Search Results

Search found 2401 results on 97 pages for 'routing'.

Page 2/97 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Routing Internet traffic over specific network interfaces [on hold]

  - by dipamchang

  I want to route my internet traffic over all my available connections (like LAN and Data card(3G)), based on conditions like, if a website is blocked over LAN, that traffic goes through Data Card (or other available internet connection). My ultimate motive is to integrate this feature in my web browser which I have already built using C# and .Net framework. I have found that one can add a route by using the following cmd command - route add DestinationIP mask subnet InterfaceGatewayIP but I am stuck as to how should it be implemented using C#?

  Read the article

• WCF Routing Service Filter Generator

  - by Michael Stephenson

  Recently I've been working with the WCF routing service and in our case we were simply routing based on the SOAP Action. This is a pretty good approach for a standard redirection of the message when all messages matching a SOAP Action will go to the same endpoint. Using the SOAP Action also lets you be specific about which methods you expose via the router. One of the things which was a pain was the number of routing rules I needed to create because we were routing for a lot of different methods. I could have explored the option of using a regular expression to match the message to its routing but I wanted to be very specific about what's routed and not risk exposing methods I shouldn't via the router. I decided to put together a little spreadsheet so that I can generate part of the configuration I would need to put in the configuration file rather than have to type this by hand. To show how this works download the spreadsheet from the following url: https://s3.amazonaws.com/CSCBlogSamples/WCF+Routing+Generator.xlsx In the spreadsheet you will see that the squares in green are the ones which you need to amend. In the below picture you can see that you specify a prefix and suffix for the filter name. The core namespace from the web service your generating routing rules for and the WCF endpoint name which you want to route to. In column A you will see the green cells where you add the list of method names which you want to include routing rules for. The spreadsheet will workout what the full SOAP Action would be then the name you will use for that filter in your WCF Routing filters. In column D the spreadsheet will have generated the XML snippet which you can add to the routing filters section in your configuration file. In column E the spreadsheet will have created the XML snippet which you can add to the routing table to send messages matching each filter to the appropriate WCF client endpoint to forward the message to the required destination. Hopefully you can see that with this spreadsheet it would be very easy to produce accurate XML for the WCF Routing configuration if you had a large number of routing rules. If you had additional methods in other services you can simply copy the worksheet and add multiple copies to the Excel workbook. One worksheet per service would work well.

  Read the article

• BizTalk &ndash; Routing failure on Delivery Notifications (BizTalk 2006 R2 to 2013)

  - by S.E.R.

  Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/SERivas/archive/2013/11/11/biztalk-routing-failure-on-delivery-notifications.aspxThis is a detailed explanation of a something I posted a few month ago on stackoverflow, concerning a weird behavior (a bug, really…) of the delivery notifications in BizTalk. Reminder: what are delivery notifications Mechanism BizTalk has the ability to automatically publish positive acknowledgments (ACK) when it has succeeded transmitting a message or negative acknowledgments (NACK) in case of a transmission failure. Orchestrations can use delivery notifications to subscribe to those ACKs and NACKs in order to know if a message sent on a one-way send port has been successfully transmitted. Delivery Notifications can be “activated” in two ways: The most common and easy way is to set the Delivery Notification property of a logical send port (in the orchestration designer) to Transmitted: Another way is to set the BTS.AckRequired context property of the message to be sent to true: NOTE: fundamentally, those methods are strictly equivalent since the fact of setting the Delivery Notification to Transmitted on the send port only tells BizTalk the BTS.AckRequired context property has to be set to true on the outgoing message. Related context properties ACKs and NACKs have a common set of propoted context properties, which are : Propriété Description AckType Equals ACK when successful or NACK otherwise AckID MessageID of the message concerned by the acknowledgment AckOwnerID InstanceID of the instance associated with the acknowledgment AckSendPortID ID of the send port AckSendPortName Name of the send port AckOutboundTransportLocation URI of the send port AckReceivePortID ID of the port the message came from AckReceivePortName Name of the port the message came from AckInboundTransportLocation URI of the port the message came from Detailed behavior The way Delivery Notifications are handled by BizTalk is peculiar compared to the standard behavior of the Message Box: if no active subscription exists for the acknowledgment, it is simply discarded. The direct consequence of this is that there can be no routing failure for an acknowledgment, and an acknowledgment cannot be suspended. Moreover, when a message is sent to a send port where Delivery Notification = Transmitted, a correlation set is initialized and a correlation token is attached to the message (Context property: CorrelationToken). This correlation token will also be attached to the acknowledgment. So when the acknowledgment is issued, it is automatically routed to the source orchestration. Finally, when a NACK is received by the source orchestration, a DeliveryFailureException is thrown, which can be caught in Catch section. Context of the problem Consider this scenario: In an orchestration, Delivery Notifications are activated on a One-Way send port In case of a transmission failure, the messaging instance is suspended and the orchestration catches an exception (DeliveryFailureException). When the exception is caught, the orchestration does some logging and then terminates (thanks to a Terminate shape). So that leaves only the suspended messaging instance, waiting to be resumed. Symptoms Once the problem that caused the transmission failure is solved, the messaging instance is resumed. Considering what was said in the reminder, we would expect the instance to complete, leaving no active or suspended instance. Nevertheless, the result is that the messaging instance is once more suspended, this time because of a routing failure: The routing failure report shows that the suspended message has the following attached properties: Explanation Those properties clearly indicate that the message being suspended is an acknowledgment (ACK in this case), which was published in the message box and was supended because no subscribers were found. This makes sense, since the source orchestration was terminated before we resumed the messaging instance. So its subscription to the acknowledgments was no longer active when the ACK was published, which explains the routing failure. But this behavior is in direct contradiction with what was said earlier: an acknowledgment must be discarded when no subscriber is found and therefore should not be suspended. Cause It is indeed an outright bug, which appeared with the SP1 of BizTalk 2006 R2 and was never corrected since then: not in the next 4 CUs, not in BizTalk 2009, not in 2010 and not event in 2013 – though I haven’t tested CU1 and CU2 for this last edition, but I bet there is nothing to be expected from those CUs (on this particular point). Side effects This bug can have pretty nasty side effects: this behavior can be propagated to other ports, due to routing mechanisms. For instance: you have configured the ESB Toolkit and have activated the “Enable routing failure for failed messages”. The result will be that the ESB Exception SQL send port will also try and publish ACKs or NACKs concerning its own messaging instances. In itself, this is already messy, but remember that those acknowledgments will also have the source correlation token attached to them… See how far it goes? Well, actually there is more: in SQL send ports, transactions will be rolled back because of the routing failure (I guess it also happens with other adapters - like Oracle, but I haven’t tested them). Again, think of what happens when the send port is the ESB Exception send port: your BizTalk box is going mad, but you have no idea since no exception can be written in the exception database! All of this can be tricky to diagnose, I can tell you that… Solution There is no real solution, only a work-around, but it won’t solve all of the problems and side effects. The idea is to create an orchestration which subscribes to all acknowledgments. That is to say: The message type of the incoming message will be XmlDocument The BTS.AckType property exists The logical receive port will use direct binding By doing so, all acknowledgments will be consumed by an instance of this orchestration, thus avoiding the routing failure. Here is an example of what this orchestration could look like: In order not to pollute the HAT and the DTA Db (after all, this orchestration is only meant to be a palliative to some faulty internal BizTalk mechanism, so there should be no trace of its execution), all tracking must be deactivated:

  Read the article

• Routing WIFI and LAN for specific traffic

  - by jakebird451

  I have two network devices aboard my macbook pro: WIFI (en1): Used for general traffic. Connects to an ip of 192.168.19.* via DHCP LAN (en0): Used for specific traffic. Connects to an ip of 192.168.2.10 as a static IP. Does not connect to a router, only a switch for direct routing connection. I have 4 IP addresses I need to access on the LAN: 192.168.2.1 192.168.2.21 192.168.2.20 192.168.2.30 The rest of the traffic needs to go to WIFI. I have tried setting up a routing table for the specific ip addresses, but I only managed to mess up my network. I do not venture out into the world of networking too often, but this was the latest command I have been trying: sudo route add -host 192.168.2.30 -interface en0 This command killed my ability to use ping. It told me that ping could not allocate memory (is that even possible)? It also killed my wifi access. Logging out and back in fixed the issue. I really do not mind to make this solution permanent, so I am fine with a temporary routing. EDIT: If I currently have been trying: sudo route flush sudo route add default 192.168.19.1 This gets everything to work for about a minute. But after such minute it "forgets" the routing to WiFi while retaining LAN's (en0) routing. If I unplug and replug my LAN (en0) cable, the process works for another minute.

