Search Results

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

Page 199/818 | < Previous Page | 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • How can I avoid my web browser from redirecting to localhost using WAMP in Windows7?

    - by Josh
    I'm currently using Windows 7 with WAMP to try and work on some software, but my web browsers will not accept cookies from the "localhost" domain. I tried creating a few bogus domains in my hosts file by pointing them to 127.0.0.1 but when I type them in I am automatically redirected back to localhost. I have also configured virtualhosts in apache to correspond with the domains I added to the hosts file and it still redirects back to localhost. Is there anything special I must do on Windows 7 to get around this localhost redirect? Thanks for looking :) I'll include my host file here: # 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 127.0.0.1 magento.localhost.com www.localhost.com Thanks for looking :)

    Read the article

  • How to host an ssh server?

    - by balki
    Hi, I have a broadband internet connection. I have an wireless modem (Airtel India). I don't have a static ip address. I want to host a ssh/web/ftp server to be visible to the outside world just for testing and learning purpose so I can ask my friend to connect to my current ip address and test. My modem has an admin interface which allows to port forward and open ports. I set up ssh server as shown and checked if port 22 is open using this website , Port Scan And port 22 is open. I have an openssh server running and it works if i do, ssh [email protected] which is my local ip address but doesn't work if i do ssh [email protected] where 122.xx.xx.xx is my external ip address of my modem which i checked from whatismyipaddress.com. Since it looks like the port is open, I wonder if there is some setting I need to change in my server config to expose my server. How should I go about solving this?

    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

  • trying to route between two openvpn clients

    - by user42055
    I have two openvpn clients on the 10.0.1.0 (client1) and 192.168.0.0 (client2) subnets with the server's openvpn connection having the ip 192.168.150.1 The server has ip forwarding enabled. Currently, client1's vpn ip is 192.168.150.10 and the P-t-P ip is 192.168.150.9 I have created the following static route on client1: route add -net 10.0.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.150.9 The routing table on client1 looks like this: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 192.168.150.9 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.150.1 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tun0 10.0.1.0 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 I thought this would be correct to allow traffic from client1 to reach computers on client2's network, but it does not work. Is 192.168.150.9 (the P-t-P address) the correct one to be routing through ? I tried using 192.168.150.1 but I couldn't create the route. I hope this is clear.

    Read the article

  • Hide/Replace Nginx Location Header?

    - by Steven Ou
    I am trying to pass a PCI compliance test, and I'm getting a single "high risk vulnerability". The problem is described as: Information on the machine which a web server is located is sometimes included in the header of a web page. Under certain circumstances that information may include local information from behind a firewall or proxy server such as the local IP address. It looks like Nginx is responding with: Service: https Received: HTTP/1.1 302 Found Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Location: http://ip-10-194-73-254/ Server: nginx/1.0.4 + Phusion Passenger 3.0.7 (mod_rails/mod_rack) Status: 302 X-Powered-By: Phusion Passenger (mod_rails/mod_rack) 3.0.7 X-Runtime: 0 Content-Length: 90 Connection: Close <html><body>You are being <a href="http://ip-10-194-73-254/">redirect ed</a>.</body></html> I'm no expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong: but from what I gathered, I think the problem is that the Location header is returning http://ip-10-194-73-254/, which is a private address, when it should be returning our domain name (which is ravn.com). So, I'm guessing I need to either hide or replace the Location header somehow? I'm a programmer and not a server admin so I have no idea what to do... Any help would be greatly appreciated! Also, might I add that we're running more than 1 server, so the configuration would need to be transferable to any server with any private address.

    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

  • Windows thinks outgoing connections are incoming connections?

    - by Slayer537
    I have a rather weird issue.. I'm trying to configure Windows Firewall to block all outgoing connections to a certain app, but allow all incoming. This app is used to transfer files across a network. The reason for this type of setup is to only allow certain users (IP Address) access to the files I have, but to still allow others to see what's available. Since Windows Firewall defaults to allowing all outgoing connections, I made a rule to deny all outgoing connections that were not in the IP ranges I specified. For the incoming connections, I'd like to leave it at allow all, but at the moment it is set to only allow the connections that also have outgoing permissions set. If I blanket say allow all incoming connections, I observe that unauthorized IP Address are able to actually download files, even though their IP was blocked in the outgoing connections. To shed a little more visibility on this, I used NetLimiter to see what was going on. NetLimiter showed me that the connection was an incoming connection. Shouldn't this be an outgoing connection, as I am uploading files to them, not the other way around? Is there a way to make the connection type be correct and show up as outgoing instead of incoming?

