Search Results

Search found 20448 results on 818 pages for 'ip address'.

Page 198/818 | < Previous Page | 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205  | Next Page >

• apache httpd.conf - virtualhost configuration

  - by Adam

  I'm new to apache and httpd.conf The problem I'm having is I need different website to go to different vhost configs and if only the IP is requested it needs to go to the root index.html This works fine for the virtualhosts: <VirtualHost *:80> DocumentRoot /var/www/html/bali-accommodation.co ServerName www.bali-accommodation.co </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:80> DocumentRoot /var/www/html/balibeach.co ServerName www.balibeach.co </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:80> DocumentRoot /var/www/html/dating-website.co ServerName www.dating-website.co </VirtualHost> However when I just specify the IP it does to www.XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX (appends the www). I know in the websites there is a .htaccess redirect that adds the www but I didn't want the IP to go into the vhosts config. I tried adding this to the top of the Vhost config: <VirtualHost *:80> DocumentRoot /var/www/html ServerName localhost </VirtualHost> with above it shows the index.html perfectly but all the websites go into this catch all. I've also tried this for the websites vhosts: DocumentRoot /var/www/html/bali-accommodation.co ServerName www.bali-accommodation.co I've tried the above with and without the 'www' in the first line unsuccessfully. Is there a way to have the vhosts work for the domains and if someone just enters the IP it goes to the root index.html? /var/www/html/index.html? thankyou so much Adam

  Read the article

• Tomcat Solr times out

  - by user568458

  (Plesk 10.4 centos 5.8 linux apache2 server, with Tomcat5 on port 8080 and Apache Solr) I get "The connection has timed out" on requesting domain.com:8080 or www.domain.com:8080 or ip.ad.dr.ess:8080 Every reason I can find why this might be seems not to be the case: Plesk thinks Tomcat is running fine and lists it as an active service. The firewall currently has an accept all rule on port 8080. There's nothing relevant in the catalina tomcat logs (/var/log/tomcat5) - just some stuff from last time tomcat was started. There's no record at all of the requests that fail. netstat -lnp | grep 8080 gives the following, which I beleive means Tomcat is listening to requests to port 8080 on all ip addresses from any ip and any port (please correct me if I'm wrong): : tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:8080 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 4018/java This covers every cause of this time out that I can find - so I must be missing something fundamental. It seems Tomcat is running, listening to the right port, is getting an appropriate IP address, is not obstructed by a firewall and is not failing after receiving a request in a way which would be recorded in the logs (so I believe it can't be out of memory, or anything like that). I'm all out of ideas on how to continue debugging this. I must have overlooked something obvious. Can anyone help?

  Read the article

• Network Load Balancing and AnyCast Routing

  - by user126917

  Hi All can anyone advise on problems with the following? I am planning on installing the following setup on my estate: I have 2 sites that both have a large amount of users. Goals are to keep things simple for the users and to have automatic failover above the database level. Our Database will exist at the primary site and be async mirrored to the secondary site with manual failover procedures.The database generate sequential ID's so distributing it is not an option. I plan to site IIS boxes at both sites with all of the business logic on them and heavy operations. The connections to SQL will be lightweight and DB reads will be cached on IIS. On this layer I plan to use Windows network load balancing and have the same IP or IPs across all IIS boxes at both sites. This way there will be automatic failover and no single point of failure. Also users can have one web address regardless of which site they are in automatically be network load balanced to their local IIS. This is great but obviously our two sites are on different subnets and as this will be one IP address with most of our traffic we can't go broadcasting everything across the link between the sites. To solve this problem we plan to use AnyCast routing over our network layer to route the traffic to the most local box that is listening which will be defined by the network load balancing. Has anyone used this setup before? Can anyone think of any issues with this? Also some specifics I can't find anywhere at the moment. If my Windows box is assigned an IP and listening on that IP but network load balancing is not accepting specific traffic then will AnyCast route away from that? Also can I AnyCast on a socket level?

