Search Results

Search found 2592 results on 104 pages for 'backbone routing'.

Page 20/104 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

• route http and ssh traffic normally, everything else via vpn tunnel

  - by Normadize

  I've read quite a bit and am close, I feel, and I'm pulling my hair out ... please help! I have an OpenVPN cliend whose server sets local routes and also changes the default gw (I know I can prevent that with --route-nopull). I'd like to have all outgoing http and ssh traffic via the local gw, and everything else via the vpn. Local IP is 192.168.1.6/24, gw 192.168.1.1. OpenVPN local IP is 10.102.1.6/32, gw 192.168.1.5 OpenVPN server is at {OPENVPN_SERVER_IP} Here's the route table after openvpn connection: # ip route show table main 0.0.0.0/1 via 10.102.1.5 dev tun0 default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 proto static 10.102.1.1 via 10.102.1.5 dev tun0 10.102.1.5 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.102.1.6 {OPENVPN_SERVER_IP} via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 128.0.0.0/1 via 10.102.1.5 dev tun0 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1000 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.6 metric 1 This makes all packets go via to the VPN tunnel except those destined for 192.168.1.0/24. Doing wget -qO- http://echoip.org shows the vpn server's address, as expected, the packets have 10.102.1.6 as source address (the vpn local ip), and are routed via tun0 ... as reported by tcpdump -i tun0 (tcpdump -i eth0 sees none of this traffic). What I tried was: create a 2nd routing table holding the 192.168.1.6/24 routing info (copied from the main table above) add an iptables -t mangle -I PREROUTING rule to mark packets destined for port 80 add an ip rule to match on the mangled packet and point it to the 2nd routing table add an ip rule for to 192.168.1.6 and from 192.168.1.6 to point to the 2nd routing table (though this is superfluous) changed the ipv4 filter validation to none in net.ipv4.conf.tun0.rp_filter=0 and net.ipv4.conf.eth0.rp_filter=0 I also tried an iptables mangle output rule, iptables nat prerouting rule. It still fails and I'm not sure what I'm missing: iptables mangle prerouting: packet still goes via vpn iptables mangle output: packet times out Is it not the case that to achieve what I want, then when doing wget http://echoip.org I should change the packet's source address to 192.168.1.6 before routing it off? But if I do that, the response from the http server would be routed back to 192.168.1.6 and wget would not see it as it is still bound to tun0 (the vpn interface)? Can a kind soul please help? What commands would you execute after the openvpn connects to achieve what I want? Looking forward to hair regrowth ...

  Read the article

• Routing not working correctly using the laravel framework

  - by samayres1992

  I'm using the book wrote by one of the guys that created laravel, so I'd like to think for the most part this code isn't horribly wrong. My server is setup with nginx serving all static files and apache2 serving php. My config for each are the following: apache2: <VirtualHost *> # Host that will serve this project. ServerName litl.it # The location of our projects public directory. DocumentRoot /var/www/litl.it/laravel/public # Useful logs for debug. CustomLog /var/log/apache.access.log common ErrorLog /var/log/apache.error.log # Rewrites for pretty URLs, better not to rely on .htaccess. <Directory /var/www/litl.it/laravel/public> <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> Options -MultiViews RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteRule ^ index.php [L] </IfModule> </Directory> nginx: server { # Port that the web server will listen on. listen 80; # Host that will serve this project. server_name litl.it *.litl.it; # Useful logs for debug. access_log /var/log/nginx.access.log; error_log /var/log/nginx.error.log; rewrite_log on; # The location of our projects public directory. root /var/www/litl.it/laravel/public; # Point index to the Laravel front controller. index index.php; location / { # URLs to attempt, including pretty ones. try_files $uri $uri/ /index.php?$query_string; } # Remove trailing slash to please routing system. if (!-d $request_filename) { rewrite ^/(.+)/$ /$1 permanent; } # PHP FPM configuration. location ~* \.php$ { proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:8080; include /etc/nginx/proxy_params; try_files index index.php $uri =404; include /etc/nginx/fastcgi_params; fastcgi_index index.php; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root/php/$fastcgi_script_name; } # We don't need .ht files with nginx. location ~ /\.ht { deny all; } location @proxy { proxy_pass http://127.0.0.1:8080; include /etc/nginx/proxy_params; } error_page 403 /error/403.html; error_page 404 /error/404.html; error_page 405 /error/405.html; error_page 500 501 502 503 504 /error/5xx.html; location ^~ /error/ { internal; root /var/www/litl.it/lavarel/public/error; } } I'm including these server configs, as I feel this maybe the issue? Here is my incredibly basic routing file that should return "routing is working" on domain.com/test but instead it just returns the homepage. <?php Route::get('/', function() { return View::make('hello'); }); Route::get('/test', function() { return "routing is working"; }); Any ideas where I'm going wrong, I'm following this tutorial very closely and I'm confused why there is issue. Thanks!