    Read the article

  • How can I avoid my web browser from redirecting to localhost using WAMP in Windows7?

    - by Josh
    I'm currently using Windows 7 with WAMP to try and work on some software, but my web browsers will not accept cookies from the "localhost" domain. I tried creating a few bogus domains in my hosts file by pointing them to 127.0.0.1 but when I type them in I am automatically redirected back to localhost. I have also configured virtualhosts in apache to correspond with the domains I added to the hosts file and it still redirects back to localhost. Is there anything special I must do on Windows 7 to get around this localhost redirect? Thanks for looking :) I'll include my host file here: # 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 127.0.0.1 magento.localhost.com www.localhost.com Thanks for looking :)

    Read the article

  • How to configure network on Windows Server 2008

    - by Gokhan Ozturk
    I have a IBM x3400 Server Machine with Windows Server 2008 R2 installed on it. But, since I am not expert on networking I have some problems. These roles installed on my server: Active Directory DNS File Sharing Hyper-V ISS VPN There is two network card on them. I configured them like this: Local Connection 1: 192.168.30.3 255.255.255.0 192.168.30.2 127.0.0.1 Local Connection 2: 192.168.30.101 255.255.255.0 192.168.30.6 127.0.0.1 My problem is, when I use this Ip gateways, It is sharing internet to all computers. This is not I want. I want to use Local Connection 1 for internal network. I am giving all computers gateway and DNS IP as 192.168.30.3 The Local Connection 2 is for Hyper-V and VPN connections. 192.168.30.2 and 192.168.30.6 are my modem's gateways. I am using 192.168.30.6 external IP for VPN connections. There is two 24 port switches. There is a connection between them and this two ethernet card connected directly to them. And modems are connected to switches as well (Morems are not near the server. They are somewhere in the building). I disabled network Bridge and removed all ethernet cards from it. With this configuration, all computers can ping my server's IP (192.168.30.3) but on server I cannot ping any clients (Request timeout). What is the best way to configure my network? Thank you. Redgards

    Read the article

  • Easiest way to allow direct HTTPS connection in Intercept mode?

    - by Nicolo
    I know the SSL issue has been beaten to death I'm using DNS redirect to force my clients to use my intercept proxy. As we all know, intercepting HTTPS connection is not possible unless I provide a fake certificate. What I want to achieve here is to allow all HTTPS requests connect directly to the source server, thus bypassing Squid: HTTP connection Proxy by Squid HTTPS connection Bypass Squid and connect directly I spent the past few days goolging and trying different methods but none worked so far. I read about SSL tunneling using the CONNECT method but couldn't find any more information on it. I tried a similar method in using RINETD to forward all traffic going through port 443 of my Squid back to the original IP of www.pandora.com. Unfortunately, I did not realize all other HTTPS requests are also forwarded to the IP of www.pandora.com. For example, https://www.gmail.com also takes me to https://www.pandora.com Since I'm running the Intercept mode, the forwarding needs to be dynamic and match each HTTPS domain name with proper original IP. Can this be done in Squid or iptables? Lastly, I'm directing traffic to my Squid server using DNS zone redirect. For example, a client requests www.google.com, my DNS server directs that request to my Squid IP, then my transparent Squid will proxy that request. Will this set up affect what I'm trying to achieve? I tried many methods but couldn't get it to work. Any takes on how to do this?

    Read the article

  • OpenBSD pf - implementing the equivalent of an iptables DNAT

    - by chutz
    The IP address of an internal service is going to change. We have an OpenBSD access point (ssh + autpf rules) where clients connect and open a connection to the internal IP. To give us more time to reconfigure all clients to use the new IP address, I thought we can implement the equivalent of a DNAT on the authpf box. Basically, I want to write a rule similar to this iptables rule which lets me ping both $OLD_IP and $NEW_IP. iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -d $OLD_IP -j DNAT --to-dest $NEW_IP Our version of OpenBSD is 4.7, but we can upgrade if necessary. If this DNAT is not possible we can probably do a NAT on a firewall along the way. The closest I was able to accomplish on a test box is: pass out on em1 inet proto icmp from any to 10.68.31.99 nat-to 10.68.31.247 Unfortunately, pfctl -s state tells me that nat-to translates the source IP, while I need to translate the destination. $ sudo pfctl -s state all icmp 10.68.31.247:7263 (10.68.30.199:13437) -> 10.68.31.99:8 0:0 I also found lots of mentions about rules that start with rdr and include the -> symbol to express the translation, but it looks like this syntax has been obsoleted in 4.7 and I cannot get anything similar to work. Attempts to implement a rdr fail with a complaint that /etc/pf.conf:20: rdr-to can only be used inbound

