Minute Physics takes a look at how things would be if either of these scenarios actually existed. What if the Earth were Hollow? [via Geeks are Sexy] How To Switch Webmail Providers Without Losing All Your Email How To Force Windows Applications to Use a Specific CPU HTG Explains: Is UPnP a Security Risk?

    Read the article

  • Forti VPN Client not connecting to a server under Ubuntu 14.04

    - by deonis
    I've just updated to a new version of Ubuntu (14.04 86x64) and I got a very strange problem with Forti VPN Client. It seems running smoothly, but when I try to connect via GUI or terminal it hangs at the connection stage. here is what I see in terminal: STATUS::Setting up the tunnel STATUS::Connecting... #and this takes forever I know that it's not the problem with the server, the client works no problem on windows. Thank in advance ...

    Read the article

  • 4in6 tunneling (via OpenVPN?)

    - by Deshene
    I have a local network with internet access. But unfortunately IPv4 internet connection speed is limited to 1mbps, which is realy sad. Fortunately I have a native IPv6, and there is no connection speed limit over IPv6. So, in order to get a good internet connection I made a plan: connect to the VPN-service over IPv6, and pass all IPv4 traffic through IPv6 tunnel, or something like that, I think you get the idea. I suggested to use service like HideMyAss.com, but unfortunately they don't support IPv6. The question is: Is there any existing VPN service that will make my dreams come true, and is easy to use, which I could connect over PPTP or OpenVPN (I want to set up connection to VPN in my router settings). Edit: It seems like there are couple of VPN services that supports IPv6 (it's odd, but the biggest VPN services support only IPv4), and there is none providing 4in6 tunnels. So, I came to the following solution: rent a VPS with IPv6 address, and manually setup 4in6 tunnel. I'm not good at networking, never did things like that, and don't know where to start, and what should I do. The use case, as I undestand, should look like this: I connect from my home computer to the VPS via OpenVPN, and after that all my IPv4 traffic pass through IPv6 (server do the job). OpenVPN - because I want to configure VPN connection to server in my router (Asus RT-N16?). How can I achieve this?

    Read the article

  • Ipsec config problem // openswan

    - by user90696
    I try to configure Ipsec on server with openswan as client. But receive error - possible, it's auth error. What I wrote wrong in config ? Thank you for answers. #1: STATE_MAIN_I2: sent MI2, expecting MR2 003 "f-net" #1: received Vendor ID payload [Cisco-Unity] 003 "f-net" #1: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection] 003 "f-net" #1: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload [ca917959574c7d5aed4222a9df367018] 003 "f-net" #1: received Vendor ID payload [XAUTH] 108 "f-net" #1: STATE_MAIN_I3: sent MI3, expecting MR3 003 "f-net" #1: discarding duplicate packet; already STATE_MAIN_I3 010 "f-net" #1: STATE_MAIN_I3: retransmission; will wait 20s for response 003 "f-net" #1: discarding duplicate packet; already STATE_MAIN_I3 003 "f-net" #1: discarding duplicate packet; already STATE_MAIN_I3 003 "f-net" #1: discarding duplicate packet; already STATE_MAIN_I3 010 "f-net" #1: STATE_MAIN_I3: retransmission; will wait 40s for response 031 "f-net" #1: max number of retransmissions (2) reached STATE_MAIN_I3. Possible authentication failure: no acceptable response to our first encrypted message 000 "f-net" #1: starting keying attempt 2 of at most 3, but releasing whack other side - Cisco ASA. parameters for my connection on our Linux server : VPN Gateway 8.*.*.* (Cisco ) Phase 1 Exchange Type Main Mode Identification Type IP Address Local ID 4.*.*.* (our Linux server IP) Remote ID 8.*.*.* (VPN server IP) Authentication PSK Pre Shared Key Diffie-Hellman Key Group DH 5 (1536 bit) or DH 2 (1024 bit) Encryption Algorithm AES 256 HMAC Function SHA-1 Lifetime 86.400 seconds / no volume limit Phase 2 Security Protocol ESP Connection Mode Tunnel Encryption Algorithm AES 256 HMAC Function SHA-1 Lifetime 3600 seconds / 4.608.000 kilobytes DPD / IKE Keepalive 15 seconds PFS off Remote Network 192.168.100.0/24 Local Network 1 10.0.0.0/16 ............... Local Network 5 current openswan config : # config setup klipsdebug=all plutodebug="control parsing" protostack=netkey nat_traversal=no virtual_private=%v4:10.0.0.0/8,%v4:192.168.0.0/16,%v4:172.16.0.0/12 oe=off nhelpers=0 conn f-net type=tunnel keyexchange=ike authby=secret auth=esp esp=aes256-sha1 keyingtries=3 pfs=no aggrmode=no keylife=3600s ike=aes256-sha1-modp1024 # left=4.*.*.* leftsubnet=10.0.0.0/16 leftid=4.*.*.* leftnexthop=%defaultroute right=8.*.*.* rightsubnet=192.168.100.0/24 rightid=8.*.*.* rightnexthop=%defaultroute auto=add