  Read the article

• routing based on source IP

  - by user1977050

  I am trying to do source-based routing, following the question http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/131527/routing-based-on-source-ip. The source IP floating one and assigned to a cluster (consists from 2 servers). Let's say that the physical IP on server1 is 192.0.2.1, on server2 192.0.2.2, and the virtual IP is 192.0.2.3 (and this should be the source IP for outgoing traffic). How can I configure static source IP routing for this in RHEL?

  Read the article

• How to prevent asymmetric routing with multiple eBGP routers?

  - by Andy Shinn

  I have 2 routers announcing a /22 subnet to different providers (one providers connects to each of the 2 routers). I have split the /22 in two /23 to announce one /23 on each of the routers plus the /22 (the providers will take the more specific route). This allows me to fail over and keep traffic inside the /23 in and out the same provider. What are other ways in which I could announce just the /22 with both routers and have packets from servers on the network behind the routers go back out the same router in which they came in from? EDIT: The main problem I come across, which end users and clients complain about the most, is that the least hop route is sometimes not the "optimal" route. In my case, I know that Provider B may have better latency to X nation. But when packets come in from provider B, they may go out Provider A or provider B. The reverse is also true. If I send a packet to X nation out provider A, even though it may have more hops back, the packet will likely come in from Provider B (which may have higher latency, packet loss, etc. to this nation)

  Read the article

• ASP MVC - Routing Required?

  - by evo_9

  I've been reading up on MVC2 which came in VS2010 and it sounds pretty interesting. I'm actually in the middle of a large multi-tenant application project, and have just started coding the UI. I'm considering changing to MVC as I'm not that far along at this point. I have some questions about the Routing capabilities, namely are they required to use MVC or can I more or less ignore Routing? Or do I have to setup a default routing record that will make things work like standard ASPX (as far as routing alone is concerned)? The reason why I don't want to use Routing is because I've already defined a custom URL 'rewrite' mechanism of my own (which fires on session_start). In addition, I'm using jquery and opens-standards for the entire UI, and MVC's aspx overhead-free approach seems like a better fit based on how I've already started to build the application (I am not using viewstate at all, for example). I guess my big concern is whether the routing can be ignored, of if I will have to re-implement my custom URL rewriting to work with MVC, and if that's the case, how would I do that? As a new Routing routine, or stick with the session_start (if that's even possible?). Lastly, I don't want to use anything even remotely 'intelligent/readable' for the url - for a site like StackOverflow, the readability of the URL is a positive, but the opposite is true if it's not a public website like this one. In fact, it would seem to me that the more friendly MVC routing URL (which indirectly show method names) could pose a security risk on a private, non-public website app like I'm developing. For all these reasons I would love to use the lightweight aspects of MVC but skip the Routing entirely - is this possible?