    Read the article

  • My server keeps sending emails to [email protected]

    - by xtrimsky
    When I type mailq on my server, I get: BB523653A62 4025 Wed Jun 4 10:40:07 MAILER-DAEMON (delivery temporarily suspended: host p3smtpout.secureserver.net[208.109.80.54] refused to talk to me: 554 p3plsmtpout002.prod.phx3.secureserver.net : DED : AJeb1o0334uf1Y801 : DED : You've reached your daily relay quota - IP.ADDRESS) [email protected] B33AD653A4A 4025 Wed Jun 4 08:20:07 MAILER-DAEMON (delivery temporarily suspended: host p3smtpout.secureserver.net[208.109.80.54] refused to talk to me: 554 p3plsmtpout002.prod.phx3.secureserver.net : DED : AJeb1o0334uf1Y801 : DED : You've reached your daily relay quota - IP.ADDRESS) [email protected] B77DF653A63 4025 Wed Jun 4 10:50:07 MAILER-DAEMON (delivery temporarily suspended: host p3smtpout.secureserver.net[208.109.80.54] refused to talk to me: 554 p3plsmtpout001.prod.phx3.secureserver.net : DED : AJvF1o00L4uf1Y801 : DED : You've reached your daily relay quota - IP.ADDRESS) [email protected] B943C653A3C 4025 Wed Jun 4 06:40:07 MAILER-DAEMON (delivery temporarily suspended: host p3smtpout.secureserver.net[208.109.80.54] refused to talk to me: 554 p3plsmtpout001.prod.phx3.secureserver.net : DED : AKBv1o00P4uf1Y801 : DED : You've reached your daily relay quota - IP.ADDRESS) [email protected] (there is probably about 50 of these, and I've cleared the queue today), do you know where these could be coming from ? is it my server sending some logs to "hostmaster" ? I've replaced my actual domain, with "MYDOMAIN". How can I find what could be sending these emails ? The server has recently been hacked so I'm also a bit worried. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Router that allows custom Dynamic DNS server [closed]

    - by Thuy
    I've made my own DDNS service and it works fine using an application running on clients to update the IP. But if for some reason I don't have the choice of using my software and instead I need to use a router to update the IP, it becomes troublesome. For example, I needed to setup IPsec from a customer to me and the customers router/firewall (netgear srx5308) has a dynamic IP which is given from the ISP which can't offer static IPs. So it needs to use dynamic dns for it to work. In this case there really isn't a client to run the software on since it's a router/firewall. Unfortunately it seems that most routers are rather unfriendly towards custom DDNS solutions and most offer only dyndns.com or similar templates. Which was the case with this router too. Leaving me with no way to use my own dynamic dns server IP. I have the option of switching out the customers router and I've been looking around for alternatives and other routers/solutions and I was wondering if anyone on this great site might have been in a similar situation or might just know about some router/firewall that is more friendly towards custom ddns solutions that I might be able to use. Thanks in advance for any help or guidance!

    Read the article

  • Virtual box host-only adapter configuration

    - by Xoundboy
    I have VirtualBox 4 running on Win 7 with a Centos 6 guest VM set up for hosting my dev server. When I'm connected to my home network the guest can be accessed via a static IP address that I configured (192.168.56.2), but not when I'm in the office. I'm guessing that the DHCP server in the office doesn't have a gateway configured for the 192.168.56.x IP range. I read something about the VB host-only adapter that should allow me to set this guest VM up in such a way that I don't need to be on any network to be able to access the guest from the host using a static IP. I've not been able to find out exactly how to configure this though. Can anyone give me an example configuration, thanks. UPDATE: Thanks for your responses. I've now set up a single virtual network adapter in VirtualBox and set it to host-only: C:\Users\Ben>vboxmanage list hostonlyifs Name: VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter GUID: d419ef62-3c46-4525-ad2d-be506c90459a Dhcp: Disabled IPAddress: 192.168.56.2 NetworkMask: 255.255.255.0 IPV6Address: fe80:0000:0000:0000:78e3:b200:5af3:2a57 IPV6NetworkMaskPrefixLength: 64 HardwareAddress: 08:00:27:00:94:e8 MediumType: Ethernet Status: Up VBoxNetworkName: HostInterfaceNetworking-VirtualBox Host-Only Ethernet Adapter On the guest I've set up eth0 to use the same IP address as the host-only adapter (192.168.56.2) but when I try to log in using Putty I still get "Network Error : connection refused". VirtualBox DHCP servier is enabled but I can't ping the gateway (192.168.56.1) from either host nor guest. There's no firewall running on either OS. What next?

    Read the article

  • Wireless Access Point stopped working

    - by Alex Pritchard
    I have a simple LAN set up at home using a Linksys WRT54GSV4 as my primary router and an Encore ENHWI-2AN3 as an access point. I connect the Encore to the Linksys by running a cable from one of the Linksys LAN ports into the Encore WAN input. I originally configured this using the Encore setup wizard, setting the device up in AP Router Mode. It detected the input network and worked about as expected, creating a second network that used my primary network to connect to the internet. It worked fine for about 2 weeks, then abruptly cut out today. I checked to make sure the network was still live through the cable going into the Encore (provides internet when connected to a laptop directly) and that devices are still able to connect to the network being broadcast by the Encore. When I try to rerun the connection wizard on the Encore, I receive the message "No Services found in WAN port." The WAN Settings is no longer retrieving a dynamic ip from the line. I tried providing a static IP, assigning an IP address within the subnet range of my primary router that wasn't being used and pointing the Default Gateway to the Linksys IP, but this did not work either. When I plug the cable into the WAN port, an internet light comes on that is not lit when a live network is not connected. I've tried doing a hard reset on the Encore (held down the rest button until the lights flashed, reconfigured from scratch), but the WAN settings are still not detected. Also tried powering off and on the modem, linksys, and encore. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

    Read the article

  • windows: force user to use specific network adapter

    - by Chad
    I'm looking for a configuration/hack to force a particular application or all traffic from a particular user to use a specific NIC. I have an legacy client/server app that has a "security feature" that limits connections based on IP address. I'm trying to find a way to migrate this app to a terminal server environment. The simple solution is for the development team to update the code in the application, however in this case that's not an option. I was thinking I might be able to install VMware NIC's installed for each user on the terminal server and do some type of scripting to force that user account to use a specific NIC. Anybody have any ideas on this? EDIT 1: I think I have a hack to work around my specific problem, however I'd love to hear of a more elegant solution. I got lucky in that the software reads the server IP address out of a config file. So I'm going to have to make a config file for each user and make a customer programs files for each user. Then add a VMware NIC for each user and make each server IP address reside on a different subnet. That will force the traffic for a particular user to a particular IP address, however its really messy and all the VM NIC's will slow down the terminal server. I'll setup a proof of concept Monday and let the group know how it affects performance.

    Read the article

  • How to secure a group of Amazon EC2 instances

    - by ks78
    I have several Amazon EC2 instances running Ubuntu 10.04 and I've recently started using Amazon's Route 53 as my DNS. The purpose of doing that was to allow the instances to refer to each other by name rather than private IP (which can change). I've pointed my domain name (via GoDaddy) to Amazon's name servers, allowing me to access my EC2 webservers. However, I noticed I can now access the EC2 instances which I don't want to be public, such as the dedicated MySQL Server. I was thinking Amazon's Security Groups would still be in effect when using Route 53, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Before I started using Route 53, I was thinking of having one instance run a reverse proxy, which would help protect the web servers behind it. Then IP-restrict all the other instances. I know IP restricting can be done using the firewall within each instance, but should I ever need to access them from another IP address, I'd need a way in. Amazon's control panel made it a breeze to open a port when necessary. Does anyone have any suggestions for keeping EC2 instances secure, but also accessible to their administrator? Also, what's the best topology for a group of EC2 instances, consisting of web servers and a dedicated database server, from a security perspective? Does having a reverse proxy server even make sense?

    Read the article

  • Certain websites redirect to 127.0.0.1. How do I fix this?