    Read the article

  • Site to Site VPN with Fault Tolerence

    - by Nordberg
    Hello, I have a situation where I require an IPSEC tunnel between two sites. Site 2 is a small branch office with basic (ADSL) connectivity and Site 1 is the "main" office with SDSL and ADSL for redundancy should the SDSL fail. From Site 1, all traffic bound for the 172.0.0.0 network will then be sent down another IPSEC tunnel to a supplier's Remote Server. See this page for the basic premise (this is a rough idea and things can be moved about etc...) I am considering specifying Cisco ASA devices as the firewalls for both sites for all connections. Would it be possible to employ something like HSRC to provide a backup at Site 1 should the SDSL go down? I suppose the key aims here are that Site 2 can somehow failover to initiate a VPN to the ASA behind the ADSL at Site 1. I will have a 21 subnet mask on all internet connections so can play with Class C routing if need be... If I'm barking up the wrong tree with HSRC, is there another way I can acheive this without massive expenditure on Barracuda routers et al? Many Thanks.

    Read the article

  • DNAT to 127.0.0.1 with iptables / Destination access control for transparent SOCKS proxy

    - by cdauth
    I have a server running on my local network that acts as a router for the computers in my network. I want to achieve now that outgoing TCP requests to certain IP addresses are tunnelled through an SSH connection, without giving the people from my network the possibility to use that SSH tunnel to connect to arbitrary hosts. The approach I had in mind until now was to have an instance of redsocks listening on localhost and to redirect all outgoing requests to the IP addresses I want to divert to that redsocks instance. I added the following iptables rule: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -d 1.2.3.4 -j DNAT --to-destination 127.0.0.1:12345 Apparently, the Linux kernel considers packets coming from a non-127.0.0.0/8 address to an 127.0.0.0/8 address as “Martian packets” and drops them. What worked, though, was to have redsocks listen on eth0 instead of lo and then have iptables DNAT the packets to the eth0 address instead (or using a REDIRECT rule). The problem about this is that then every computer on my network can use the redsocks instance to connect to every host on the internet, but I want to limit its usage to a certain set of IP addresses only. Is there any way to make iptables DNAT packets to 127.0.0.1? Otherwise, does anyone have an idea how I could achieve my goal without opening up the tunnel to everyone? Update: I have also tried to change the source of the packets, without any success: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 1.2.3.4 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp -s 192.168.1.0/24 -d 127.0.0.1 -j SNAT --to-source 127.0.0.1

    Read the article

  • SSH over HTTPS with proxytunnel and nginx

    - by Thermionix
    I'm trying to setup an ssh over https connection using nginx. I haven't found any working examples, so any help would be appreciated! ~$ cat .ssh/config Host example.net Hostname example.net ProtocolKeepAlives 30 DynamicForward 8118 ProxyCommand /usr/bin/proxytunnel -p ssh.example.net:443 -d localhost:22 -E -v -H "User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Win32)" ~$ ssh [email protected] Local proxy ssh.example.net resolves to 115.xxx.xxx.xxx Connected to ssh.example.net:443 (local proxy) Tunneling to localhost:22 (destination) Communication with local proxy: -> CONNECT localhost:22 HTTP/1.0 -> Proxy-Connection: Keep-Alive -> User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Win32) <- <html> <- <head><title>400 Bad Request</title></head> <- <body bgcolor="white"> <- <center><h1>400 Bad Request</h1></center> <- <hr><center>nginx/1.0.5</center> <- </body> <- </html> analyze_HTTP: readline failed: Connection closed by remote host ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host Nginx config on the server; ~$ cat /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/ssh upstream tunnel { server localhost:22; } server { listen 443; server_name ssh.example.net; location / { proxy_pass http://tunnel; proxy_set_header Host $host; proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr; proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for; proxy_redirect off; } ssl on; ssl_certificate /etc/ssl/certs/server.cer; ssl_certificate_key /etc/ssl/private/server.key; } ~$ tail /var/log/nginx/access.log 203.xxx.xxx.xxx - - [08/Feb/2012:15:17:39 +1100] "CONNECT localhost:22 HTTP/1.0" 400 173 "-" "-"