  Read the article

• MVC routing - why does my request not match the route?

  - by Anders Juul

  Hi all, I'm making a request that I thought would be caught by my route, but there is no match. What am I doing wrong? Any comments appreciated, Anders, Denmark -- Url : EventReponse/ComingAdmin/386/01e71c45-cb67-4711-a51f-df5fcb54bb8b Expected match: routes.MapRoute( "Editing event responses for other user", // Route name "EventResponse/{action}/{eventId}/userId", // URL with parameters new {controller = "EventResponse", action = "ComingAdmin"} // Parameter defaults ); Desired controller (but I guess this does not come into play): public class EventResponseController : ControllerBase { (...) public ActionResult ComingAdmin(int eventId, Guid userId) { return RegisterEventResponse(eventId, AttendanceStatus.Coming, userId); } }

  Read the article

• How should I handle url routing in my application ?

  - by phmr

  I'm building a web app with custom components. I need a way to route requests to class / methods, is there any standalone java library that can achieve that (in a sexy manner [1]) ? [1] read : no xml!

  Read the article

• How do i have optional parameter but still validate them in asp.net mvc routing ?

  - by ooo

  I have this route that i just added routes.MapRoute( "MyRoute", "MyController/{action}/{orgId}/{startDate}/{endDate}", new { controller = "MyController", action = "MyAction", orgId = 0, startDate = DateTime.Today.AddMonths(-1), endDate = DateTime.Today }, new { action = new FromValuesListConstraint(new string[] { "MyAction", "MyActionEx" }), orgId = new IntegerRouteConstraint(), startDate = new DateTimeRouteConstraint(), endDate = new DateTimeRouteConstraint() } when i put in this url, it resolves down to the default route (controller, action,id) and the above rout does not catch this url: http://localhost:1713/MyController/MyAction/16 But this below works fine. http://localhost:1713/MyController/MyAction/16/11-May-10/11-May-10 my question is that i thought both would work as i am giving default values to the startDate and enddate fields i tested this using the RouteDebugger and this route turned up false how can i have these last two parameter as optional but still have the validation ?

  Read the article

• 'Details' in asp.net mvc routing doesn't seem to get removed....

  - by Pandiya Chendur

  I am trying to remove Details from http://localhost:1985/Materials/Details/2/Steel but some how my route doesn't seem to work... public static void RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes) { routes.IgnoreRoute("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}"); routes.MapRoute( "Default", "{controller}/{action}/{id}", new { controller = "Materials", action = "Index", id = "" } ); routes.MapRoute( "Details View", "{controller}/{id}/{name}", new { controller = "Materials", action = "Details", id = "", name = "" } ); } What am i doing wrong? Any suggestion....

  Read the article

• asp.net-mvc routing how to map Home/Action/id to just action/id ?

  - by Omu

  At the moment I have just this route defined routes.MapRoute( "Default", "{controller}/{action}/{id}", new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = "" } ); I want to map the /Home/Action1/id to just /Action1/id anybody knows how ?

  Read the article

• How do I pass objects through a _url based on a routing in rails?

  - by Angela

  I want to pass the attributes associated with two objects into a path created from a route. In this case, the _url is skip_contact_letter_url. contact_letter and letter are passed through a render partial. The clip below resides in the partial. <%= link_to_remote "Skip Letter Remote #{contact_letter}", :url => skip_contact_letter_url(contact_letter, letter), :update => "update-area-#{contact_letter.id}-#{letter.id}" %> <span id='update-area-<%="#{contact_letter.id}-#{letter.id}"%>'> </span> The route I created looks like this: map.resources :contact_letters, :member => {:skip => :post} And the controller looks like this: def skip @contact_letter = ContactLetter.new(params[:all]) @contact_letter.status = "skipped" @contact_letter.date_sent = Date.today #@contact_letter.date_created = Date.today if @contact_letter.save render :text => 'This letter was skipped!' end end When I look at the console, none of the parameters from contact_letter or letter get passed through.

  Read the article

• cannot delete IPv6 default gateway

  - by NulledPointer

  The commands below should be pretty self-explanatory. Please note that the route for which i get failure is obtained by RA and has very less expiry ( e Flag in UDAe). @vm:~$ ip -6 route 2001:4860:4001:800::1002 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto static metric 1024 2001:4860:4001:800::1003 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto static metric 1024 2001:4860:4001:800::1005 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto static metric 1024 2001:4860:4001:803::100e via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto static metric 1024 fd00:ffff:ffff:fff1::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 expires 2592300sec fe80::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 default via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto static metric 1 default via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 1776sec @vm:~$ @vm:~$ @vm:~$ @vm:~$ sudo route -6 delete default gw fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 @vm:~$ ip -6 route 2001:4860:4001:800::1002 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto static metric 1024 2001:4860:4001:800::1003 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto static metric 1024 2001:4860:4001:800::1005 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto static metric 1024 2001:4860:4001:803::100e via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto static metric 1024 fd00:ffff:ffff:fff1::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 expires 2592279sec fe80::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 default via fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 1755sec @vm:~$ @vm:~$ @vm:~$ sudo route -6 delete ::/0 gw fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 dev eth1 SIOCDELRT: No such process @vm:~$ @vm:~$ @vm:~$ route -n6 Kernel IPv6 routing table Destination Next Hop Flag Met Ref Use If 2001:4860:4001:800::1002/128 fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 UG 1024 0 0 eth1 2001:4860:4001:800::1003/128 fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 UG 1024 0 0 eth1 2001:4860:4001:800::1005/128 fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 UG 1024 0 0 eth1 2001:4860:4001:803::100e/128 fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 UG 1024 0 0 eth1 fd00:ffff:ffff:fff1::/64 :: UAe 256 0 0 eth1 fe80::/64 :: U 256 0 0 eth1 ::/0 fe80::20c:29ff:fe87:f9e7 UGDAe 1024 0 0 eth1 ::/0 :: !n -1 1 349 lo ::1/128 :: Un 0 1 3 lo fd00:ffff:ffff:fff1:a00:27ff:fe7f:7245/128 :: Un 0 1 0 lo fd00:ffff:ffff:fff1:fce8:ce07:b9ea:389f/128 :: Un 0 1 0 lo fe80::a00:27ff:fe7f:7245/128 :: Un 0 1 0 lo ff00::/8 :: U 256 0 0 eth1 ::/0 :: !n -1 1 349 lo @vm:~$ UPDATE: Another question is whats the use of link local address as the default route?

  Read the article

• Ubuntu Server 12.04 as a router. Problem with DNS

  - by Lorenzo

  I have a virtualbox lab made up of 4 Windows 2008 R2 servers (DC/DNS,SQL,SHAREPOINT, EXCHANGE) that are configured with static ip addresses with NIC's attached to Internal network. Everything works. I had the requirement to execute some tests that also access external services available on the internet. To keep things clean and similar to the production environment I have installed another VM, with Ubuntu Server 12.04 64 bit and configured (I hope) to work as a router like described on this post. This VM has two network interfaces: first is Bridged with the host and is used as a WAN connection and the other one attached in the Internal Network with its own static IP address on the internal network subnet. But actually the Windows servers does not connect to the internet while the unix one connects. I did a route command. this is the result: Kernel IP Routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default 10.69.121.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.69.121.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.83.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 Can somebody help me with this configuration? :) Thanks! Addendum: I forgot to mention that one of the windows server hosts a DNS service for which I should maybe configure a forwarding server but I do not exactly know which server to forward on... :(

  Read the article

• How to route between 2 networks with a server with 2 network cards?

  - by LumenAlbum

  This is the first time I am faced with routing and it seems I have hit a dead end. I have the following scenario: client1: 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.0 gateway: 192.168.1.100 DNS server: 192.168.1.100 client2: 192.168.1.20 255.255.255.0 gateway: 192.168.1.100 DNS server: 192.168.1.100 server (Windows Server 2008 R2 with enabled RAS & Routing Services) network card 1 (connected to a switch along with the clients) 192.168.1.100 255.255.255.0 DNS server: 127.0.0.1 network card 2 (connected to the router) 192.168.2.100 255.255.255.0 gateway: 192.168.2.1 DNS server: 127.0.0.1 (DNS forwarding to 192.168.2.1) ISP router (with connection to internet) 192.168.2.1 Now in this scenario I have tried to route traffic from the 192.168.1.0/24 network with the clients to the 192.168.2.0/24 network with the routers to connect them to the internet. However, no matter what I do I get no positive ping to the router 192.168.2.1. Ping from 192.168.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.20: Success to 192.168.1.100: Success to 192.168.2.100: Success to 192.168.2.1: not reachable The routing table contains the 2 routes 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.2.0 as directly connected. Does anyone know where the routing fails? I have searched different forums but mostly found nothing relevant. One post however pointed out that in a similar situation the problem was that the router doesn't know the way back and the internet router would need a static route back to the first router. If that really is the case, I take it there is no solution with my equipment, because the standart ISP router doesn't allow to set any static routes.

  Read the article

• Ubuntu Server Cannot Route to the Internet

  - by ejes

  I've been having this problem for weeks now, and I can't seem to figure out the problem. My server can route the local network and serves it well, however it cannot access the internet. It can't be the router because everything else on this lan can route through the router. I've even switched the ethernet port. Any help would be appreciated. I've tried all the usual places, anyway, here are the configs: root@uhs:~# uname -a Linux uhs 3.0.0-16-generic-pae #28-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jan 27 19:24:01 UTC 2012 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux root@uhs:~# cat /etc/network/interfaces # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system # and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5). # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface # auto eth1 # iface eth1 inet dhcp auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.0.3 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.0.255 gateway 192.168.0.1 root@uhs:~# ping -c 4 192.168.0.1 PING 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.334 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.339 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=3 ttl=64 time=0.324 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.1: icmp_req=4 ttl=64 time=0.339 ms --- 192.168.0.1 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 2997ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.324/0.334/0.339/0.006 ms root@uhs:~# ping -c 4 209.85.145.103 PING 209.85.145.103 (209.85.145.103) 56(84) bytes of data. --- 209.85.145.103 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 3023ms root@uhs:~# ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0c:6e:a0:92:6e inet addr:192.168.0.3 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::20c:6eff:fea0:926e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:13131114 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:10540297 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:5 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:3077922794 (3.0 GB) TX bytes:3827489734 (3.8 GB) Interrupt:10 Base address:0xa000 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:7721 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:7721 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:551950 (551.9 KB) TX bytes:551950 (551.9 KB) root@uhs:~# route -n 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 100 0 0 eth0 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 root@uhs:~# # PRETEND Traceroute root@uhs:~# for i in {1..30}; do ping -t $i -c 1 209.85.145.103; done | grep "Time to live exceeded" root@uhs:~#

  Read the article

• Operation times out trying to SSH outside LAN i.e. from internet to LAN no connection is established

  - by Pelle L

  I run Ubuntu 12.04 and have no success connecting with SSH from "Internet". The router is a TL-MR3420 which is set up to forward requests to one of the NIC's on ubuntu machine (which has in total 3 NICs). I can SSH from a client on the "local" network/LAN. The forward mechanism in the router seems to work. If I stop SSH service on the Ubuntu machine and instead start one on the windows machine - it works like a charm. I do not use the Std port 22 but that shouldn't be an issue as far as I understand - sine it works on the same port on the win machine. Since my public IS isn't static I use a dynDNS service but as said earlier the same setup works from the win machine. The router is located on 192.168.0.1 The Ubuntu NICs has the following IP: eth2 192.168.0.100 , eth1 192.168.0.101 , eth0 192.168.0.102 and I have forwarded the "outside" request to 192.168.0.100 In regards for firewall settings on the Ubuntu machine I have disabled the ufw and the command ufw status give status: inactive. I don't now it this is relevant information but teh command iptables --list give: Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination I have tried to catch traffic with help of wireshark (a tool I'm not too used to use) and it seems as a few (3?) "requests" actually reaches the NIC but ... nothing happens. The syslog does not show any entries during these attempts. Perhaps it could be some routing issues but I have reached my level of competence and are stuck ... all help and support to get this sorted out is much appreciated. I'm new to Linux so please do not assume I have a configuration that is correct - but as I wrote earlier - if the client that initiate SSH is on the LAN it all works. PS:I have also tried to get VPN (PPP) working from Internet with no success - once again VPN works on the windows machine ... so my best guess is that this is related to how the ubuntu machine handles (IP) traffic and not the TL-MR3420 router or other network issues.

  Read the article

• Posting data from multiple servers routing through one server to client server

  - by Swaroop Kundeti

  I have 5 webservers behind Load balancer and we have a client server at other end. Client has white listed my 5 webserver public ip so that my webservers will post a file to the client server. Here the problem is my webservers is going to increase and i cannot always ask client to make my new webserver ip's white list. So i would like to make my infra this way, my webservers will post data to the client server routing from a single server. Like assume that web-1 is main server and the remaining 4 web servers will post data to client server routing through main web-1. I was told that this can be achieved by doing IP Tunneling. But i have no idea how to do that. Would be great for any kind of help.

  Read the article

• how're routing tables populated?

  - by Robbie Mckennie

  i've been reading "tcp/ip illustrated" and i started reading about ip forwarding. all about how you can receive a datagram and work out where to send it next based on the desination ip and your routing table. but what confused me is how (in a home network setting) the table itself is populated. is there a lower layer protocol at work here? does it come along with dhcp? or is it simply based on the ip address and netmask of each interface? i do know (from other books) that in the early days of ethernet one had to set up routing tables by hand, but i know i didn't do that.

  Read the article

• Routing table with two NIC adapters in libvirt/KVM

  - by lzap

  I created a virtual NAT network (192.168.100.0/24 network) in my libvirt and new guest with two interfaces - one in this network, one as bridged (10.34.1.0/24 network) to the local LAN. The reason for that is I need to have my own virtual network for my DHCP/TFTP/DNS testing and still want to access my guest externally from my LAN. On both networks I have working DHCP, both giving them IP addresses. When I setup NAT port forwarding (e.g. for ssh), I can connect to the eth0 (virtual network), everything is fine. But when I try to access the eth1 via bridged interface, I have no response. I guess I have problem with my routing table - outgoing packets are routed to the virtual NAT network (which has access to the machine I am connecting from - I can ping it). But I am not sure if this setup is correct. I think I need to add something to my routing table. # ifconfig eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:54:00:B4:A7:5F inet addr:192.168.100.14 Bcast:192.168.100.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::5054:ff:feb4:a75f/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:16468 errors:0 dropped:27 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:6081 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:22066140 (21.0 MiB) TX bytes:483249 (471.9 KiB) Interrupt:11 Base address:0x2000 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:54:00:DE:16:21 inet addr:10.34.1.111 Bcast:10.34.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::5054:ff:fede:1621/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:34 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:189 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:4911 (4.7 KiB) TX bytes:9 # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.34.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1002 0 0 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1003 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 192.168.100.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Network I am trying to connect from is different than network the hypervisor is connected to: 10.36.0.0. But it is accessible from that network. So I tried to add new route rule: route add -net 10.36.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 dev eth1 And it is not working. I thought setting correct interface would be sufficient. What is needed to get my packets coming through?

  Read the article

• Routing / binding 128 to one server

  - by Andrew

  I have a Ubuntu server with 128 ip's (static external ips 86.xx.xx.16), and I want to crawl pages thru different ip's. The gateway is xx.xxx.xxx.1, the main ip is xx.xxx.xxx.16, and the other 128 ip's are xx.xxx.xxx.129/255. I tried this configuration in /etc/network/interfaces but I doesn't work. It work if I remove the gateway for the aliases eth0:0 and eth0:1. I think this is routing problem. auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 auto eth0:0 auto eth0:1 iface eth0 inet static address xx.xxx.xxx.16 netmask 255.255.255.128 gateway xx.xxx.xxx.1 iface eth0:0 inet static address xx.xxx.xxx.129 netmask 255.255.255.128 gateway xx.xxx.xxx.1 iface eth0:1 inet static address xx.xxx.xxx.130 netmask 255.255.255.128 gateway xx.xxx.xxx.1 Also, please tell me how to "reset" every changes that I made in networking and routing. Thank you

  Read the article

• Routes for IIS Classic and Integrated Mode

  - by imran_ku07

       Introduction:             ASP.NET MVC Routing feature makes it very easy to provide clean URLs. You just need to configure routes in global.asax file to create an application with clean URLs. In most cases you define routes works in IIS 6, IIS 7 (or IIS 7.5) Classic and Integrated mode. But in some cases your routes may only works in IIS 7 Integrated mode, like in the case of using extension less URLs in IIS 6 without a wildcard extension map. So in this article I will show you how to create different routes which works in IIS 6 and IIS 7 Classic and Integrated mode.       Description:             Let's say that you need to create an application which must work both in Classic and Integrated mode. Also you have no control to setup a wildcard extension map in IIS. So you need to create two routes. One with extension less URL for Integrated mode and one with a URL with an extension for Classic Mode.   routes.MapRoute( "DefaultClassic", // Route name "{controller}.aspx/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional } // Parameter defaults ); routes.MapRoute( "DefaultIntegrated", // Route name "{controller}/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional } // Parameter defaults );               Now you have set up two routes, one for Integrated mode and one for Classic mode. Now you only need to ensure that Integrated mode route should only match if the application is running in Integrated mode and Classic mode route should only match if the application is running in Classic mode. For making this work you need to create two custom constraint for Integrated and Classic mode. So replace the above routes with these routes,     routes.MapRoute( "DefaultClassic", // Route name "{controller}.aspx/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional }, // Parameter defaults new { mode = new ClassicModeConstraint() }// Constraints ); routes.MapRoute( "DefaultIntegrated", // Route name "{controller}/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = UrlParameter.Optional }, // Parameter defaults new { mode = new IntegratedModeConstraint() }// Constraints );            The first route which is for Classic mode adds a ClassicModeConstraint and second route which is for Integrated mode adds a IntegratedModeConstraint. Next you need to add the implementation of these constraint classes.     public class ClassicModeConstraint : IRouteConstraint { public bool Match(HttpContextBase httpContext, Route route, string parameterName, RouteValueDictionary values, RouteDirection routeDirection) { return !HttpRuntime.UsingIntegratedPipeline; } } public class IntegratedModeConstraint : IRouteConstraint { public bool Match(HttpContextBase httpContext, Route route, string parameterName, RouteValueDictionary values, RouteDirection routeDirection) { return HttpRuntime.UsingIntegratedPipeline; } }             HttpRuntime.UsingIntegratedPipeline returns true if the application is running on Integrated mode; otherwise, it returns false. So routes for Integrated mode only matched when the application is running on Integrated mode and routes for Classic mode only matched when the application is not running on Integrated mode.       Summary:             During developing applications, sometimes developers are not sure that whether this application will be host on IIS 6 or IIS 7 (or IIS 7.5) Integrated mode or Classic mode. So it's a good idea to create separate routes for both Classic and Integrated mode so that your application will use extension less URLs where possible and use URLs with an extension where it is not possible to use extension less URLs. In this article I showed you how to create separate routes for IIS Integrated and Classic mode. Hope you will enjoy this article too.   SyntaxHighlighter.all()

  Read the article

• Why is Backbone.js a bad option in the Technology radar 2012 of thoughtworks?

  - by Cfontes

  In the latest Technology Radar 2012 they state that Backbone.js has pushed to far on it's MVC abstraction and say that Knockout.js or Angular.js should be used instead. I cannot get why they think that Backbone.js model is bad, for me it's just a way to create a standard so people can have some kind of roadmap to dev frontend JS without Spaghetti code. Also for me Angular and Knockout solve a different problem, I like both of them but having to code all MVC classes is something I think is kind of a rework. The thing is simple easy extendable and fast to learn, comes with a lot of goodies and is easy to combine with other Frameworks. (see Knockback.js) Can anybody tell me what made it so bad to their eyes ?

  Read the article

• custom route not working on windows

  - by Michael Closson

  My windows laptop is directly connected to 192.168.1.0/24 (wireless lan). I access 10.21.0.0/16 though a router that is connected to both networks. The routing works fine with this configuration. I have a VPN, that connects to 10.0.0.0/8. The VPN network doesn't actually use any IPs in the 10.21.0.0/16 range. So I should be able to configure my routing table to route all the 10.21.0.0/16 IPs through the wireless lan, and all other 10.0.0.0/8 through the VPN. My understanding is that I can do this if the metric for the 10.21.0.0 is lower than that of the 10.0.0.0. The VPN (10.0.0.0) is automatically assigned metric 20. I have manually assigned the WLAN a metric of 1. I manually add an entry to the routing table with this command: route add 10.21.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 192.168.1.201 metric 1 The route is then assigned a metric of 2 (which is expected). The problem is that it doesn't work. I can't ping any machine on the 10.21.0.0 network. But I can access other stuff on the 10.0.0.0. I can also access stuff on the 192.168.1.0. To debug this i've done the following. Run tcpdump on the router (192.168.1.201). I can verify that no packets for 10.21.0.0 arrive on that interface. Disable iptables on the router. Disable the windows firewall. Run wireshark on my laptop, to try and see which interface the ping requests go to. But I can't see them go anywhere!! The ping command doesn't receive any 'destination unreachable' messages. Here is the relevant section of the routing table. IPv4 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.201 192.168.1.18 2 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 10.55.44.203 20 10.21.0.0 255.255.0.0 192.168.1.201 192.168.1.18 2

  Read the article

• Different routing rules for a particular user using firewall mark and ip rule

  - by Paul Crowley

  Running Ubuntu 12.10 on amd64. I'm trying to set up different routing rules for a particular user. I understand that the right way to do this is to create a firewall rule that marks the packets for that user, and add a routing rule for that mark. Just to get testing going, I've added a rule that discards all packets as unreachable: # ip rule 0: from all lookup local 32765: from all fwmark 0x1 unreachable 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default With this rule in place and all firewall chains in all tables empty and policy ACCEPT, I can still ping remote hosts just fine as any user. If I then add a rule to mark all packets and try to ping Google, it fails as expected # iptables -t mangle -F OUTPUT # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK --set-mark 0x01 # ping www.google.com ping: unknown host www.google.com If I restrict this rule to the VPN user, it seems to have no effect. # iptables -t mangle -F OUTPUT # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK --set-mark 0x01 -m owner --uid-owner vpn # sudo -u vpn ping www.google.com PING www.google.com (173.194.78.103) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from wg-in-f103.1e100.net (173.194.78.103): icmp_req=1 ttl=50 time=36.6 ms But it appears that the mark is being set, because if I add a rule to drop these packets in the firewall, it works: # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j DROP -m mark --mark 0x01 # sudo -u vpn ping www.google.com ping: unknown host www.google.com What am I missing? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Configure Domino to use SMTP routing and hMailServer

  - by Sébastien Lachance

  I have been trying for a couple of days to set up a Domino 8.5 server. Basically, I want everything to be run inside a local network. Right now I can send email to other user in the Domino directory without any mail address. I am pretty new to all this stuff, so maybe the answer will be really obvious. What I need to do is be able to send a mail from somewhere else to a domino user that will be redirected to his account. On the Domino server, I also have hMailServer installed on port 25. I configured Domino to use port 26. I followed those step to get where I am now. -I have set the Fully qualified Internet host name to "preview.notes". -Smtp Listener task changed to Enabled to turn on the Listener so that the server can receive messages routed via SMTP routing -Setting up SMTP routing within the local Internet domain (http://www.h2l.com/help/help85%5Fadmin.nsf/f4b82fbb75e942a6852566ac0037f284/7f9738a49efc4f58852574d500097b01?OpenDocument) -I modified the person to use the [email protected] address. -I'm using the hMailServer (which have the local "preview.local" domain name) to send mail to [email protected]. When sending mail I got an error telling that the DNS is not set up correctly. Is using the Domino Smtp server instead of hMailServer will solve the problem? I can Telnet the Domino Smtp Server.

  Read the article

• Routing data through VPN in linux

  - by Shadyabhi

  I think its a silly question but still here it goes.. Terminal Output: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1c:c0:37:5e:25 inet addr:10.100.98.51 Bcast:10.100.98.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::21c:c0ff:fe37:5e25/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:29677 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:5209 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:3179007 (3.1 MB) TX bytes:610142 (610.1 KB) Memory:e0380000-e03a0000 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:76 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:76 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:9555 (9.5 KB) TX bytes:9555 (9.5 KB) vpn_0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:ac:39:95:a1:16 inet6 addr: fe80::2ac:39ff:fe95:a116/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:1786 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:500 RX bytes:128597 (128.5 KB) TX bytes:468 (468.0 B) Actually, I followed this tutorial to setup the PacketiX VPN on ubuntu. Now, how do I actually use this VPN? Terminal Output: shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~$ route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.100.98.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 eth0 default 10.100.98.4 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~$ As told in tutorial, if I do route del default route add default dev vpn_0 I am not able to surf the internet. And I get the route command output as: root@shadyabhi-desktop:/home/shadyabhi# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.100.98.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 eth0 default * 0.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 vpn_0 root@shadyabhi-desktop:/home/shadyabhi# I know I am not able to route the traffic properly. How do i do that?

  Read the article

• IPSec Tunnel to Amazon EC2 - Netkey, NAT, and routing problem

  - by Ernest Mueller

  Hey all, I'm working on getting an IPSec VPN working between Amazon EC2 and my on-premise. The goal is to be able to safely administer stuff, up/download data, etc. over that tunnel. I have gotten the tunnel up in openswan between a Fedora 12 instance with an elastic IP and a Cisco router that's also NATted. I think the ipsec part is OK, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to route traffic that way; there's no "ipsec0" virutal interface because on Amazon you have to use netkey and not KLIPS for the vpn. I hear iptables may be required and I'm an iptables noob. On the left (Amazon), I have a 10. network. Box 1 is privately 10.254.110.A, publically IP 184.73.168.B. Netkey tunnel is up. Box 2 is publically 130.164.26.C, privately 130.164.0.D And my .conf is: conn ni type= tunnel authby= secret left= 10.254.110.A leftid= 184.73.168.B leftnexthop= %defaultroute leftsubnet= 10.254.0.0/32 right= 130.164.26.C rightid= 130.164.0.D rightnexthop= %defaultroute rightsubnet= 130.164.0.0/18 keyexchange= ike pfs= no auto= start keyingtries= 3 disablearrivalcheck=no ikelifetime= 240m auth= esp compress= no keylife= 60m forceencaps= yes esp= 3des-md5 I added a route to box 1 (130.164.0.0/18 via 10.254.110.A dev eth0) but that doesn't do it for predictable reasons, when I traceroute the traffic's still going "around" and not through the vpn. Routing table: 10.254.110.0/23 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.254.110.A 130.164.0.0/18 via 10.254.110.178 dev eth0 src 10.254.110.A 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1002 Anyone know how to do the routing with a netkey ipsec tunnel where both sides are NATted? Thanks...

  Read the article

• IPSec Tunnel to Amazon EC2 - Netkey, NAT, and routing issue

  - by Ernest Mueller

  I'm working on getting an IPSec VPN working between Amazon EC2 and my on-premise. The goal is to be able to safely administer stuff, up/download data, etc. over that tunnel. I have gotten the tunnel up in openswan between a Fedora 12 instance with an elastic IP and a Cisco router that's also NATted. I think the ipsec part is OK, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to route traffic that way; there's no "ipsec0" virutal interface because on Amazon you have to use netkey and not KLIPS for the vpn. I hear iptables may be required and I'm an iptables noob. On the left (Amazon), I have a 10. network. Box 1 is privately 10.254.110.A, publically IP 184.73.168.B. Netkey tunnel is up. Box 2 is publically 130.164.26.C, privately 130.164.0.D And my .conf is: conn ni type= tunnel authby= secret left= 10.254.110.A leftid= 184.73.168.B leftnexthop= %defaultroute leftsubnet= 10.254.0.0/32 right= 130.164.26.C rightid= 130.164.0.D rightnexthop= %defaultroute rightsubnet= 130.164.0.0/18 keyexchange= ike pfs= no auto= start keyingtries= 3 disablearrivalcheck=no ikelifetime= 240m auth= esp compress= no keylife= 60m forceencaps= yes esp= 3des-md5 I added a route to box 1 (130.164.0.0/18 via 10.254.110.A dev eth0) but that doesn't do it for predictable reasons, when I traceroute the traffic's still going "around" and not through the vpn. Routing table: 10.254.110.0/23 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.254.110.A 130.164.0.0/18 via 10.254.110.178 dev eth0 src 10.254.110.A 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1002 Anyone know how to do the routing with a netkey ipsec tunnel where both sides are NATted? Thanks...

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >