Search Results

Search found 22480 results on 900 pages for 'internet archive'.

Page 195/900 | < Previous Page | 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202  | Next Page >

  • Cisco IOS PBR - PBRing Skype

    - by Azz
    I've got a very simple question, which seems to be extremely difficult when put into practice. I have a Cisco IOS router with two Internet links (one over a WAN, through a proxy, everywhere, etc.) the other direct Internet. Most traffic destined for the internet goes through the proxy over the WAN. I want Skype traffic (why the client uses skype, I don't know..) to go out of the Internet link, while the rest of the traffic goes over the WAN through the proxy, etc. Apparently skype is very difficult to detect/classify because of it's many adaptations to being blocked. Is there any way to identify Skype on an IOS router (2911), and set it's next hop IP/interface? Thank you, Aaron

    Read the article

  • One Mac computer with multiple network connections?

    - by Kyle Lowry
    I have a Mac (OS X 10.5) that I would like to connect to a dedicated/isolated Internet connection (one that is not connected to the LAN), and a LAN. The LAN is set up with its own, separate, Internet connection which is shared by several dozen computers (and is quite slow). I want to set it up so that the Mac uses its own dedicated Internet connection (on a different account with a different company) for its Internet access, but can still access the local area network as well. How can I configure the Mac & the network to allow this?

    Read the article

  • Separating two networks

    - by Farhan Ali
    I have two routers, R1 and R2. R1 (a stock linksys router running dd-wrt) is connected to internet and is serving internet to a network of 5 devices/PCs running a DHCP server, with a network of 192.168.1.0/24. R1 also serves internet services to R2. R2 (a ubuntu server 12.04) gets internet from R1. R2 has 3 PCs attached to it, runs a DHCP server with a network of 172.22.22.0/24. My requirement is that the clients on both sides should not talk to each other at all – with the exception that R1 clients may access the R2 router through its IP of 192.168.1.x. At the moment, R2 clients are able to ping R1 clients, which is unacceptable, whereas R1 clients cannot ping R2 clients, which is OK. I believe iptables could be set up but I don't know how.

    Read the article

  • How do I turn AirPort on in Windows 7?

    - by Ioan
    I have a MacBook 2010 and I installed Windows 7 Ultimate using Boot Camp. I can't connect to the Internet. I have a wireless rooter in my house. Internet Explorer say's that maybe the wireless adapter isn't turned on. How do I connect to the Internet without using a cable?

    Read the article

  • 10 Tech Products Ahead of Their Time [Video]

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    Sometimes a product just can’t help but be too far ahead of it’s time to be adopted. Check out these 10 products that had their moment of glory a moment (or a decade) too soon. At Mashable they’ve gathered up 10 products that hit the market too soon for people to really appreciate them. Among them, as seen in the video above, a super simple internet-focused computer. At the time it hit the market people simply didn’t get the value of having a cheap, easy to use internet terminal. It probably didn’t help much that the 1990s internet didn’t have the plethora of powerful and useful web-based applications we have now. None the less we now have tons of lightweight and “underpowered” devices focused on the internet experience (like netbooks, iPads, smart phones, chromebooks, and more). Hit up the link below to see the 9 other gems from their collection of products ahead of their times. 10 Tech Products Ahead of Their Time [Mashable] How to Make and Install an Electric Outlet in a Cabinet or DeskHow To Recover After Your Email Password Is CompromisedHow to Clean Your Filthy Keyboard in the Dishwasher (Without Ruining it)

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 LTS initramfs-tools dependency issue