    Read the article

  • How can I bridge a VM to a remote network?

    - by asciiphil
    I have a system running QEMU/KVM (via libvirt). One of its VMs needs to have a presence on a subnet that is not local to the VM host. I have a Linux system on the remote subnet. Is there a way to set up some sort of tunneled bridge to cause the VM to appear present on the remote system? This will be a temporary situation (hopefully just until the VM owner can configure their system) and network performance and long-term maintainability aren't really issues. To give some more concrete information: My VM host has IP address 192.168.54.155/24. The VM has IP address 192.168.65.71/24. I have a remote system at 192.168.65.254/24. Both the VM host and remote system are running Scientific Linux 6.5. I do not control the network or routing in between the VM host and remote system. I do not have access to the guest OS on the VM. I would like traffic to the VM's IP address to end up at the VM even though its host isn't directly connected to the appropriate network. I've tried using iproute2's tunnelling, but Linux won't let me add a tunnel to a bridge. I've considered using some sort of iptables mangling to route traffic over the tunnel and make the VM think it's on the right network, but I'm not sure whether there are better approaches. What's the best way to accomplish this hack?

    Read the article

  • Overriding routes on Openvpn client, iproute, iptables2

    - by sarvavijJana
    I am looking for some way to route packets based on its destination ports switching regular internet connection and established openvpn tunnel. This is my configuration OpenVPN server ( I have no control over it ) OpenVPN client running ubuntu wlan0 192.168.1.111 - internet connected if Several routes applied on connection to openvpn from server: /sbin/route add -net 207.126.92.3 netmask 255.255.255.255 gw 192.168.1.1 /sbin/route add -net 0.0.0.0 netmask 128.0.0.0 gw 5.5.0.1 /sbin/route add -net 128.0.0.0 netmask 128.0.0.0 gw 5.5.0.1 And I need to route packets regarding it's destination ports for ex: 80,443 into vpn everything else directly to isp connection 192.168.1.1 What i have used during my attempts: iptables -A OUTPUT -t mangle -p tcp -m multiport ! --dports 80,443 -j MARK --set-xmark 0x1/0xffffffff ip rule add fwmark 0x1 table 100 ip route add default via 192.168.1.1 table 100 I was trying to apply this settings using up/down options of openvpn client configuration All my attempts reduced to successful packet delivery and response only via vpn tunnel. Packets routed bypassing vpn i have used some SNAT to gain proper src address iptables -A POSTROUTING -t nat -o $IF -p tcp -m multiport --dports 80,443 -j SNAT --to $IF_IP failed in SYN-ACK like 0 0,1 0,1: "70","192.168.1.111","X.X.X.X","TCP","34314 > 81 [SYN] Seq=0 Win=5840 Len=0 MSS=1460 TSV=18664016 TSER=0 WS=7" "71","X.X.X.X","192.168.1.111","TCP","81 > 34314 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=5792 Len=0 MSS=1428 TSV=531584430 TSER=18654692 WS=5" "72","X.X.X.X","192.168.1.111","TCP","81 > 34314 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=5792 Len=0 MSS=1428 TSV=531584779 TSER=18654692 WS=5" "73","192.168.1.111","X.X.X.X","TCP","34343 > 81 [SYN] Seq=0 Win=5840 Len=0 MSS=1460 TSV=18673732 TSER=0 WS=7" I hope someone has already overcome such a situation or probably knows better approach to fulfill requirements. Please kindly give me a good advice or working solution.