  Read the article

• ASP.NET JavaScript Routing for ASP.NET MVC–Constraints

  - by zowens

  If you haven’t had a look at my previous post about ASP.NET routing, go ahead and check it out before you read this post: http://weblogs.asp.net/zowens/archive/2010/12/20/asp-net-mvc-javascript-routing.aspx And the code is here: https://github.com/zowens/ASP.NET-MVC-JavaScript-Routing   Anyways, this post is about routing constraints. A routing constraint is essentially a way for the routing engine to filter out route patterns based on the day from the URL. For example, if I have a route where all the parameters are required, I could use a constraint on the required parameters to say that the parameter is non-empty. Here’s what the constraint would look like: Notice that this is a class that inherits from IRouteConstraint, which is an interface provided by System.Web.Routing. The match method returns true if the value is a match (and can be further processed by the routing rules) or false if it does not match (and the route will be matched further along the route collection). Because routing constraints are so essential to the route matching process, it was important that they be part of my JavaScript routing engine. But the problem is that we need to somehow represent the constraint in JavaScript. I made a design decision early on that you MUST put this constraint into JavaScript to match a route. I didn’t want to have server interaction for the URL generation, like I’ve seen in so many applications. While this is easy to maintain, it causes maintenance issues in my opinion. So the way constraints work in JavaScript is that the constraint as an object type definition is set on the route manager. When a route is created, a new instance of the constraint is created with the specific parameter. In its current form the constraint function MUST return a function that takes the route data and will return true or false. You will see the NotEmpty constraint in a bit. Another piece to the puzzle is that you can have the JavaScript exist as a string in your application that is pulled in when the routing JavaScript code is generated. There is a simple interface, IJavaScriptAddition, that I have added that will be used to output custom JavaScript. Let’s put it all together. Here is the NotEmpty constraint. There’s a few things at work here. The constraint is called “notEmpty” in JavaScript. When you add the constraint to a parameter in your C# code, the route manager generator will look for the JsConstraint attribute to look for the name of the constraint type name and fallback to the class name. For example, if I didn’t apply the “JsConstraint” attribute, the constraint would be called “NotEmpty”. The JavaScript code essentially adds a function to the “constraintTypeDefs” object on the “notEmpty” property (this is how constraints are added to routes). The function returns another function that will be invoked with routing data. Here’s how you would use the NotEmpty constraint in C# and it will work with the JavaScript routing generator. The only catch to using route constraints currently is that the following is not supported: The constraint will work in C# but is not supported by my JavaScript routing engine. (I take pull requests so if you’d like this… go ahead and implement it).   I just wanted to take this post to explain a little bit about the background on constraints. I am looking at expanding the current functionality, but for now this is a good start. Thanks for all the support with the JavaScript router. Keep the feedback coming!

  Read the article

• URL Routing in ASP.NET 4.0

  In the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, Microsoft introduced ASP.NET Routing, which decouples the URL of a resource from the physical file on the web server. With ASP.NET Routing you, the developer, define routing rules map route patterns to a class that generates the content. For example, you might indicate that the URL Categories/CategoryName maps to a class that takes the CategoryName and generates HTML that lists that category's products in a grid. With such a mapping, users could view products for the Beverages category by visiting www.yoursite.com/Categories/Beverages. In .NET 3.5 SP1, ASP.NET Routing was primarily designed for ASP.NET MVC applications, although as discussed in Using ASP.NET Routing Without ASP.NET MVC it is possible to implement ASP.NET Routing in a Web Forms application, as well. However, implementing ASP.NET Routing in a Web Forms application involves a bit of seemingly excessive legwork. In a Web Forms scenario we typically want to map a routing pattern to an actual ASP.NET page. To do so we need to create a route handler class that is invoked when the routing URL is requested and, in a sense, dispatches the request to the appropriate ASP.NET page. For instance, to map a route to a physical file, such as mapping Categories/CategoryName to ShowProductsByCategory.aspx - requires three steps: (1) Define the mapping in Global.asax, which maps a route pattern to a route handler class; (2) Create the route handler class, which is responsible for parsing the URL, storing any route parameters into some location that is accessible to the target page (such as HttpContext.Items), and returning an instance of the target page or HTTP Handler that handles the requested route; and (3) writing code in the target page to grab the route parameters and use them in rendering its content. Given how much effort it took to just read the preceding sentence (let alone write it) you can imagine that implementing ASP.NET Routing in a Web Forms application is not necessarily the most straightforward task. The good news is that ASP.NET 4.0 has greatly simplified ASP.NET Routing for Web Form applications by adding a number of classes and helper methods that can be used to encapsulate the aforementioned complexity. With ASP.NET 4.0 it's easier to define the routing rules and there's no need to create a custom route handling class. This article details these enhancements. Read on to learn more! Read More >