    - by Mike
    I know this has been asked several times, but each issue and resolution seems different. I've tried almost everything I could think of, but I can't fix this. I have a VM (VMware I think) running 12.04.03 LTS which has stuck dependencies. The VM is on a rented host, running a live system so I don't want to break it (further). uname -a Linux support 3.5.0-36-generic #57~precise1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 20 18:21:09 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Some more: sudo apt-get update [sudo] password for tracker: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done You might want to run ‘apt-get -f install’ to correct these. The following packages have unmet dependencies. initramfs-tools : Depends: initramfs-tools-bin (< 0.99ubuntu13.1.1~) but 0.99ubuntu13.3 is installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f. sudo apt-get install -f Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Correcting dependencies... Done The following extra packages will be installed: initramfs-tools The following packages will be upgraded: initramfs-tools 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded. 2 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0 B/50.3 kB of archives. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Y dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of initramfs-tools: initramfs-tools depends on initramfs-tools-bin (<< 0.99ubuntu13.1.1~); however: Version of initramfs-tools-bin on system is 0.99ubuntu13.3. dpkg: error processing initramfs-tools (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because the error message indicates it's a follow-up error from a previous failure. dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of apparmor: apparmor depends on initramfs-tools; however: Package initramfs-tools is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing apparmor (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because the error message indicates it's a follow-up error from a previous failure. Errors were encountered while processing: initramfs-tools apparmor E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) If I look at the policy behind initramfs-tools / bin I get: apt-cache policy initramfs-tools initramfs-tools: Installed: 0.99ubuntu13.1 Candidate: 0.99ubuntu13.3 Version table: 0.99ubuntu13.3 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/main amd64 Packages *** 0.99ubuntu13.1 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 0.99ubuntu13 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages apt-cache policy initramfs-tools-bin initramfs-tools-bin: Installed: 0.99ubuntu13.3 Candidate: 0.99ubuntu13.3 Version table: *** 0.99ubuntu13.3 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/main amd64 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 0.99ubuntu13 0 500 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages So the issue seems to be I have 0.99ubuntu13.3 for initramfs-tools-bin yet 0.99ubuntu13.1 for initramfs-tools, and can't upgrade to 0.99ubuntu13.3. I've performed apt-get clean/autoclean/install -f/upgrade -f many times but they won't resolve. I can think of only 2 other 'solutions': Edit the dpkg dependency list to trick it into doing the installation with a broken dependency. This seems very dodgy and it would be a last resort Downgrade both initramfs-tools and initramfs-tools-bin to 0.99ubuntu13 from the precise/main sources and hope that would get them in step. However I'm not sure if this will be possible, or whether it would introduce more issues. I'm not sure how this situation arise in the first place. /boot was 96% full; it's now 56% full (it's tiny - 64MB ... this is what I got from the hosting company). Can anyone offer advice please?

    Read the article

  • How to route to a secondary interface on the same physical ethernet?

    - by sjose3612611
    INTERNET<->(wan)BRIDGED_DEVICE(lan)<->ETH_ROUTER<->LAN Problem: Need to access web server on BRIDGED_DEVICE's LAN from INTERNET via ROUTER (BRIDGED_DEVICE's web server cannot be accessed form INTERNET since it has no Public management IP). Cannot configure bridged device. It has a static IP on its LAN to which its web server binds. Attempt: Create a secondary/alias WAN Interface on ETH_ROUTER (e.g Primary: eth0.1 (for internet access) and Secondary: eth0.2 (for accessing web server on BRIDGED_DEVICE), (No VLANs). eth0.1 has a public IP; eth0.2 has a static private IP in the BRIDGED_DEVICE's subnet (e.g 10.0.X.Y). Iptables on ETH_ROUTER: Added a port forward (DNAT) from eth0.1 to eth0.2: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -i eth0.1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.0.X.Y iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -o eth0.2 -s 10.0.X.0/24 -j MASQUERADE Stateful firewall w/ overall drop policy on FORWARD chain, hence: iptables -I FORWARD -i eth0.1 -d 10.0.X.Y -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT Can ping from ETH_ROUTER to BRIDGED_DEVICE but unable to reach the web server from Internet. I see packet cont increasing for the DNAT rule but not sure where it disappears in the ETH_ROUTER after that. ETH_ROUTER is the only device that can be configured to achieve this. If familiar with this scenario, please suggest what I may be missing or doing wrong here or suggest techniques to debug?