    - by Dian
    Facebook and Youtube in particular. Tried nslookup the address shows as 127.0.0.1. Checked the HOSTS file, it's fine. Ran Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (didn't find any problems) and SpyBot Search and Destroy (found 1 problem). (Not sure if the Spybot made this improvement) now pinging youtube shows the correct address (74.125.71.91) but the browser still says: Connection to 127.0.0.1 Failed The system returned: (111) Connection refused Tried ipconfig /flushdns but there are no changes. Switched to another user but the results are the same. 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 ipconfig all: Connection-specific DNS Suffix: DNS Servers: 10.1.1.30 208.67.220.220

    Read the article

  • KVM virtual machine unable to access internet

    - by peachykeen
    I have KVM set up to run a virtual machine (Windows Home Server 2011 acting as a build agent) on a dedicated server (CentOS 6.3). Recently, I ran updates on the host, and the virtual machine is now unable to connect to the internet. The virtual network is running through NAT, the host has an interface (eth0:0) set up with a static IP (virt-manager shows the network and its IP correctly), and all connections to that IP should be sent to the guest. The host and guest can ping one another, but the guest cannot ping anything above the host, nor can I ping the guest from anywhere else (I can ping the host). Results from the guest to another server under my control and from an external system to the guest both return "Destination port unreachable". Running tcpdump on the host and destination shows the host replying to the ping, but the destination never sees it (it doesn't even look like the host is bothering to send it on at all, which leads me to suspect iptables). The ping output matches that, listing replies from 192.168.100.1. The guest can resolve DNS, however, which I find rather odd. The guest's network settings (connection TCP/IPv4 properties) are set up with a static local IP (192.168.100.128), mask of 255.255.255.0, and gateway and DNS at 192.168.100.1. When originally setting up the vm/net, I had set up some iptables rules to enable bridging, but after my hosting company complained about the bridge, I set up a new virtual net using NAT and believe I removed all the rules. The VM's network was working perfectly fine for the last few months, until yesterday. I haven't heard anything from the hosting company, didn't change anything on the guest, so as far as I know, nothing else has changed (unfortunately the list of packages updated has since fallen off scrollback and I didn't note it down).

    Read the article

  • NAT via iptables and virtual interface

    - by Alex
    I'm trying to implement the following scenario: One VM-host, multiple guest VMs, each one gets its own IP-address (and domain). Our server has only one physical interface, so the intended use is to add virtual interfaces on eth0. To complicate our situation the provider uses port-security on their switches, so I can't run the guest interfaces in bridged mode, because then the switch detects a "spoofed" MAC-address and kills the interface (permanently, forcing me to call the support, which I'm sure will get them a little bit angry the third time ;) ). My first guess was to use iptables and NAT to forward all packages from one virtual interface to another one, but iptables doesn't seem to like virtual interfaces (at least I can't get it to work properly). So my second guess is to use the source IP of the packages to the public interface. Let's assume libvirt creates a virbr0-network with 192.168.100.0/24 and the guest uses 192.168.100.2 as IP-address. This is what I tried to use: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING --src public_ip_on_eth0:0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.100.2:80 That doesn't give me the intended results either (accessing the server times out). Is there a way to do what I'm trying to do, or even to route all traffic to a certain IP on a virtual interface to the VM's device?

    Read the article

  • Linux as a router for public networks

    - by nixnotwin
    My ISP had given me a /30 network. Later, when I wanted more public ips, I requested for a /29 network. I was told to keep using my earlier /30 network on the interface which is facing ISP, and the newly given /29 network should be used on the other interface which connects to my NAT router and servers. This is what I got from the isp: WAN IP: 179.xxx.4.128/30 CUSTOMER IP : 179.xxx.4.130 ISP GATEWAY IP:179.xxx.4.129 SUBNET : 255.255.255.252 LAN IPS: 179.xxx.139.224/29 GATEWAY IP :179.xxx.139.225 SUBNET : 255.255.255.248 I have a Ubuntu pc which has two interfaces. So I am planning to do the following: eth0 will be given 179.xxx.4.130/30 gateway 179.xxx.4.129 eth1 will be given 179.xxx.139.225/29 And I will have the following in the /etc/sysctl.conf: net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 These will be iptables rules: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT My clients which have the ips 179.xxx.139.226/29 and 179.xxx.139.227/29 will be made to use 179.xxx.139.225/29 as gateway. Will this configuration work for me? Any comments? If it works, what iptables rules can I use to have a bit of security? P.S. Both networks are non-private and there is no NATing.

    Read the article

  • Separate Certificate by Subdomain (With multiple IPs)

    - by Brian
    Note: Yes, I realize this problem is easier to solve by just using 1 multi-domain or wildcard certificate. I wish to have an ASP.NET site running on IIS with 2 SSL domains sharing 1 web application but using separate certificates. Assuming I have 2 certificates, this can be solved on IIS7 as follows: Web Application1: Binding 1: http, 80, IP Address *, Host Name * Binding 2: https, 443, IPADDRESS1, using CERTDOMAIN1 (DOMAIN1 resolves to IPADDRESS1) Binding 3: https, 443, IPADDRESS2, using CERTDOMAIN2 (DOMAIN2 resolves to IPADDRESS2) That is to say, 2 certificates and 2 ip addresses, but both mapped to the same web application. In IIS6, the closest I have been able to come to this configuration is: Web Application1: Binding 1: http, 80, IPADDRESS1 Binding 2: https, 443, IPADDRESS1, using CERTDOMAIN1 (DOMAIN1 resolves to IPADDRESS1) Web Application2: Binding 1: http, 80, IPADDRESS2 Binding 2: https, 443, IPADDRESS2, using CERTDOMAIN2 (DOMAIN2 resolves to IPADDRESS2) That is to say, 2 certificates and 2 IP addresses, 2 web applications, both mapped to the same file location. The IIS6 solution is not optimal. Even if sharing an application pool, there are still costs associated with running the same site as two applications. Is upgrading from IIS6 to IIS7 a legitimate way to resolve this problem? Is there an IIS6 way to map 2 IP addresses within the same web application to different certificates?

    Read the article

  • Apache Virtual Hosts behind Cisco Router

    - by Theo
    I'm setting up an Apache 2.2 Ubuntu web server for internal services that is also supposed to be accessed from outside our LAN. Our LAN has a single external IP that is the external IP of our RV042 Cisco router. We have set up several A records on our external DNS server that point to this IP. Our internal DNS server resolve the same records to the internal IP of our web server, so computers from inside the network can access them using the same address as if they were outside. We forwarded the router's external 80 port to our web server's 80 port. I have set up one Virtual Host for each domain name in our list, and my httpd.conf is something like this: ServerName web.domain.com NameVirtualHost *:80 <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName alfresco.domain.com <Proxy *> Order deny,allow Allow from all </Proxy> ProxyPass /alfresco http://localhost:8080/alfresco ProxyPassReverse /alfresco http://localhost:8080/alfresco ProxyPass /share http://localhost:8080/share ProxyPassReverse /share http://localhost:8080/share </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost *:80> ServerName crm.domain.com DocumentRoot /var/www/sugarcrm </VirtualHost> Now, this works if we are in our LAN. However, if we are outside of our LAN we reach our web server's default page saying: It Works! This is the default web page for this server. But we can't reach the virtual hosts, as if the domain name is not being preserved when the router forward the packets to the web server. Am I doing something wrong? How can I check what is going on? What should be the settings to make this work from outside?

    Read the article

  • Seeing traffic destined for other people's servers in wireshark

    - by user350325
    I rent a dedicated server from a hosting provider. I ran wireshark on my server so that I could see incoming HTTP traffic that was destined to my server. Once I ran wireshark and filtered for HTTP I noticed a load of traffic, but most of it was not for stuff that was hosted on my server and had a destination IP address that was not mine, there were various source IP addresses. My immediate reaction was to think that somebody was tunnelling their HTTP traffic through my server somehow. However when I looked closer I noticed that all of this traffic was going to hosts on the same subnet and all of these IP addresses belonged to the same hosting provider that I was using. So it appears that wireshark was intercepting traffic destined for other customers who's servers are attached to the same part of the network as mine. Now I always assumed that on a switch based network that this should not happen as the switch will only send data to the required host and not to every box attached. I assume in this case that other customers would also be able to see data going to my server. As well as potential privacy concerns, this would surely make ARP poising easy and allow others to steal IP addresses (and therefor domains and websites)? It would seem odd that a network provider would configure the network in such a way. Is there a more rational explanation here?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206  | Next Page >