  Read the article

• URL Routing in ASP.NET 4.0

  In the .NET Framework 3.5 SP1, Microsoft introduced ASP.NET Routing, which decouples the URL of a resource from the physical file on the web server. With ASP.NET Routing you, the developer, define routing rules map route patterns to a class that generates the content. For example, you might indicate that the URL Categories/CategoryName maps to a class that takes the CategoryName and generates HTML that lists that category's products in a grid. With such a mapping, users could view products for the Beverages category by visiting www.yoursite.com/Categories/Beverages. In .NET 3.5 SP1, ASP.NET Routing was primarily designed for ASP.NET MVC applications, although as discussed in Using ASP.NET Routing Without ASP.NET MVC it is possible to implement ASP.NET Routing in a Web Forms application, as well. However, implementing ASP.NET Routing in a Web Forms application involves a bit of seemingly excessive legwork. In a Web Forms scenario we typically want to map a routing pattern to an actual ASP.NET page. To do so we need to create a route handler class that is invoked when the routing URL is requested and, in a sense, dispatches the request to the appropriate ASP.NET page. For instance, to map a route to a physical file, such as mapping Categories/CategoryName to ShowProductsByCategory.aspx - requires three steps: (1) Define the mapping in Global.asax, which maps a route pattern to a route handler class; (2) Create the route handler class, which is responsible for parsing the URL, storing any route parameters into some location that is accessible to the target page (such as HttpContext.Items), and returning an instance of the target page or HTTP Handler that handles the requested route; and (3) writing code in the target page to grab the route parameters and use them in rendering its content. Given how much effort it took to just read the preceding sentence (let alone write it) you can imagine that implementing ASP.NET Routing in a Web Forms application is not necessarily the most straightforward task. The good news is that ASP.NET 4.0 has greatly simplified ASP.NET Routing for Web Form applications by adding a number of classes and helper methods that can be used to encapsulate the aforementioned complexity. With ASP.NET 4.0 it's easier to define the routing rules and there's no need to create a custom route handling class. This article details these enhancements. Read on to learn more! Read More >

  Read the article

• Dissecting ASP.NET Routing

  The ASP.NET Routing framework allows developers to decouple the URL of a resource from the physical file on the web server. Specifically, the developer defines routing rules, which map URL patterns to a class or ASP.NET page that generates the content. For instance, you could create a URL pattern of the form Categories/CategoryName and map it to the ASP.NET page ShowCategoryDetails.aspx; the ShowCategoryDetails.aspx page would display details about the category CategoryName. With such a mapping, users could view category about the Beverages category by visiting www.yoursite.com/Categories/Beverages. In short, ASP.NET Routing allows for readable, SEO-friendly URLs. ASP.NET Routing was first introduced in ASP.NET 3.5 SP1 and was enhanced further in ASP.NET 4.0. ASP.NET Routing is a key component of ASP.NET MVC, but can also be used with Web Forms. Two previous articles here on 4Guys showed how to get started using ASP.NET Routing: Using ASP.NET Routing Without ASP.NET MVC and URL Routing in ASP.NET 4.0. This article aims to explore ASP.NET Routing in greater depth. We'll explore how ASP.NET Routing works underneath the covers to decode a URL pattern and hand it off the the appropriate class or ASP.NET page. Read on to learn more! Read More >

  Read the article

• Dissecting ASP.NET Routing

  The ASP.NET Routing framework allows developers to decouple the URL of a resource from the physical file on the web server. Specifically, the developer defines routing rules, which map URL patterns to a class or ASP.NET page that generates the content. For instance, you could create a URL pattern of the form Categories/CategoryName and map it to the ASP.NET page ShowCategoryDetails.aspx; the ShowCategoryDetails.aspx page would display details about the category CategoryName. With such a mapping, users could view category about the Beverages category by visiting www.yoursite.com/Categories/Beverages. In short, ASP.NET Routing allows for readable, SEO-friendly URLs. ASP.NET Routing was first introduced in ASP.NET 3.5 SP1 and was enhanced further in ASP.NET 4.0. ASP.NET Routing is a key component of ASP.NET MVC, but can also be used with Web Forms. Two previous articles here on 4Guys showed how to get started using ASP.NET Routing: Using ASP.NET Routing Without ASP.NET MVC and URL Routing in ASP.NET 4.0. This article aims to explore ASP.NET Routing in greater depth. We'll explore how ASP.NET Routing works underneath the covers to decode a URL pattern and hand it off the the appropriate class or ASP.NET page. Read on to learn more! Read More >Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• IPv6 routing to another interface