  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

• 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

• cannot reach munin port on other AWS instance

  - by Amedee Van Gasse

  2 AWS instances, in the same region but different availability zones, one is in regular EC2 and the other is in VPC, both have an Elastic IP, both are 64bit Amazon Linux AMI 2014.03.1. Both are running munin-node. The instance in the VPC is running munin-cron. I have added incoming TCP and UDP port 4949 to the security groups of both instances. On the munin node, I added an allow-line with the IP address (regular expression) of the munin server to /etc/munin/munin-node.conf. I bind munin-node to any interface using host *. Then I did sudo service munin-node restart. Then I ran netstat. $ sudo netstat -at | grep munin tcp 0 0 *:munin *:* LISTEN So the port is open there. On the munin server AND on the munin node: $ nmap AMAZON-IP -p 80,4949 | grep tcp 80/tcp open http 4949/tcp closed munin On the munin node: $ nmap localhost -p 80,4949 | grep tcp 80/tcp open http 4949/tcp open munin So from the outside, the http port is open (Apache is running) but the munin port is closed. The node can't even reach the munin port on it's own public IP address, but it can on localhost. I added port 80 as a sanity check, to be sure that there is network connectivity at all. So what am I overlooking here?

  Read the article

• Load balancing with puppet

  - by Gonçalo Queirós

  Hi there. Im trying to setup a loadbalancing system. My load balancer (nginx) has a conf file where i should list all IP's of the upstream servers. I could put the IP's on the conf manually, but this ways i would need to change the conf file every time i add/remove an upstream server. For now i came up with two different ideas, but i don't like much of neither: 1 - Have every upstream machine to use Exported Resources to create a file with it's IP..Then the load balancer server will have an "include conf_directory/*", and load all the files created by the upstrem servers. Since the load balancer is using nginx this can be done, but if i wan't latter on to configure something that doesn't have the "include" on the conf files, this solution will not work. 2 - If the config doesn't support the "include" command, then we could have again, every upstream server use the Exported Resources to create a filw with its IP, and latter on, the load balancer execute a command that would pick every file and generate the config Both versions addopt the same techinque, the difference is that version 2 is used when the server (that needs to have a conf generated) doesn't recognize a command like "include" inside its own conf. Now, my question is, is there any way to do this in a different form? I suspect that there is, since puppet is made to manage multiple servers, it seems a bit strange not have a easy way to configure load balancers.

  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

• 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

• Understanding tcptraceroute versus http response

  - by kojiro

  I'm debugging a web server that has a very high wait time before responding. The server itself is quite fast and has no load, so I strongly suspect a network problem. Basically, I make a web request: wget -O/dev/null http://hostname/ --2013-10-18 11:03:08-- http://hostname/ Resolving hostname... 10.9.211.129 Connecting to hostname|10.9.211.129|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: unspecified [text/html] Saving to: ‘/dev/null’ 2013-10-18 11:04:11 (88.0 KB/s) - ‘/dev/null’ saved [13641] So you see it took about a minute to give me the page, but it does give it to me with a 200 response. So I try a tcptraceroute to see what's up: $ sudo tcptraceroute hostname 80 Password: Selected device en2, address 192.168.113.74, port 54699 for outgoing packets Tracing the path to hostname (10.9.211.129) on TCP port 80 (http), 30 hops max 1 192.168.113.1 0.842 ms 2.216 ms 2.130 ms 2 10.141.12.77 0.707 ms 0.767 ms 0.738 ms 3 10.141.12.33 1.227 ms 1.012 ms 1.120 ms 4 10.141.3.107 0.372 ms 0.305 ms 0.368 ms 5 12.112.4.41 6.688 ms 6.514 ms 6.467 ms 6 cr84.phlpa.ip.att.net (12.122.107.214) 19.892 ms 18.814 ms 15.804 ms 7 cr2.phlpa.ip.att.net (12.122.107.117) 17.554 ms 15.693 ms 16.122 ms 8 cr1.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.122.4.54) 15.838 ms 15.353 ms 15.511 ms 9 cr83.wswdc.ip.att.net (12.123.10.110) 17.451 ms 15.183 ms 16.198 ms 10 12.84.5.93 9.982 ms 9.817 ms 9.784 ms 11 12.84.5.94 14.587 ms 14.301 ms 14.238 ms 12 10.141.3.209 13.870 ms 13.845 ms 13.696 ms 13 * * * … 30 * * * I tried it again with 100 hops, just to be sure – the packets never get there. So how is it that the server does respond to requests via http, even after a minute? Shouldn't all requests just die? I'm not sure how to proceed debugging why this server is slow (as opposed to why it responds at all).

  Read the article

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

  - by user36367

  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?