    Read the article

  • New AD-DC in a new Site is refusing cross-site IPv4 connections

    - by sysadmin1138
    We just added a new Server 2008 (sp2) Domain Controller in a new Site, our first such config. It's over a VPN gateway WAN (10Mbit). Unfortunately it is displaying a strange network symptom. Connections to the SMB ports (TCP/139 and TCP/445) are being actively refused... if the connection is coming in on pure IPv4. If the incoming connection is coming by way of the 6to4 tunnel those connections establish and work just fine. It isn't the Firewall, since this behavior can be replicated with the firewall turned off. Also, it's actually issuing RST packets to connection attempts; something that only happens with a Windows Firewall if there is a service behind a port and the service itself denies access. I doubt it's some firewall device on the wire, since the server this one replaced was running Samba and access to it from our main network functioned just fine. I'm thinking it might have something to do with the Subnet lists in AD Sites & Services, but I'm not sure. We haven't put any IPv6 addresses in there, just v4, and it's the v4 connections that are being denied. Unfortunately, I can't figure this out. We need to be able to talk to this DC from the main campus. Is there some kind of site-based SMB-level filtering going on? I can talk to the DC's on campus just fine, but that's over that v6 tunnel. I don't have access to a regular machine on that remote subnet, which limits my ability to test.

    Read the article

  • Why are my socks proxies slow

    - by vps_newcomer
    I have a linux vps, and i have tried a few socks proxy setups to test their performance: All tests were using speedtest.net The standard ssh tunnel proxy 0.8mbit/s download and 0.1-0.2mbit/s upload speeds dante-server proxy 1.3mbit/s download and 0.4-0.5mbit/s upload I am wondering why are these speeds so slow? Is anything shaping them? Is it just the nature of socks proxies? I know that the ssh tunnel has to do encryption and what not so that is why its slow, but i was surprised to see that the second setup was also quite slow. On the VPS i have received download speeds of 25MB/s per second (thats about 200mbit/s and upload speed of atleast 5MB/s (haven't got a good enough pipe to test anything faster). The other option i was going to try is to setup OpenVPN and see how that goes, however i need to find a good tutorial as it's fairly complicated to setup. So why is it so slow? How can i test to see where the bottleneck is? How can i make it faster :D

    Read the article

  • Cisco ASA 5505: Force NAT before IPsec?

    - by WuckaChucka
    I'm trying to route public-to-public IPs over an IPSec tunnel. However, the src IP is not "interesting" to the Cisco's IPSec engine because it doesn't appear to be getting translated to the outside IP before being evaluated by the Cisco's IPSec engine. From WEST to EAST, my public-to-public IPSec works fine: I can make a request from 192.168.0.5:any to 200.200.200.200:80 because the Vyatta does the NAT translation before the IPSec tunnel inspects the traffic, so the remote-subnet and local-subnet matches (see below). However from EAST to WEST, I see a deny in my Cisco logging buffer for Deny tcp src inside:192.168.1.5/59195 dst outside:100.100.100.100/80 which leads me to believe that the IPSec engine is not matching the encrypt_acl because the address has not been translated yet. Any ideas? WEST (Vyatta): inside: 192.168.0.0/24 inside host: 192.168.0.5/24 outside: 100.100.100.100 IPSec local-subnet: 100.100.100.100/32 IPSec remote-subnet: 200.200.200.200/32 EAST (Cisco): inside: 192.168.1.0/24 inside host: 192.168.1.5/24 (DNAT'ed on port 80 to outside) outside: 200.200.200.200 IPSec local-subnet: 200.200.200.200/32 IPSec remote-subnet: 100.100.100.100/32

    Read the article

  • DNS, subdomain, and IPv6 -- possible to add subdomain.example.com NS record to an IPv6 host?

    - by mpbloch
    example.com is listed with a registrar -- specifically, answerable.com. I want to host a subdomain in-house, specifically home.example.com. I am using an ipv6 gateway, specifically gogo6, to have a public IPv6 address. The IP address looks like 2001:xxxx:xx47. Then http://[2001:xxxx:xx47] goes to my test site (an instance of IIS7). I can add a quad-A record for my primary site -- home.example.com AAAA 2001:xxxx:xx47. Then http//home.example.com loads correctly. Must I add an A or quad-A record for all sub.home.example.com to my answerable.com DNS manager for example.com? Or can I delegate DNS queries to *.home.example.com to the machine at [2001:xxxx:xx47]? I have tried to add a AAAA record for tunnel.example.com to [2001:xxxx:xx47], and then add an NS entry for home.example.com to tunnel.example.com, but browsing then results in "DNS lookup error" from my browser. Is this a configurable scenario? Can DNS for subdomain only be delegated to IPv4 addresses?