  - by Robert

  I'm trying to get an IPv6 enabled router to forward data from one interface to the other and I'm having issues. When following this example (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk872/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080ba6106.shtml) I am able to get full connectivity between all 3 routers in my simulator. However when I try to use only 1 router; I can't get connectivity to the other interfacs on the same router. My PC is directly attached to FA 0/1 and it can ping the router's interface. However it can not ping any other interface on the router(which unless I'm missing something it should be able to do). The router on the other hand can ping everything. I thought static routes might help; but the router already has routes for everything. I'm thinking the packet should come in; router looks up the destination in it's ipv6 routing table and then realizes it's for itself, and should respond. I thought maybe it couldn't respond directly; so I tried pinging a device like 2001:0000:0000:1000::2, but i don't get a response. I'm running on IOS 12.4. I'm missing something(hopefully simple), but I just can't see what it is. With only 1 router; how do I enable my PC to talk to the other subnets? Thank you in advance, Robert Topology: R1 FA 0/0: 2001:0000:0000:0000::1/52 FA 0/1: 2001:0000:0000:1000::1/52 FA 1/0: 2001:0000:0000:2000::1/52 Loopback 0: 2001:0000:0000:3000::1/52 PC: 2001:0000:0000:2000::2/52 PC plugs directly into FA 1/0 on the router. --- Configuration --- ipv6 cef ipv6 unicast routing interface Loopback0 no ip address ipv6 address 2001:0000:0000:3000::1/52 ipv6 enable ! interface FastEthernet0/0 no ip address duplex auto speed auto ipv6 address 2001:0000:0000::1/52 ipv6 enable ! interface FastEthernet0/1 no ip address duplex auto speed auto ipv6 address 2001:0000:0000:1000::1/52 ipv6 enable ! interface FastEthernet1/0 no ip address duplex auto speed auto ipv6 address 2001:0000:0000:2000::1/52 ipv6 enable --- end of config --- --- routing table --- IPV6Lab#show ipv6 route IPv6 Routing Table - 10 entries Codes: C - Connected, L - Local, S - Static, R - RIP, B - BGP U - Per-user Static route I1 - ISIS L1, I2 - ISIS L2, IA - ISIS interarea, IS - ISIS summary O - OSPF intra, OI - OSPF inter, OE1 - OSPF ext 1, OE2 - OSPF ext 2 ON1 - OSPF NSSA ext 1, ON2 - OSPF NSSA ext 2 C 2001:0000:0000::/52 [0/0] via ::, FastEthernet0/0 L 2001:0000:0000::1/128 [0/0] via ::, FastEthernet0/0 C 2001:0000:0000:1000::/52 [0/0] via ::, FastEthernet0/1 L 2001:0000:0000:1000::1/128 [0/0] via ::, FastEthernet0/1 C 2001:0000:0000:2000::/52 [0/0] via ::, FastEthernet1/0 L 2001:0000:0000:2000::1/128 [0/0] via ::, FastEthernet1/0 C 2001:0000:0000:3000::/52 [0/0] via ::, Loopback0 L 2001:0000:0000:3000::1/128 [0/0] via ::, Loopback0 L FE80::/10 [0/0] via ::, Null0 L FF00::/8 [0/0] via ::, Null0 --- end of routing table ---

  Read the article

• 503 Error After Microsoft Request Routing Is Installed - 32 bit 64 bit madness

  - by KenB

  I have a requirement to install the Microsoft Request Routing component for IIS 7.5 running on a Windows 2008 R2 SP1 64Bit machine. After installing Microsoft Request Routing via the Web Platform installer our ASP.NET 4.0 application gets a "HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable." The Windows event log error details says: The Module DLL 'C:\Program Files\IIS\Application Request Routing\requestRouter.dll' could not be loaded due to a configuration problem. The current configuration only supports loading images built for a AMD64 processor architecture. The data field contains the error number. To learn more about this issue, including how to troubleshooting this kind of processor architecture mismatch error, see http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=29349. I can make this error go away by changing the application pool to run in 32 bit mode by changing the "Enable 32-Bit Applications" setting to true. However I would prefer not to have to do that to resolve the issue. My questions are: Why is the Microsoft Request Routing feature trying to load a 32 bit version, isn't there a 64 bit version for it? How do I resolve this issue without having to change my application pool to a 32 bit mode?