    Read the article

  • Help finding missing mumble-server dependencies

    - by Otoris
    I'm trying to install the mumble-server package using apt-get install mumble-server on Ubuntu 11.10 Server Edition on Rackspace Cloud. Problem is it can't find dependencies it should have found because they exist on launchpad.net? Dependencies message: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: mumble-server : Depends: libavahi-compat-libdnssd1 (>= 0.6.16) but it is not installable Depends: libprotobuf7 but it is not installable Depends: libqt4-dbus (>= 4:4.5.3) but it is not installable Depends: libqt4-network (>= 4:4.5.3) but it is not installable Depends: libqt4-sql (>= 4:4.5.3) but it is not installable Depends: libqt4-xml (>= 4:4.5.3) but it is not installable Depends: libqtcore4 (>= 4:4.7.0~beta1) but it is not installable Depends: libqt4-sql-sqlite but it is not installable E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. Any ideas on if I might be missing sources? I've been googling around and haven't found anyone else in this situation or anyone else not able to install the aforementioned packages. Thanks for your time! sources.list: deb http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric restricted deb-src http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric restricted ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. deb http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric-updates restricted deb-src http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric-updates restricted ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric universe deb-src http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric universe deb http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric-updates universe deb-src http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric-updates universe ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric multiverse deb-src http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric multiverse deb http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric-updates multiverse deb-src http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ oneiric-updates multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from the 'backports' ## repository. ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. # deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ oneiric-backports restricted universe multiverse # deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ oneiric-backports restricted universe multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is ## offered by Canonical and the respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu ## users. # deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu oneiric-security restricted deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu oneiric-security restricted deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu oneiric-security universe deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu oneiric-security universe deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu oneiric-security multiverse deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu oneiric-security multiverse # Cool Kid Webmin/Usermin Here Brah deb http://download.webmin.com/download/repository sarge contrib deb http://webmin.mirror.somersettechsolutions.co.uk/repository sarge contrib

    Read the article

  • Connection two wireless ADSL routers to share IPs

    - by user35218
    I have two wireless ADSL routers sitting right next to each other, each with his own internet connection. I'd like to be able to connect to a computer that is connected to router A from a computer that is connected to router B, while keeping both routers internet connection individually. i.e. If computer A is connected to router A, it will use router A internet connection, and a second computer, call it B, will be connected to router B, and will use router B internet connection. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu server - Problem of routing

    - by Max
    Hi, I have setup a Ubuntu server with Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud. The server is connected to a private LAN with DHCP and Internet access (via a gateway). At first, the server was working fine. It can ping the internet. It can also ping other machine inside LAN. The problem happened after i let the machine idle for more than 1 hour. When I want to use the machine again, I can't ping the internet anymore. I can only ping the machine inside LAN. I try to ping the server from another machine and it's working. Then, i ssh into that server from another machine, and I found that I can ping the internet from that server. It seems that there are some problems in the routing table of this server. Can anyone help me on this? Thank you. Max

    Read the article

  • Setting a Preferred Network Adapter for browsing

    - by ala
    My PC at work is connected to 2 networks; LAN: local corporate network for remote desktop access and very slow internet connection WAN: wireless faster internet browsing Is there a way to setup the default/preferred network adapter for the internet browsing?

    Read the article

  • How to route public static IP to a virtual machine on a vmware ESXi host?

    - by Kevin Southworth
    I have 5 static IPs from my ISP (Comcast) and I have a physical machine with VMware ESXi 4.0 on it that is hosting multiple virtual machines. Right now I am just using the default vmware virtual network (vswitch0) with DHCP from the Comcast IP Gateway Router and everything is working fine. Each virtual machine can access the internet, etc. One of my virtual machines is a webserver (Windows Server 2008) and I want to assign it to 1 of my 5 static IPs so it's accessible from the public internet, while leaving the other VMs on the internal LAN still using DHCP. If I just plug my laptop directly into the Comcast IP Gateway (it has 4 ports on the back) and assign my laptop a Static IP using the windows networking dialogs, then I can hit my laptop from the public internet and it works great. However, if I try to do the same steps to set a static IP config on my Windows Server 2008 VM, it does not work. The VM cannot access the internet (open Firefox and try to visit google.com), and I cannnot see the VM from the public internet either. I'm assuming I'm missing something in the ESXi config somewhere, but I'm pretty new to ESXi and I'm not sure how to configure it to work this way.

    Read the article

  • Virtual Machine Network Architecture, Isolating Public and Private Networks

    - by Mark
    I'm looking for some insight into best practices for network traffic isolation within a virtual environment, specifically under VMWARE ESXi. Currently I have (in testing) 1 hardware server running ESXi but i expect to expand this to multiple pieces of hardware. The current setup is as follows: 1 pfsense VM, this VM accepts all outside (WAN/internet) traffic and performs firewall/port forwarding/NAT functionality. I have multiple public IP addresses sent to the this VM that are used for access to individual servers (via per incoming IP port forwarding rules). This VM is attached to the private (virtual) network that all other VMs are on. It also manages a VPN link into the private network with some access restrictions. This isn't the perimeter firewall but rather the firewall for this virtual pool only. I have 3 VMs that communicate with each other, as well as have some public access requirements: 1 LAMP server running an eCommerce site, public internet accessible 1 accounting server, access via windows server 2008 RDS services for remote access by users 1 inventory/warehouse management server, VPN to client terminals in warehouses These servers constantly talk with each other for data synchronization. Currently all the servers are on the same subnet/virtual network and connected to the internet through the pfsense VM. The pfsense firewall uses port forwarding and NAT to allow outside access to the servers for services and for server access to the internet. My main question is this: Is there a security benefit to adding a second virtual network adapter to each server and controlling traffic such that all server to server communication is on one separate virtual network, while any access to the outside world is routed through the other network adapter, through the firewall, and on the the internet. This is the type of architecture i would use if these were all physical servers, but i'm unsure if the networks being virtual changes the way i should approach locking down this system. Thank you for any thoughts or direction to any appropriate literature.

    Read the article

  • Accessing localhost via IIS 7.5 on Windows 7 very slow

    - by Ian Devlin
    (I've asked this over on stackoverflow already, but thought I'd ask here as well) I'm currently running an ASP.NET application on IIS 7.5 on Windows 7. When I access this application on Internet Explorer (either 6, 7 or 8) it is incredible slow and often fails to load at all. There are messages at the bottom saying: Waiting for http://localhost/....... or sometimes waiting for about:blank (I've read that this can be a virus, but I've run all the usual checks and it's not). constantly, but it returns with the usual: "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" I've also tried this by using 127.0.0.1 and the machine name, with the same results. I've tried the same application on the latest Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera and they all work fine. I've also installed the same application on a Windows Server 2003 machine, and it all works fine via Internet Explorer. I've also turned off the IPv6 setting on the LAN connection. Soes anyone have any ideas why this doesn't work with Internet Explorer and yet does with other browsers?

    Read the article

  • MS Vista taking too long to identify Wi-Fi connection [closed]

    - by I_M_SUPER_USER
    I with few of my flat-mates share internet connection by using ASL cable into one laptop and then making Adhoc private network so that we all can enjoy internet connectivity. It all worked wonderful few initial days, but now my MS vista is taking much time to identify that adhoc network and it though I am connected to my friend, it takes 5-10 minutes untill I use internet.

    Read the article

  • 12.04 GPU lockup

    - by soandos
    I was able to install Ubuntu 12.04 using the alternative version of the image, (64 bit) but when I start the system it tells me the GPU locked up, and instead presents a text only screen. I understand that this site is not for bug reports, but at the same time, I know that there are some versions of the installer than have to be compatible with my graphics card (Nvidia GTS 360M). I assumed that the mere fact that the alternative installer ran was an indication that I could get some sort of graphical interface running after the install. Is there some way of getting some type of graphical interface running on my machine? Even better would be is there a way to get the rest of the system running as normal (i.e. GPU up and running)? If an internet connection is required to download driver support or something similar, directions for how to configure a wireless connection with WPA2-Personal protection from the text-only interface (bash). Any help would be appreciated. Note: I was able to find this which tells me that the card is supported. Note 2: In the install software stage of the install, I was unable to install anything (no internet connection) Update: The exact error message is [8.591394] [drm] 0000:01:00.0: GPU Lockup - switching to software fbcon Update 2: If I try to install with the regular version of Ubuntu, the screen goes staticy. This also happens if I install with Wubi (distasteful I know) and then try to use Ubuntu. Update 3: I've tried xforcevesa, nomodeset and xforcevesa nomodeset as my wubi boot options. Update 4: Thanks to jokerdino, I can now connect to the internet, so internet tools would now be a possibility.

    Read the article

  • Create a wifi hotspot in a place where an authentication is required

    - by SoftTimur
    I live in a residence where Internet is provided via cable. Once the computer is connected to the cable, launching a browser will trigger an authentication, I have a username and password to enter, then the internet will be connected. With a gateway (e.g. Wireless Cable Voice Gateway Model CBVG834G) and 2 cables, two PCs can connect to the Internet with my account at the same time. Now the question is, I don't like the cable, and would like to create a wifi hotspot. It seems realizable with the same gateway. According to the instruction on page 2-4 of the manual: Enter http://192.168.0.1 in the address field of your Internet browser. Log in to the gateway with either of the default user names, MSO or admin... However, while connecting to the Internet successfully via cable and the gateway (e.g. google works), opening 192.168.0.1 oddly gives me an error on the browser: Does anyone know what happened? Is it due to the authentication required by my residence? Is there any other way to build a hotspot of wifi? PS: My system is MAC OS

    Read the article

  • Configuring network route between two routers on home network

    - by Paul
    I have a home network - the main router connected to the internet (and has wifi) is a Netopia box. Connected to it is a Linksys router. Everything currently works - I can connect via the wireless network and get to the internet. Machines connected to the Linksys can connect with each other and connect to the internet. Both routers are configured to serve addresses via DHCP (Netopia 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.99), Linksys (192.168.0.1 - 192.168.0.100). Here's how they are connected: Internet <-> Netopia w/wifi (192.168.1.254) <-> Linksys (192.168.0.1) I decided I really need to allow wireless connections to also communicate with machines behind the Linksys router. Currently the Linksys is configured to obtain an IP address via DHCP. I thought this would be straightforward. I configured the Linksys to have a static IP address: IP: 192.168.1.100 Mask: 255.255.255.0 GW: 192.168.1.254 Then I configured a static route on the Netopia: Network: 192.168.0.0 Mask: 255.255.255.0 GW: 192.168.1.100 So it should now look like this: Internet <-> Netopia w/wifi (192.168.1.254) <-> (192.168.1.100) Linksys (192.168.0.1) I reset both routers. I cannot ping the Netopia (192.168.1.254) from inside the Linksys network, and if I attempt to ping 192.168.0.1 from a wifi connection I get a "Destination host not available" error. Obviously I'm missing something, but I'm not sure where. Any ideas on what I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Accessing localhost via IIS 7.5 on Windows 7 very slow

    - by Ian Devlin
    (I've asked this over on stackoverflow already, but thought I'd ask here as well) I'm currently running an ASP.NET application on IIS 7.5 on Windows 7. When I access this application on Internet Explorer (either 6, 7 or 8) it is incredible slow and often fails to load at all. There are messages at the bottom saying: Waiting for http://localhost/....... or sometimes waiting for about:blank (I've read that this can be a virus, but I've run all the usual checks and it's not). constantly, but it returns with the usual: "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" I've also tried this by using 127.0.0.1 and the machine name, with the same results. I've tried the same application on the latest Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera and they all work fine. I've also installed the same application on a Windows Server 2003 machine, and it all works fine via Internet Explorer. I've also turned off the IPv6 setting on the LAN connection. Soes anyone have any ideas why this doesn't work with Internet Explorer and yet does with other browsers?

    Read the article

  • Can / how to install openSUSE as a GUI-less home server with only wifi?

    - by Dougal
    Hello there, I'm following an article to set up openSUSE as a commandline server (http://www.howtoforge.com/perfect-server-opensuse-11.1). It seems to only work for wired internet connections. Is there any way to install openSUSE as a commandline server in my home network but using a wifi internet connection? Preferably from the get-go and not simply installing with LAN cable internet and then installing some wifi things later. Or, perhaps, to rephrase the question "How can I get the openSUSE install / post-install procedure to recognize my wifi internet connection?" Kind regards, Dougal

    Read the article

  • Keep source IP after NAT

    - by John Miller
    Until today I used a cheapy router so I can share my internet connection and keep a webserver online too, while using NAT. Users IP ($_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR']) was fine, I was seeing class A IPs of users. But as traffic grown up everyday, I had to install a Linux Server (Debian) to share my Internet Connection, because my old router couldn't keep the traffic anymore. I shared the internet via IPTABLES using NAT, but now, after forwarding port 80 to my webserver, now instead of seeing real users IP, I see my Gateway IP (Linux Internal IP) as any user IP Address. How to solve this issue? I edited my post, so I can paste the rules I'm currently using. #!/bin/sh #I made a script to set the rules #I flush everything here. iptables --flush iptables --table nat --flush iptables --delete-chain iptables --table nat --delete-chain iptables -F iptables -X # I drop everything as a general rule, but this is disabled under testing # iptables -P INPUT DROP # iptables -P OUTPUT DROP # these are the loopback rules iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT # here I set the SSH port rules, so I can connect to my server iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --sport 513:65535 --dport 22 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp --sport 22 --dport 513:65535 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # These are the forwards for 80 port iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -s 0/0 -d xx.xx.xx.xx --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 192.168.42.3:80 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -d xx.xx.xx.xx -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.42.3 iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -s 192.168.42.3 --sport 80 -j ACCEPT # These are the forwards for bind/dns iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p udp -s 0/0 -d xx.xx.xx.xx --dport 53 -j DNAT --to 192.168.42.3:53 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -d xx.xx.xx.xx -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.42.3 iptables -A FORWARD -p udp -s 192.168.42.3 --sport 53 -j ACCEPT # And these are the rules so I can share my internet connection iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0:1 -j ACCEPT If I delete the MASQUERADE part, I see my real IP while echoing it with PHP, but I don't have internet. How to do, to have internet and see my real IP while ports are forwarded too? ** xx.xx.xx.xx - is my public IP. I hid it for security reasons.

    Read the article

  • linux routing issue

    - by Duc To
    Hi! I have 2 linksys routers which has linux running on it and using tomato firmware.. both has internet lines plugged on but only 1 acts as DHCP server (router 1) What I am having to achieve is that all packets goes to router 1 from internal IPs want to access internet will go out to that internet line but from 1 specific port, if router 1 detects packets from a specific source port (for ex: http port: 80), it will redirect that packet to router 2 and goes out to the internet from there.. I have found some documents which give solution that I will need a linux servers with 2 ethernet cards and then we plug both internet lines on that server and routing base on it but I do not want to do that because my boss does not want to have an extra work mantaining that server, besides, he says that the router itself already a linux one so why.. I tend to agree his points.. Can it be done or a seperate linux server acting as a router is a must? Thank you all in advance and really look forward in your replies.. I am newbie to linux network and it seems to be something out of my capacity to solve :( Your sincerely! Duc To

    Read the article

  • Client unable to access OWA website after temporarily changing SSL certificate on the server

    - by Lorenz Meyer
    I have the following issue: One client computer (Windows XP) cannot access the OWA website. All other client computers can (Except another one in the same remote office). How this happened: I temporarily changed the SSL certificate on the Exchange Server yesterday. After a few minutes, I reverted back, an now the same certificate that was installed for years is back again. During these few minutes, they were in OWA on this computer and got a certificate error. What exactly happens: Internet Explorer displays the error Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage, Firefox displays The connection was reset and Crome shows This webpage is not available. The connection to ... was interrupted. What I already did to try to get this working: Restart the client computer Restart the exchange server Deleted Internet Explorer browsing history In IE, Internet Options, tab Content, under Certificates deletes SSL cache Restored Internet Explorer to the default parameters I looked into certmgr.msc, but did not find a certificate related to the issue What could I do else to narrow down the origin of this problem (or better: resolve it) ? Can you give any advice ?

    Read the article

  • How could I resolve the following configuration on airport express?

    - by poz2k4444
    I've tried to configure my airport express in order to make a private network and also get access to internet, the thing is my linksys just has broken and all I have is the airport express, I've managed my DHCP to provide IP directions, but the internet connection is not working, is it something with the NAT?? or how can I access internet with my configuration, if the airport is reset to factory settings everything works fine, so, what is the problem?? My computer is going to be DHCP and DNS server

    Read the article

  • How can I throttle the bandwidth consumed by Windows Automatic Updates?

    - by eleven81
    We have many Windows XP computers sharing one connection to the internet. These machines are set to download all available automatic updates and then prompt the user to install them. Whenever Patch Tuesday rolls around, our internet usage pegs out, and remains that way for most of the day, and sometimes into the following Wednesday. This hurts! I still want the machines to start to download the updates as soon as they are available, but if it takes until Thursday or Friday before the last updates are downloaded, that's still better than the latency and dropped connections we are seeing now as a result of the internet connection bottleneck. What can I do to throttle back how rapidly each machine downloads the updates, while still having them all start the download process as soon as the updates are available? I have no desire to run a WSUS server. Also, the internet connection is more than enough, whenever there are no updates to download.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202  | Next Page >