Search Results

Search found 12705 results on 509 pages for 'ip routing'.

Page 180/509 | < Previous Page | 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187  | Next Page >

• Can I use a Windows Server 2003 Domain Controller but my home router for DNS?

  - by NetworkingWannabie

  Hi All Probably easiest to start with a description of my current setup, which works (oh, and this is a home setup not an office or anything): I have an ADSL modem with a static IP address (192.168.128.1), and its DHCP capability is disabled. I have a permanently powered up Windows Server 2003 machine with a fixed IP (192.168.128.2) which provides my domain controller, dhcp, and dns. The default gateway for everything is my ADSL modem everything is setup to use the WS2003 machine as the primary DNS with the ADSL modem as Secondary DNS just in case the server goes down (everything includes the server itself). Lastly, just in case it's relevant, I have my DHCP leases set to infinite (or whatever the right term is). Everything is pretty hunky dory. Except, that is, for the fact that my server is ALWAYS on, and it isn't always used, so I'm burning juice that I don't need to - my server burns around 120W which isn't immense but isn't irrelevant either, so I'd like to put it into a stand-by state when it isn't being used (the more standby the better) and then get the clients to wake it up. Am I correct in assuming that this won't work at the moment - A given client would need an IP address to wake the machine up, and it needs to machine to be awake to get an IP - catch 22? Assuming I'm correct, can I move to using my router (which is always on) for DHCP? What impact will this have on DC and DNS? Alternatively, does anyone have a better way for me to achieve this? Can I get the server to wake up when it sees clients look for a DHCP server, etc? Wow, that came out longer than expected! Thanks for your help.

  Read the article

• TCP Handshake and port numbers

  - by Guido

  (I have a question about the TCP handshake and how port numbers are assigned, if this does not belong here, let me know.) Hi, I'm studying TCP/IP from the book "Internetworking with TCP/IP" by Douglas Comer. In the TCP chapter it mentions that TCP defines an "endpoint" as a pair (IP address, port number), and a connection is defined by two endpoints. This has a few implications, such as, a local TCP port could be in several connections at once, as long as there are no two from the same IP and the same remote port. This also means that the amount of established connections is almost limitless (2^16 for every IPv4 address. 2^48 in total). Now, in class, I was told that when one connects to a listening port, both sides agree on a different port to use, so the communication can happen and the listener socket remains free. This was also my belief before reading the book. Now I feel like I should obviously trust the book (It's Comer!), but is there any truth to the other explanation? Thanks

  Read the article

• 553-Message filtered - HELO Name issue?

  - by g18c

  I am having major issues sending from my SBS2011 machine to Message labs server-13.tower-134.messagelabs.com #553-Message filtered. Refer to the Troubleshooting page at 553-http://www.symanteccloud.com/troubleshooting for more 553 information. (#5.7.1) ## I have changed the IP and hostnames from the below. I am not on any IP or domain blacklists. I have setup SPF (which includes mailchimp servers): v=spf1 mx a ip4:95.74.157.22/32 a:remote.mydomain.com include:servers.mcsv.net ~all I am sure i have setup my HELO names correctly under the Exchange Management console, sending a test email from the SBS server and looking at the header shows the following: X-Orig-To: [email protected] X-Originating-Ip: [95.74.157.22] Received: from [95.74.157.22] ([95.74.157.22:52194] helo=remote.mydomain.com) by smtp50.gate.ord1a.rsapps.net (envelope-from <[email protected]>) (ecelerity 2.2.3.49 r(42060/42061)) with ESMTP id 11/90-10010-E529C835; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 11:04:09 -0400 Received: from MYSBSSVR.mydomain.local ([fe80::3159:95a6:23f:1bef]) by MYSBSSVR.mydomain.local ([fe80::3159:95a6:23f:1bef%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0438.000; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 19:03:56 +0400 Is is the main helo name there OK and do i need to worry about the second Received block where the MYSBSVR.mydomain.local is mentioned? I have asked the ISP to set the reverse DNS for my IP to remote.mydomain.com but they have instead put remote.MYDOMAIN.com - would this case cause HELO lookups to classify this as not matching? Anything else I can do to find out why i am being filtered?

  Read the article

• Problems installing GIT on Ubuntu through SSH

  - by jamadri

  I'm having trouble installing git using this command: sudo apt-get install git-core It's giving me the problems below and I'm not quite sure how to get this to work correctly. I try running sudo apt-get update and after it just gives me problems. If anyone knows how to solve this or a possible way of getting GIT on your machine differently it would be of much help. I've never had a problem with using apt-get. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y WARNING: The following packages cannot be authenticated! liberror-perl git-core patch Install these packages without verification [y/N]? y Err http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main git-core 1:1.6.0.4-1ubuntu2 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.92.183 80] Err http://us.archive.ubuntu.com jaunty/main patch 2.5.9-5 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.92.183 80] Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/g/git-core/git-core_1.6.0.4- 1ubuntu2_amd64.deb 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.92.183 80] Failed to fetch http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/p/patch/patch_2.5.9- 5_amd64.deb 404 Not Found [IP: 91.189.92.183 80] E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing? Anything reply that can help fix this would be helpful. I'm not sure if it's the git servers or my connection that might be the problem. I've used apt-get to pull other things, it's just failing with git.

  Read the article

• How to configure CISCO switch 2960 for port-based address allocation on a single port only?

  - by Jack

  CISCO 2960 allows you to configure so-called Port-Based address allocation. It makes the switch to associate IP address it is giving out via DHCP with port-identifier, which is random, switch created identifier. In practice it means that any machine connected to such configured port will always get the same IP address, regardless of what that machine's MAC address is. I want to have that feature configured on --some ports-- only. But no matter what commands I try it seems that this can only be done for all ports, all for none. Even though CISCO manual seems to indicate there's both global and per-port command to enable that. Here are relevant commands from CISCO manual: configure terminal ip dhcp use subscriber-id client-id (this configures the DHCP server to globally use the subscriber ID as the client ID on all incoming DHCP messages) interface FastEthernet0/1 ip dhcp server use subscriber-id client-id (Optional: Configures the DHCP server to use the subscriber ID as the client ID on all incoming DHCP messages on the interface) but it appears if I configure only per-interface than there's no effect at all, if I configure globally and per interface - CISCo behaves as if all ports were configured to use that feature. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• How can I configure multiple default gateways on a CISCO Router?

  - by Spirit

  Does any one knows a way to configure a cisco router with multiple gateways - multiple gateways of last resort? I've tried adding a gateway of last resort twice (with different metric) but only one is shown: Router(config)# ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 2.2.2.2 10 Router(config)# ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 3.3.3.3 100 And the show ip route output was: Router# show ip route Gateway of last resort is 2.2.2.2 to network 0.0.0.0 2.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 2.2.2.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0 3.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 3.3.3.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1 32.0.0.0/30 is subnetted, 1 subnets C 32.2.2.0 is directly connected, Serial0/2/0 S* 0.0.0.0/0 [10/0] via 2.2.2.2 The point is that i cannot see the other route with higher distance metric? Anyone has a sugestion? I mean will this config work if the link on 2.2.2.2 fails? Will the router choose the other network 3.3.3.3, if the link 2.2.2.2 fails?

  Read the article

• Issues with VPN functionality

  - by Xorandor

  I've been working on setting up VPN connectivity to our office location. We bought a Cisco WRV210 which have a builtin VPN server. Cisco has some software QuickVPN, which is not as quick and easy as I had thought. I've had mixed experiences on different machines with connecting. Instead I configured an IPSec VPN tunnel following a guide from TheGreenBow here http://www.thegreenbow.com/doc/tgbvpn_cg_linksys_wrv200_en.pdf I followed their instructions and tried out an evaluation of their software, and VPN connection should be working ok. I'm able to do RDP to a machine on the network (using IP address, not machine name) and ping the router etc. What I'm trying to solve are two things: It's not like I'm "really" on the network. Or at least I'm restricted to some degree when going through the VPN. I can't access a machine on the network using machine name, only IP. I can't ping a machine, but the router just fine. Could this be that something is not set up properly? If so, I can ofcourse supply additional information. Second, when I log onto the VPN, I would really like my outgoing connection to go through the internet connection of the remote location. Basically if I connect to the VPN I want my outgoing IP to be that of the remote location's (needed for some IP resctrictions on some of our servers). At a previous work location it worked like this when we connected to our office VPN over PPTP and the builtin windows VPN client. I'm not a huge expert on the topic, so any hints will be appreciated.

  Read the article

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

  - by MountainX

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

  Read the article

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

  - by gertvdijk

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

  Read the article

• hosts.deny ignored by MacOSX 10.8

  - by David Holm

  I have been trying to set up my MacOS X Server, which I recently upgraded to Mountain Lion, to use denyhosts as I need to open port 22 to it. denyhosts is set up and adds entries to /etc/hosts.deny so I decided to add my laptops IP to it in order to verify that it actually works but I can still log in and my IP shows up in /private/var/log/system.log. I even rebooted the server once just to be sure there wasn't some service that had to be restarted. I tried the following entries: ALL: <my laptop's IP> sshd: <my laptop's IP> sshd: 127.0.0.1 My /etc/sshd_config has the following parameters set: UsePAM yes UseDNS no I Googled if deny.hosts has been deprecated in OSX 10.7 or 10.8 but I couldn't find any indications that it has. Any ideas of what is going wrong or if there is an alternative way to achieve the same result? Yes, a private key would solve this problem but for the time being I would like to stick to using password authentication. I also like the idea of denyhosts actually blocking access to all services running on the server and not just ssh.

  Read the article

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

  - by Georg Bretschneider

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

  Read the article

• server dosnt produce syn-ack

  - by steve

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

  Read the article

• Can't route specific subnet thru VPN in ubuntu

  - by Disco

  I'm having issues routing traffic thru VPN. Here's my setup I have 3 hosts, let's call them A, B and Z B and Z have a VPN connection in the 10.10.10.x SUBNET A and B have a direct connection in the 10.10.12.x SUBNET I want to be able to route traffic from A to Z, like : A <= 10.10.12.254 [LAN] 10.10.12.111 => B <= 10.10.10.152 [VPN] 10.10.10.10 => Z On host B, i have set up ip_forwarding : net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 and routing on host B: [root@hostA: ~]# ip route 10.10.10.10 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 10.10.10.152 10.10.12.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.10.12.111 10.10.10.0/24 dev ppp0 scope link 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth1 scope link routing on host A: [root@hostA: ~]# ip route 10.10.10.0 via 10.10.12.111 dev eth1 10.10.12.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.10.12.254 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth1 scope link default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 But still not able to ping 10.10.10.10 from host A. Any idea ? I'm pulling my hairs out.

  Read the article

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

  - by joe

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

  Read the article

• How browsers handle multiple IPs

  - by Sandman4

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

  Read the article

• Virtualbox port forwarding with iptables

  - by jverdeyen

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

  Read the article

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

  - by Rosarch

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

  Read the article

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

  - by user36367

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

  Read the article

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

  - by Geoffrey Shea

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

  Read the article

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

  - by Pure.Krome

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

  Read the article

• "Error 53" with local LAN machines after VPN session on server

  - by tim11g

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

  Read the article

• IIS 7 and ASP.NET State Service Configuration

  - by Shawn

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

  Read the article

• Port Forwarding to put my web server on The Internet

  - by Chadworthington

  I went to http://canyouseeme.org/ to check to see what my external IP address. Regardless of what port I enter, it tells me that the port is blocked. I have a LinkSys router that basically has the default settings with the exception that I have WEP encrptin setup and I have forwarded a few ports, including 80 and 69. I forwarded them to the 192.x.x.103 IP address of the PC which is running IIS. That PC runs Symantec Endpoint Protection, which I right mouse clicked in the tray to Disable. These steps used to make my PC visible so I could host my own web site in IIS on port 80, or some other port, like 69. Yet, the Open Port tool cannot see my IP when it checks eiether port and when I navigate to http://my external ip/ I get "page cant be displayed" At first I was thinking that maybe Comcast is blocking port 80, but 69 doesnt work eiether. I do not see any other blockking set up in my router and, as I mentioned, I went with teh defaults except where discussed. This is a corporate PC and Symantec End Point Protecion is new to it (this previously worked on teh same PC with Symantec Protection Agent), but I thought that disabling Sym End Pt from the tray, that that would effectively neutralize it. I do not have the rights to kill the program itself. Any suggestions on what else to try to make my PC externally visible?

  Read the article

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

  - by dfarney

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

  Read the article

• Hyper-V: Dedicated NIC for Guests VMs

  - by TheLizardKing

  I have two NIC cards and created a private virtual network for my virtual machines and unchecked "Allow management operating system to share this network adapter" which basically turns my Guest NIC into this sorta shell of a NIC card on the host machine and the only thing checked in it's properties is "Microsoft Virtual Network Switch Protocol" which I am fine with. Everything works and everything is connected. My issue is that for some reason my guest (Ubuntu Server with legacy network drivers) is not talking properly to my DHCP server. Specifically my DHCP server reserves the guest's IP address using it's MAC address but the guest isn't picking it up. It's picking up any old IP it can get and I can't even ping the hostname from another PC on the network but it pings fine if I use the IP. I see the guest showing up in my DHCP table but I can't get the reservation to stick. Is there some reason it's only partially communicating with my DHCP server? Pinging it's hostname on itself reveals it's using 127.0.0.1 instead of it's network IP. Is this an issue with the legacy drivers used in Hyper-V?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187  | Next Page >