    Read the article

  • IPSec for LAN traffic: Basic considerations?

    - by chris_l
    This is a follow-up to my Encrypting absolutely everything... question. Important: This is not about the more usual IPSec setup, where you want to encrypt traffic between two LANs. My basic goal is to encrypt all traffic within a small company's LAN. One solution could be IPSec. I have just started to learn about IPSec, and before I decide on using it and dive in more deeply, I'd like to get an overview of how this could look like. Is there good cross-platform support? It must work on Linux, MacOS X and Windows clients, Linux servers, and it shouldn't require expensive network hardware. Can I enable IPSec for an entire machine (so there can be no other traffic incoming/outgoing), or for a network interface, or is it determined by firewall settings for individual ports/...? Can I easily ban non-IPSec IP packets? And also "Mallory's evil" IPSec traffic that is signed by some key, but not ours? My ideal conception is to make it impossible to have any such IP traffic on the LAN. For LAN-internal traffic: I would choose "ESP with authentication (no AH)", AES-256, in "Transport mode". Is this a reasonable decision? For LAN-Internet traffic: How would it work with the internet gateway? Would I use "Tunnel mode" to create an IPSec tunnel from each machine to the gateway? Or could I also use "Transport mode" to the gateway? The reason I ask is, that the gateway would have to be able to decrypt packages coming from the LAN, so it will need the keys to do that. Is that possible, if the destination address isn't the gateway's address? Or would I have to use a proxy in this case? Is there anything else I should consider? I really just need a quick overview of these things, not very detailed instructions.

    Read the article

  • Why are my socks proxies slow

    - by vps_newcomer
    I have a linux vps, and i have tried a few socks proxy setups to test their performance: All tests were using speedtest.net The standard ssh tunnel proxy 0.8mbit/s download and 0.1-0.2mbit/s upload speeds dante-server proxy 1.3mbit/s download and 0.4-0.5mbit/s upload I am wondering why are these speeds so slow? Is anything shaping them? Is it just the nature of socks proxies? I know that the ssh tunnel has to do encryption and what not so that is why its slow, but i was surprised to see that the second setup was also quite slow. On the VPS i have received download speeds of 25MB/s per second (thats about 200mbit/s and upload speed of atleast 5MB/s (haven't got a good enough pipe to test anything faster). The other option i was going to try is to setup OpenVPN and see how that goes, however i need to find a good tutorial as it's fairly complicated to setup. So why is it so slow? How can i test to see where the bottleneck is? How can i make it faster :D

    Read the article

  • How to use Cisco AnyConnect VPN Client?

    - by ktm5124
    I wrote a related question earlier, which is still unresolved. This question is much more specific. So I installed Cisco AnyConnect VPN Client on Snow Leopard. I connect to my work VPN. Once connected, I can't ping my work machine. I don't see any computers on the network. If the client were not running, I wouldn't believe myself to be connected to the VPN. Is there something that I am doing wrong? Do I have to route my network traffic through the tunnel manually? (ifconfig route comes to mind) Is the POST request that I am about to submit going to go through the tunnel created by my VPN? I guess the main question is: why do I feel so in the dark? Cisco says I am connected to my VPN, but for all I know it is invisible. N.B. I do have the up-to-date Cisco VPN Client: version 2.3.2016. I installed it about a week ago.

    Read the article

  • Cisco RV042 VPN with Dynamic IPs - Remote Gateway Not Resolving

    - by Rister
    I have an existing network setup that I inherited from my predecessor. Currently there are two sites, each with a Linksys RV042 VPN router running the 1.3.12.19-tm firmware. They are currently set up with a Gateway to Gateway VPN. One site has a static IP, the other has a Dynamic IP with a hostname set up on no-ip.com. My company is looking to set up another site so I purchased another RV042 only this one was Cisco branded and it is running the latest firmware. I had assumed that I would be able to configure a vpn from our main office (the dynamic ip) to the new site with this router quite easily. However when I set up a new VPN tunnel on either device, it stays on Waiting for Connection and the Remote Gateway shows an ip address of 0.0.0.0 rather than the remote ip address. The other VPN tunnel is still working and I don't see any obvious misconfiguration on the new router. It seems that the router is not resolving the Dynamic DNS address and therefore not giving me the option to connect the VPN. Does a Gateway to Gateway VPN work with Dynamic IP addresses on each end? Are the firmware versions not compatible? Is there something I've missed?

    Read the article

  • IPv6 works only after ping to routing box

    - by Ficik
    Situation: There is ipv4 only router in network and every computer is connected to it (wifi or cable). Server with ipv4 and ipv6 is connected to this router as well. Server has configured tunnelbrokers 6to4 tunnel and radvd. Clients in network has right prefix and can ping each other. But they can't ping to internet until they ping Server (the one with tunnel). I found somewhere that it's icmp problem, but I couldn't find solution. Is it problem that there is ipv4 only router? server and client runs linux router runs dd-wrt without ipv6 support :( Ping try: standa@standa-laptop:~$ ping6 ipv6.google.com PING ipv6.google.com(2a00:1450:8007::69) 56 data bytes ^C --- ipv6.google.com ping statistics --- 29 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 28223ms standa@standa-laptop:~$ ping6 2001:470:XXXX:XXXX:21c:c0ff:fe2b:6478 PING 2001:470:XXXX:XXXX:21c:c0ff:fe2b:6478(2001:470:XXXX:XXXX:21c:c0ff:fe2b:6478) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2001:470:XXXX:XXXX:21c:c0ff:fe2b:6478: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.55 ms 64 bytes from 2001:470:XXXX:XXXX:21c:c0ff:fe2b:6478: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.311 ms 64 bytes from 2001:470:XXXX:XXXX:21c:c0ff:fe2b:6478: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.269 ms 64 bytes from 2001:470:XXXX:XXXX:21c:c0ff:fe2b:6478: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.292 ms ^C --- 2001:470:XXXX:XXXX:21c:c0ff:fe2b:6478 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3000ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.269/1.107/3.559/1.415 ms standa@standa-laptop:~$ ping6 ipv6.google.com PING ipv6.google.com(2a00:1450:8007::69) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2a00:1450:8007::69: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=20.7 ms 64 bytes from 2a00:1450:8007::69: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=20.2 ms 64 bytes from 2a00:1450:8007::69: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=23.4 ms ^C --- ipv6.google.com ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 20.267/21.479/23.413/1.392 ms

    Read the article

  • Switch between network configurations via command line in fedora 17

    - by Mike Fairhurst
    I have two different setups I use on my work laptop; one enables synergy over an ethernet ssh tunnel with my work computer on the local network, and the other opens an HTTP tunnel to my work computer from outside the network. When I have wifi enabled at work, my laptop seems to use it by preference. This makes synergy run incredibly slowly. At home I must use wifi. I have scripts that begin my ssh tunnels, add my ssh keys, and starts up other programs like synergy, and close themselves when I shut my laptop. However, every day I have to start out my routine by opening my gnome-control-center and turning on my ethernet. I have tried route add and ifup, none of it works, so I dove into gnome-control-center's source code and found that it enabled the connection by libnm's method nm_client_activate_connection with some libnm specific structs that I am having trouble tracking down. I'm not much of a c programmer, and I'm not familiar with either GTK or libnm. Does anybody know what fedora 17 does with ethernet connections to fully enable them? Or does anybody know what libnm does to fully enable an ethernet connection? Do I have to write a c script to run libnm for me to fully emulate whatever gnome-control-center is trying to do?

    Read the article

  • cisco asa + action drop issue

    - by ghp
    Have created a tunnel between 10.x.y.z network and 122.a.b.c ..the tunnel is up and active, but when I try the packet tracer output ..I get the ACTION as drop. I have also enabled same-security-traffic permit intra-interface. Can someone help me what does this drop mean? Result: input-interface: inside input-status: up input-line-status: up output-interface: outside output-status: up output-line-status: up Action: drop Drop-reason: (acl-drop) Flow is denied by configured rule Packet Tracer output @Shane Madden: please find below the packet tracer output. CASA5K-A# CASA5K-A# config t CASA5K-A(config)# packet-tracer input inside tcp 10.x.y.112 0 122.a.b.c 0 Phase: 1 Type: ROUTE-LOOKUP Subtype: input Result: ALLOW Config: Additional Information: in 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 outside Phase: 2 Type: ACCESS-LIST Subtype: Result: DROP Config: Implicit Rule Additional Information: Result: input-interface: inside input-status: up input-line-status: up output-interface: outside output-status: up output-line-status: up Action: drop Drop-reason: (acl-drop) Flow is denied by configured rule CASA5K-A(config)# ======================================================================== The access-group are as follows : access-group acl-inbound in interface outside access-group acl-outbound in interface inside and the access-list's are access-list acl-inbound extended permit tcp any any gt 1023 access-list acl-outbound extended permit ip object-group net-Source object net-dest

    Read the article

  • How to stop my wireless adapter from received dhcp from router (windows)

    - by baobeiii
    Hi, I have a windows 7 computer which is connected via vpn to an OpenVpn server which happens to be in another country. I have all internet traffic being routed from my computer through the vpn to the server. However dns queries are not going through the vpn, but are instead going directly to my isp's dns via a route outside of the vpn tunnel. This is happening because my wireless adapter is configured to obtain DNS server address automatically. The router that stands between my computer and the internet happens to have a DCHP server running on it that is assinging my computer with the DNS addresses of the isp. The issue is, i haven't been able to stop my wireless adapter on my computer from receiving the dns settings from the router. I've tried selecting 'use the following dns server addresses' and then just leaving them blank, but ipconfig /all shows me that this hasn't worked and i'm still getting dns form the router. So is there any way to completely stop my windows wireless adapter from receiving these settings from the router? I have the OpenVpn server pushing to my computer's tun adapter the dns that it should be using. I'd rather solve this in a way that doesn't involve disabling the dhcp server on the router or fiddling with the router. The reason is i'm on a laptop and i want my vpn to not leak dns even when i'm out, for example in wireless hotspots. I know if i could just force the wireless adapter to ignore the router's dhcp server then my dns queries would go through the tunnel to the dns address pushed by the OpenVpn server. Sorry, i know thats long winded, if you have any idea's please do tell me. Thanks and merry xmas.

    Read the article

  • VPN: Disable class based route addition for Windows XP/Vista

    - by brgsousa
    Paraphrasing this SuperUser link: When you set up a VPN, the Windows default is to enable "Use default gateway on remote network." A new default route is added to the routing table pointing to the remote network's gateway, and the existing default route has its metric increased to force all Internet traffic to traverse the tunnel and use the remote network's gateway. All traffic uses the VPN, and traffic destined for the outside world is directed to the remote gateway. When the VPN drops, the route to the remote gateway is removed and the original default route is set back to the original metric. Unchecking "use default gateway on remote network" means that new default route isn't added, so Internet traffic goes out the local gateway, but a new classful route is added to the routing table, using the local adapter's IP, pointing down the VPN. Only traffic destined for the classful network of the local adapter goes down the VPN. This may not be what you want. Checking "Disable class based route addition" means that classful route isn't added to your machine when the VPN starts up, and you'll need to add the appropriate routes for networks that should be routed through the tunnel. But, the option "Disable class based route addition" is available ONLY for Windows 7. How can I do something like that for Windows XP or Vista since they don't have that option? I have searched about for that but, no solution yet.

    Read the article

  • Tunnell network requests with Windows 7

    - by mark
    I've Windows 7 64bit Pro client in a private LAN behind a Netgear wgr614v7 router. I've also a remote Debian server machine outside. I'd like to tunnel all (or specified ports/protocols) over this outside server, so when I'm on the Windows machine and I request serverfault.com it would not appear from the wgr614v7 public IP but from the server. But it's not only about HTTP traffic, it's basically about everything I'd like to: other TCP ports, even UDP, etc. It must be transparent to the application, e.g. they shouldn't be aware of this. All their requests just appear as being from the server and the tunnel between them takes care about the packets. I'm aware of e.g. Putty and forwarding individual ports or using it as a socks proxy, however not many applications to support this and the support in windows itself looks non-existent to me. I might add it should be something "reasonable" easy to set up. I've heard about PPTP but I'm unsure about it's security implications (by design). Should I go for VPN? There seem to be two common solutions for Linux (OpenSwan and StrongSwan), why would I pick the one over the other? I also fear that setting up a VPN might be quite complex, OTOH maybe it's the only sane way to do the things right? Or is OpenVPN sufficient? I'm seeking for open (source) solutions, what other options to I have or which direction should I head to?

    Read the article

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