  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

• VPN sharing on Mac OS X 10.5 machine

  - by Jens

  I have a rather weird problem. I want to share a VPN connection that has been established by my Mac OS X 10.5 computer with another machine in my network. This is what I did: In the /etc/hostcongig file on the main computer I added the line: IPFORWARDING=-YES- I assigned a fixed IP address to my computer (192.168.178.30), a fixed one to the other machine (192.168.178.60) and my computer's IP address as gateway on the other machine. I connected to my VPN using the internal Mac OS X VPN client (PPTP connection) I run this script: #!/bin/sh natd -same_ports -use_sockets -unregistered_only -dynamic -interface ppp0 -clamp_mss ipfw -f flush ipfw add divert natd ip from any to any via ppp0 ipfw add pass all from any to any sysctl -w net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 Source: Using (and sharing) a VPN connection on your Mac Now everthing works smootly, however speed is an issue. I get 1,8 MBit/s on my main machine and only 0,3 - 0,6 MBit/s on the other one. My question: What could possibly be wrong? Do I have to tweak MTU settings, is there any packet inspection ongoing that needs time....? Any help appreciated!

  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

• 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

• What are these isolated resource requests in Apache's access_log?

  - by Greg

  I was looking at my Apache access log and came across some strange requests. A single IP address will access several resources (mostly css style sheets and images), but no actual pages. Sometimes they are requesting a resource that no longer exists on the server, or one that is still under the web root but no longer used (e.g. a resource in an old WordPress theme). Also: The requests list no referrer I get no useful information on the IP address by looking it up There doesn't seem to be any pattern among the IP addresses that are making these requests (e.g. different countries) Are these just links from a stale cache somewhere? Could it be a sign of an attack of some sort? Here is a typical example: GET /wp-content/themes/my-theme/images/old-image.gif HTTP/1.1" 500 809 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;)" This was one of about 10 similar requests, some for existing resources, some for older resources. There is no other sign of this IP address in access_log. Note the internal server error, which is a topic for a different thread. What I'm asking here is where would isolated requests like this come from?

  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

• 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

• 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

• How can I connect my Xbox to my Mac on my network

  - by codecowboy

  I have a wireless router/modem (Router 1) in my living room. This is connected to the internet (cable). Wireless is disabled as the router has a terrible wireless range. My Xbox is connected via ethernet to Router 1. Another LAN output from Router 1 connects to a powerline adapter. Router 1 acts as a DHCP server on 192.168.0.x and has the IP 192.168.0.1 In a second room I have Router 2. This has the powerline feed from Router 1 going into the WAN socket. This router runs the Tomato Firmware and acts as a wireless router for the rest of the house using the IP range 192.168.1.x. Router 2 IP is 192.168.1.1. My Mac is connected to Router 2 using a LAN cable and has the IP 192.168.0.133. Several mobile devices need wireless access. I want an ethernet connection to my Mac, not wireless. I should be able to use software like Connect360 to share media from my Mac to the XBox but the XBox does not see my Mac. I can ping 192.168.0.1 from the Mac. Is this possible using my current setup? If so, how?

  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

• Parking domains and avoiding so called "search engine penalities"

  - by senthilkumar-c

  I have purchased two domains from one particular registrar and hosting from GoDaddy. Assume they are domain1.com and domain2.com Assume my hosting IP address is 111.111.111.111 I added both domain1.com and domain2.com in my domain management control panel and gave the same two nameservers for both domains at my registrar's control panel. So, now, both domains should show the same website. When I ping "domain1.com" or "domain2.com" the results say - Pinging domain1.com [111.111.111.111] with 32 bytes of data: Pinging domain2.com [111.111.111.111] with 32 bytes of data: respectively. So, they both point to the same hosting IP. BUT, internally, I have configured IIS to point them to different folders so that different websites are shown. (My hosting plan is expensive and I intend to use the space and bandwidth for many websites). But still, technically, all domains point to same IP address. Is this a bad thing? Is this what is called "domain parking"? I read some search engine forum posts that two domains pointing to the same IP/Website will be penalised by search engines and stuff. I have also read that simply "parking" the domains won't attract penality. I don't know whether what I have done is parking or the so called "wrong" thing. Can someone shed light on what I have done and what I should do? I don't want to be blacklisted by any search engine. P.S. I know this is not a search engine forum, but I am new to website hosting and domains and I am very weak in nearly all technical terms and concepts relating to web hosting and domains. I thought this will be a good place to understand these things.

  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

• 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

< Previous Page | 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205  | Next Page >