  Read the article

• Slow Routing Over LAN (Wired)

  - by reverendj1

  I'm having issues with my router acting very slow (Adtran Netvanta 3458). We have two networks, let's call them A and B. When I run netperf from two servers on network A (no routing) I get speeds along the lines of 900 Mbps. Which makes sense, since we have all 1Gbps switches. When testing A to B (or vice-versa) I get speeds along the lines of 22Mbps. I have also tested connecting my laptop to the switchports on the router, and testing two servers on network A (no routing) and got speeds around 90 Mbps. Which makes sense since the switchports on the router are 100Mbps. Does anyone have any idea why routing would be so slow? We bought the router over a year ago, and we think it has been doing this since then, but we never actually tested it before. (network B isn't really used much, so we didn't notice much) We were implementing a site-to-site VPN and noticed it was ridiculously slow, so we started testing basic routing performance. I have ruled out cabling and router CPU/memory utilization. Adtran looked at my config, but didn't see anything wrong with it.

  Read the article

• Windows XP/7: custom routing for VPN connection

  - by Peter Becker

  We are dealing with a badly configured VPN connection from a vendor, which set up the default gateway but doesn't route traffic anywhere beyond their VPN zone. I managed to do some ad-hoc routing to configure a computer in a way that it can reach the vendor's VPN, our local network as well as the internet. I then tried to turn this into a script, but that failed since the interface number of the VPN changes on every connection. Is there a way in Windows XP and/or Windows 7 to configure custom routing on the client side of a VPN connection? What I would like to do is to have a script running just after the connection comes up that changes the routing table (similar to an ifup script on UNIX).

  Read the article

• Is Internet routing (BGP) fully automated?

  - by Adal

  If all the routing tables on the Internet would be erased simultaneously, will the routers be able to rediscover them automatically? I'm having an argument with a colleague who says that the RIPE routing tables are essential, but I remember reading that if the tables disappeared, the BGP protocol will allow routers to rediscover working routes between nodes by querying their neighbors which in turn will query their neighbors until a working route will be detected. Then that route will be used to repopulate the routing tables. After a while, all the routes will be restored (not necessarily the optimal routes). Is that correct?

  Read the article

• Change the default route without affecting existing TCP connections

  - by Patrick Horn

  Let's say I have two public network addresses on my server: one NAT through an ISP (192.168.99.0/24), and a VPN through a different ISP (192.168.1.0/24), already configured with a per-host route to the VPN server through my ISP. Here is my initial routing table. I am currently routing through my ISP on subnet 192.168.99.0/24. $ route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.99.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 55.66.77.88 192.168.99.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.99.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 tap0 Now, I want new TCP connections to switch to my 192.168.1.0/24 so I type the following: $ route add -net 0.0.0.0 gw 192.168.1.1 dev tap0 When I do this, it causes some long-standing TCP connections to hang. Is there a way to I safely change the default interface for new connections, while allowing existing TCP connections to use the old route (i.e. do I need enable some sort of stateful routing table)? I am okay with a solution that only works with established TCP connections, and I don't care how hacky it is. For example, if there is a way to add temporary iptables rules for existing connections to force them over the old route. But there has to be some way to do this. EDIT: Just a note about a simple "route add -host ... " for existing connections: this solution would work if I am fine with leaving a subset of IPs on the old interface. However, in my application, this actually doesn't solve my problem because I want to allow new connections to come on the new interface even if they have the same source IP. I'm now looking at using the "ip route" command to set source-based routing rules.

  Read the article

• Routing Essentials

  - by zharvey

  I'm a programmer trying to fill a big hole in my understanding of networking basics. I've been reading a good book (Networking Bible by Sosinki) but I have been finding that there is a lot of "assumed" information contained, where terms/concepts are thrown at the reader without a proper introduction to them. I understand that a "route" is a path through a network. But I am struggling with visualizing some routing-based concepts. Namely: How do routes actually manifest themselves in the hardware? Are they just a list of IP addresses that get computed at the network layer, and then executed by the transport? What kind of data exists in a so-caleld routing table? Is a routing-table just the mechanism for holding these lists of IP address (read above)? What are the performance pros/cons for having a static route, as opposed to a dynamic route?

  Read the article

• In Ruby on Rails Routing I Would Like to Use Dash `-` Instead of Underscore `_`

  - by pablitostar

  I would like all the URLs for my web applications to use dash - instead of underscore _ for word separators. I'm surprised about a couple of things really: Google et al. continue to distinguish them. That RoR doesn't have a simple global configuration parameter to map - to _ in the routing. Or does it? I found a few questions here and elsewhere, but the best solution I've seen is to use :as or a named route. That's quite annoying. So I'm thinking of modifying the Rails routing to check for that global config and change - to _ before dispatching to a controller action. But before I do that, I'm hoping someone can save me the trouble! Thanks in advance for any help, or even confirmation that my approach makes sense. I'd submit it back. BTW, I'm currently on 2.3.8, but hope to migrate to 3 soon.

  Read the article

• Question about network topology and routing performance

  - by algorithms

  Hello I am currently working on a uni project about routing protocols and network performance, one of the criteria i was going to test under was to see what effect lan topology has, ie workstations arranged in mesh, star, ring etc, but i am having doubts as to whether that would have any affect on the routing performance thus would be useless to do, rather i'm thinking it would be better to test under the topology of the routers themselves, ie routers arranged in either star, mesh ring etc. I would appreciate some feedback on this as I am rather confused. Thank You

  Read the article

• Linux TC / Policy Routing tools

  - by Zoredache

  In addition to a really good firewall Linux has a builtin advanced routing and traffic shaping (lartc). There are many applications (firehol, firestarter, etc) to make the creation of iptables firewall easier, what similar to tools exist to make working with the policy routing and traffic control easy?

  Read the article

• Routing protocols, distance vector vs link state

  - by Artem Barger

  I'm trying to figure out the differences(pros/cons) between two routing protocols approach and I would be great-full for any help, advice and explanation. As far I can say that it seems like distance vector is more static and more local based routing, since it doesn't know the network state whereas link state is more aware of current states therefore it seems more natural to use it over distance-vector, but I have a feeling like I'm missing something. And I would be glad to here about more aspects and different issues I have to consider while choosing one of them.

  Read the article

• Routing all data through an VPN tunnel with ppp

  - by Oliver

  I'm trying to create a VPN tunnel that forwards all data from the local machine to the VPN server. I'm using ppp-2.4.5 for this with the following configuration: pty "pptp <VPNServer> --nolaunchpppd" name <my login name> remotename PPTP usepeerdns require-mppe-128 file /etc/ppp/options.pptp persist maxfail 0 holdoff 5 I have a script in if-up.d with the following content: route del default eth0 route add default dev ppp0 Before starting the VPN tunnel my routing looks like: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 2 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 lo 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 After starting the tunnel (via pon) it looks like: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 ppp0 12.34.56.1 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 127.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 lo 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 Now the problem is, that the VPN tunnel seems to be looped into itself. If I run ifconfig after a few seconds without any traffic: eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.0.10 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 192.168.255.255 ether 00:01:2e:2f:ff:35 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 39931 bytes 6784614 (6.4 MiB) RX errors 0 dropped 90 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 34980 bytes 7633181 (7.2 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 device interrupt 20 memory 0xfbdc0000-fbde0000 ppp0: flags=4305<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,NOARP,MULTICAST> mtu 1496 inet 12.34.56.78 netmask 255.255.255.255 destination 12.34.56.1 ppp txqueuelen 3 (Point-to-Point Protocol) RX packets 7 bytes 94 (94.0 B) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 782863 bytes 349257986 (333.0 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 It states that already over 300 MiB have been send, ppp0 is only online since a few seconds and the connection isn't working anyway. Can someone please help me to fix the routing table, so that the traffic from ppp0 is not send again through ppp0 but instead goes to the remote server?

  Read the article

• Apache not finding index.php by default, set rule for routing through index.php

  - by eoinoc

  Apache on the server is set to find index.php by default, and that works for a normal folder. However, I have a .htaccess rule to route all requests through my routing script: RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteRule ^(.*)$ index.php [QSA,L] With these .htaccess contents, the server returns a 404 error. Only by specifying /index.php does the routing script get called. Any tips on what I am doing wrong?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >