Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 21/104 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • Routing table on Linux not respected

    - by MRHaarmann
    I have a very specific problem, building a Linux VPN endpoint (with external VPN Gateway), which should route certain networks over the tunnel, others via default gateway. The Linux VPN should do a NAT on the outgoing connections for the VPN peers. Setup is as following: Internet gateway LAN 192.168.25.1/24 VPN Gateway LAN 10.45.99.2/24 (VPN tunnel 10.45.99.1 to net 87.115.17.40/29, separate connection to Internet) Linux VPN Router eth0 192.168.25.71/24 eth0:503 10.45.99.1/24 Default 192.168.25.1 route to 87.115.17.40/29 via 10.45.99.2 (send_redirects disabled, ip_forward enabled) Linux clients (multiple): eth0 192.168.25.x/24 Default 192.168.25.1 route to 87.115.17.40/29 via 192.168.25.71 Ping to the machines via tunnel from the VPN Router is working. Now I want to establish a routing from my clients over the VPN gateway and the client packet gets routed to 192.168.25.1 ! traceroute output shows the packets get routed to 192.168.25.71, but then to 192.168.25.1. So the route is not respected in forward ! IPTables and Routing: ip route show 87.115.17.40/29 via 10.45.99.2 dev eth0 10.45.99.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.45.99.1 192.168.25.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.25.71 default via 192.168.25.1 dev eth0 iptables -A INPUT -i eth0:503 -j REJECT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0:503 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0:503 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.25.0/24 -o eth0:503 -j ACCEPT So what is wrong with my setup ? The route is chosen correctly from localhost, but all the clients get forwarded to the Internet GW. thanks for helping, Marcus

    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 / binding 128 IPs 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. Update: I removed the gateway and now it works. I can reach the website thru all 128 ip's. But when I try to bind a socket connection in php to a specific ip I get no answer. socket_bind($sock, "xx.xxx.xx.xxx"); socket_connect($sock, 'google.com', 80); I tryed to use a sniffer to see the packets, and I see the packet sent from binded ip to google.com but the "connection" can't be established. I don't know anything about "route" command, but I have a feeling that this is the solution.

    Read the article

  • IIS8 Application request routing

    - by JustDanyul
    Sorry for what is most likely NOT a very intelligent question, but my non-sysadmin brain is struggling to understand what is causing my problem. Basically, I wan't to enable reverse proxying on a IIS8 box. I read though this article: http://www.iis.net/learn/extensions/url-rewrite-module/reverse-proxy-with-url-rewrite-v2-and-application-request-routing And I've installed the ARR extension from here: http://www.iis.net/downloads/microsoft/application-request-routing Now, I enabled the proxying (as explained in the MS tutorial), and I felt the other setting as they where (again, as instructed in the tutorial). My rule looks like the following <rule name="Reverse Proxy to payroll" stopProcessing="true"> <match url="^mytest/(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" url="http://localhost:8282/{R:1}" /> </rule> But alas, it doesn't work. If I change it to a "normal" rewrite rule, as in <rule name="Reverse Proxy to payroll" stopProcessing="true"> <match url="^mytest/(.*)" /> <action type="Rewrite" url="/{R:1}" /> </rule> Then it works. So, it must differently be something with the reverse proxy. Any idea what gives?

    Read the article

  • Two network interfaces and two IP addresses on the same subnet in Linux

    - by Scott Duckworth
    I recently ran into a situation where I needed two IP addresses on the same subnet assigned to one Linux host so that we could run two SSL/TLS sites. My first approach was to use IP aliasing, e.g. using eth0:0, eth0:1, etc, but our network admins have some fairly strict settings in place for security that squashed this idea: They use DHCP snooping and normally don't allow static IP addresses. Static addressing is accomplished by using static DHCP entries, so the same MAC address always gets the same IP assignment. This feature can be disabled per switchport if you ask and you have a reason for it (thankfully I have a good relationship with the network guys and this isn't hard to do). With the DHCP snooping disabled on the switchport, they had to put in a rule on the switch that said MAC address X is allowed to have IP address Y. Unfortunately this had the side effect of also saying that MAC address X is ONLY allowed to have IP address Y. IP aliasing required that MAC address X was assigned two IP addresses, so this didn't work. There may have been a way around these issues on the switch configuration, but in an attempt to preserve good relations with the network admins I tried to find another way. Having two network interfaces seemed like the next logical step. Thankfully this Linux system is a virtual machine, so I was able to easily add a second network interface (without rebooting, I might add - pretty cool). A few keystrokes later I had two network interfaces up and running and both pulled IP addresses from DHCP. But then the problem came in: the network admins could see (on the switch) the ARP entry for both interfaces, but only the first network interface that I brought up would respond to pings or any sort of TCP or UDP traffic. After lots of digging and poking, here's what I came up with. It seems to work, but it also seems to be a lot of work for something that seems like it should be simple. Any alternate ideas out there? Step 1: Enable ARP filtering on all interfaces: # sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_filter=1 # echo "net.ipv4.conf.all.arp_filter = 1" >> /etc/sysctl.conf From the file networking/ip-sysctl.txt in the Linux kernel docs: arp_filter - BOOLEAN 1 - Allows you to have multiple network interfaces on the same subnet, and have the ARPs for each interface be answered based on whether or not the kernel would route a packet from the ARP'd IP out that interface (therefore you must use source based routing for this to work). In other words it allows control of which cards (usually 1) will respond to an arp request. 0 - (default) The kernel can respond to arp requests with addresses from other interfaces. This may seem wrong but it usually makes sense, because it increases the chance of successful communication. IP addresses are owned by the complete host on Linux, not by particular interfaces. Only for more complex setups like load- balancing, does this behaviour cause problems. arp_filter for the interface will be enabled if at least one of conf/{all,interface}/arp_filter is set to TRUE, it will be disabled otherwise Step 2: Implement source-based routing I basically just followed directions from http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html, although that page was written with a different goal in mind (dealing with two ISPs). Assume that the subnet is 10.0.0.0/24, the gateway is 10.0.0.1, the IP address for eth0 is 10.0.0.100, and the IP address for eth1 is 10.0.0.101. Define two new routing tables named eth0 and eth1 in /etc/iproute2/rt_tables: ... top of file omitted ... 1 eth0 2 eth1 Define the routes for these two tables: # ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 table eth0 # ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 table eth1 # ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 dev eth0 src 10.0.0.100 table eth0 # ip route add 10.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 src 10.0.0.101 table eth1 Define the rules for when to use the new routing tables: # ip rule add from 10.0.0.100 table eth0 # ip rule add from 10.0.0.101 table eth1 The main routing table was already taken care of by DHCP (and it's not even clear that its strictly necessary in this case), but it basically equates to this: # ip route add default via 10.0.0.1 dev eth0 # ip route add 130.127.48.0/23 dev eth0 src 10.0.0.100 # ip route add 130.127.48.0/23 dev eth1 src 10.0.0.101 And voila! Everything seems to work just fine. Sending pings to both IP addresses works fine. Sending pings from this system to other systems and forcing the ping to use a specific interface works fine (ping -I eth0 10.0.0.1, ping -I eth1 10.0.0.1). And most importantly, all TCP and UDP traffic to/from either IP address works as expected. So again, my question is: is there a better way to do this? This seems like a lot of work for a seemingly simple problem.

    Read the article

  • Legacy URL rewriting with query string parameters

    - by John Kaster
    I've looked at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/817325/asp-net-mvc-routing-legacy-urls-passing-querystring-ids-to-controller-actions and several other similar posts for legacy URL routing, but I can't get past the error "The RouteData must contain an item named 'controller' with a non-empty string value." Looking this up on line didn't give me any hints to solve my problem. I've implemented the Legacy routing class described in the link above, and this is what I've defined in the routing table: routes.Add( "Legacy", new LegacyRoute("fooref.aspx", "FooRef", new LegacyRouteHandler()) ); routes.MapRoute( "FooRef", "{controller}/{action}", new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", foo_id = UrlParameter.Optional, bar_id = UrlParameter.Optional } ); When I use Phil Haack's route debugger, it indicates that fooref.aspx has a match, but when I turn the route debugger off, I get the error above. If I reverse the statement order, I get "Resource not found" for /ctprefer.aspx, which makes sense -- so it appears to be finding that as a valid route when put in the other order. Where do I need to declare this missing controller reference? Have routing requirements changed for ASP.NET MVC 2 RTM?

    Read the article

  • US Bank Routing Number and BIC/SWIFT

    - by Konerak
    I know it is a bit offtopic, but I've been having a hard time finding more information to this question, and since this site is visited by a lot of people from the United States, you guys might know/find the answer more easily. Banks in europe each have a SWIFT Number, while US Banks use Routing Numbers. This leads to following questions: Does each bank in the US also carry a BIC number? (SWIFT) Is there a 1-1 relationship between BIC/SWIFT and Routing Numbers? Is there a list of these numbers somewhere? Background information: We're adding international payments to our bookkeeping application. Users can add international suppliers, but my boss prefered not to change the current supplier table but to have the ROUTING NUMBER in another table, with as PK the BIC. I'm wondering if BIC is a valid choice, or if it should just be BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER.

    Read the article

  • Visual studio 2010 MVC 2 (2008 project imported) - publish fails - System.Web.Routing.RouteValueDict

    - by Maslow
    Error 7 The type 'System.Web.Routing.RouteValueDictionary' exists in both 'c:\Program Files\Reference Assemblies\Microsoft\Framework\.NETFramework\v4.0\System.Web.dll' and 'c:\WINNT\assembly\GAC_MSIL\System.Web.Routing\3.5.0.0__31bf3856ad364e35\System.Web.Routing.dll' c:\Projects\VS\solutionfolder\projectfolder\Views\group\List.aspx 44 ProjectName The project utilizes T4MVC.tt if that is relevant. Also Visual studio 2010 ultimate. I did not upgrade the target .net framework to 4.0 because my host will not support this for ~24 hours. I have a .Tests project in the same solution that says it is targeting .net 4.0 but it still won't build even with that unloaded, same message.

    Read the article

  • Route forwarded traffic through eth0 but local traffic through tun0

    - by Ross Patterson
    I have a Ubuntu 12.04/Zentyal 2.3 server configured with WAN NATed on eth0, local interfaces eth1 and wlan0 bridged on br1 on which DHCP runs, and an OpenVPN connection on tun0. I only need the VPN for some things running on the gateway itself and I need to make sure that everything running on the gateway goes through the VPNs tun0. root:~# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default gw... 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 br1 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 br1 A.B.C.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 root:~# ip route 169.254.0.0/16 dev br1 scope link metric 1000 192.168.1.0/24 dev br1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.1 A.B.C.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src A.B.C.186 root:~# ip route show table main 169.254.0.0/16 dev br1 scope link metric 1000 192.168.1.0/24 dev br1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.1 A.B.C.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src A.B.C.D root:~# ip route show table default default via A.B.C.1 dev eth0 How can I configure routing (or otherwise) such that all forwarded traffic for other hosts on the LAN goes through eth0 but all traffic for the gateway itself goes through the VPN on tun0? Also, since the OpenVPN client changes routing on startup/shutdown, how can I make sure that everything running on the gateway itself loses all network access if the VPN goes down and never goes out eth0.

    Read the article

  • Debian/OVH: How to configure multiple Failover IP on the same Xen (Debian) Virtual Machine?

    - by D.S.
    I have a problem on a Xen virtual machine (running latest Debian), when I try to configure a second failover IP address. OVH reports that my IP is misconfigured and they complaint they receive a massive quantity of ARP packets from this IPs, so they are going to block my IP unless I fix this issue. I suspect there's a routing issue, but I don't know (and can't find any useful info on the provider's website, and their support doesn't provide me a valid solution, just bounce me to their online - useless - guides). My /etc/network/interfaces look like this: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address AAA.AAA.AAA.AAA netmask 255.255.255.255 broadcast AAA.AAA.AAA.AAA post-up route add 000.000.000.254 dev eth0 post-up route add default default gw 000.000.000.254 dev eth0 # Secondary NIC auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 inet static address BBB.BBB.BBB.BBB netmask 255.255.255.255 broadcast BBB.BBB.BBB.BBB And the routing table is: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 000.000.000.254 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 000.000.000.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 In these examples (true IP addresses are replaced by fake ones, guess why :)), 000.000.000.000 is my main server's IP address (dom0), 000.000.000.254 is the default gateway OVH recommends, AAA.AAA.AAA.AAA is the first IP Failover and BBB.BBB.BBB.BBB is the second one. I need both AAA.AAA.AAA.AAA and BBB.BBB.BBB.BBB to be publicly reachable from Internet and point to my domU, and to be able to access Internet from inside the virtual machine (domU). I am using eth0 and eth0:0 because due to OVH support, I have to assign both IPs to the same MAC address and then create a virtual eth0:0 interface for the second IP. Any suggestion? What am I doing wrong? How can I stop OVH complaining about ARP flood? Many thanks in advance, DS

    Read the article

  • Do all routers really must know all routes to every router?

    - by Philipili
    This is my complicated and long question. First let's talk about the context. Network topology: PC A --- RT A --- RT C --- RT B --- PC B (RT C has a WAN NIC connected to "the cloud") With this situation : PC A must send a packet to PC B Default routes direct packets to the cloud We haven't access to RT C's configuration RT C only knows how to join network A, not network B RT A knows about network B RT B knows about network A RT C's routing table: Destination NIC Gateway 0.0.0.0 WAN Cloud Network A LAN A RT A's WAN RT A's routing table: Destination NIC Gateway 0.0.0.0 WAN LAN A Network B WAN LAN A RT B's routing table: Destination NIC Gateway 0.0.0.0 WAN LAN B Network A WAN LAN B I would like to permit PC A and PC B to communicate, but I don't have access to RT C. Networks B and BC are new. Can PC A send a packet to RT B's WAN NIC (which is possible) and "ask RT B to direct the packet to PC B" ? I believe replacing RT B with a VPN server should do the trick, but I would like to know if it is possible to make it without establishing a new connection.

    Read the article

  • Creating Routes using the second NIC in the box

    - by Aditya Sehgal
    OS: Linux I need some advice on how to set up the routing table. I have a box with two physical NIC cards eth0 & eth1 with two associated IPs IP1 & IP2 (both of the same subnet). I need to setup a route which will force all messages from IP1 towards IP3 (of the same subnet) to go via IP2. I have a raw socket capture program listening on IP2 (This is not for malicious use). I have set up the routing table as Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface IP3 IP2 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1 If I try to specify eth0 while adding the above rule, I get an error "SIOCADDRT: Network is unreachable". I understand from the manpage of route that if the GW specified is a local interface, then that would be use as the outgoing interface. After setting up this rule, if i do a traceroute (-i eth0), the packet goes first to the default gateway and then to IP3. How do I force the packet originating from eth0 towards IP3 to first come to IP2. I cannot make changes to the routing table of the gateway. Please suggest.

    Read the article

  • Change Gmail message routing on individual mailboxes

    - by citadelgrad
    We are using dual delivery for one of our Google Apps doamins and need to be able to disable mail delivery to the Gmail account. You can manually update the settings on a per user basis through the Admin interface by unchecking the box next to "Google Apps Email" in the Email routing section. From the Google Apps API documentation for the python library it does not appear that I programmatically disable the email routing for "Google Apps Email" on a per user basis. Does anyone know if it's possible? The only routing related method I can find is at the Domain level and not the user level. gdata.apps.adminsettings.service Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Ping with explicit next-hop selection (aka Monitoring multiple default gateways)

    - by Michuelnik
    I have a linux (debian) router with two internet connections (A) and (B). (A) is preferred, (B) is fallback. I want to monitor the internet connection (and not only the availability of the gateways!) and change the default route appropriately. If (A) is not providing internet, switch to (B) If (A) is providing internet again, switch back to (A). Only problem I have is in case (2). My routing table points towards a working internet so I cannot easily detect whether internet is working over link (A) again. I am search for a ping or traceroute (or other diagnosis-tool) which can select the next-hop explicitly. ping -r looks promising, but can only ping a host on the lan. (It only has to write another destination address in the packet, damnit!) traceroute -g gateway looks even more promising and nearly does what I want - but sets source routing options which my next-hops deny. (Not within my administrative boundary...) I just want a $ping, that can: select a source interface (and address) select a next-hop on that interface ping any arbitrary ip address I could do evil trickery with policy-based routing but that would have production impact for all users. I would like to see a side-effect-free solution....

    Read the article

  • How to Implement Backbone Java Logic Code into Android

    - by lord_sneed
    I wrote a program to work from the console in Eclipse and the terminal window in Linux. I am now transforming it into an Android app and I have the basic functionality of the Android UI done up until the point where it needs to use the logic from the Java file of the program I wrote. All of my inputs from the Java file are currently from the keyboard (from Scanners). My question is: how do I transform this to get it work with the user interaction of the app? The only input would be from the built in NumberPicker. Should I copy and paste the code from the Java program to the activity file in the onCreate method and change all of the input methods (Scanners) to work with the Android input? Or do I create variables in the activity file and pass them to the Java program (in the separate class)? (If so, how would I do that? the Java file starts from the main method: public static void main(String[] args) {) Also, will the print statements I have, System.out.println(...);, translate directly into the Android UI and print on the screen or do I have to modify those?

    Read the article

  • VPN IP Routing - slow connections

    - by dannymcc
    UPDATE: Router error logs show: LCP Time-out 0 I'm not sure how to correct this. The Lan-to-Lan profiles are set to -1 Idle Timeout (for the remote branch). I have a PPTP VPN running between two Draytek 2820 routers. They are setup that one dials out to the other one. Main Practice - 192.168.1.0/24 Branch - 192.168.3.0/24 I have then set (on the Branch) router the following route: 192.168.1.0/24 If I then request a server running on 192.168.1.1 from the Branch, it correctly routes through VPN tunnel. If I request the branch server at 192.168.3.1 it correctly routes to the local server without using the VPN tunnel. I have temporarily disabled the firewall on both routers, and made sure that QoS is disabled. The Main Practice internet connection is ~30mb down / ~10mb up, and the Branch connection is ~5mb down / ~2mb up. Anything over the VPN tunnel runs pretty slowly (VNC, Remote Desktop and Terminal Emulators). However, if I dial using the Windows VPN wizard, creating a connection from the laptop to the Main Practice - everything runs quickly. I'm looking for possible causes, and/or ways of further diagnosing the issue. Any help would be greatly appreciated! UPDATE: In summary, when I connect within the Branch and try and access a host that's within the Main Practice it works, but slowly. If I then dial the VPN on my Windows 7 laptop whilst still connected to the Branch network, it's fast. Main Practice Branch Practice Routing Table from Branch Router Key: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, * - default, ~ - private * 0.0.0.0/ 0.0.0.0 via 126.256.126.103 WAN2 C~ 192.168.1.99/ 255.255.255.255 directly connected VPN-1 S~ 192.168.1.0/ 255.255.255.0 via 192.168.1.99 VPN-1 S~ 192.168.2.0/ 255.255.255.0 via 192.168.1.99 VPN-1 C~ 192.168.3.0/ 255.255.255.0 directly connected LAN2 C 126.256.126.103/ 255.255.255.224 directly connected WAN2 Routing Table from Main Practice Key: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, * - default, ~ - private * 0.0.0.0/ 0.0.0.0 via 81.139.64.1, WAN2 S 81.137.176.1/ 255.255.255.255 via 81.137.176.1, WAN2 * 81.139.64.1/ 255.255.255.255 via 81.139.64.1, WAN2 C~ 192.168.1.204/ 255.255.255.255 is directly connected, VPN C~ 192.168.1.0/ 255.255.255.0 is directly connected, LAN S~ 192.168.2.0/ 255.255.255.0 via 192.168.1.204, VPN S~ 192.168.3.0/ 255.255.255.0 via 192.168.1.203, VPN Connection Details (from Branch Router) Connection Details (from Main Practice Router) IPERF.exe Output

    Read the article

  • HAProxy create custom routing logic

    - by kumar
    Is it possible to write a custom routing logic for HAProxy. I need it in such a way that each application server is allocated a max on 1000 TCP connections then only should the loadbalancer try to route next TCP request to next application server. if not with HAProxy if there any other Load balancer that can do it please let me know. Can persistence be applied to TCP connections. There will no HTTP request. thanks

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu box static routing problem

    - by Rafael
    Hello, I'm trying to configure a ubuntu server to be a router. This is my interface configuration (eth2 connects to my WAN, eth0 to my LAN): auto eth2 iface eth2 inet static address 192.168.0.249 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.0.1 broadcast 192.168.0.255 auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.100.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 This is the router information: 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 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth2 And this is dhcp configuration: subnet 192.168.100.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 { range 192.168.100.101 192.168.100.254; option domain-name-servers 201.70.86.133; option routers 192.168.100.1; authoritative; } I'm then connecting a mac os x by cable on eth0. This is en0 interface configuration: en0: flags=8963<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 ether 00:26:bb:5d:82:b0 inet6 fe80::226:bbff:fe5d:82b0%en0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4 inet 192.168.100.101 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.100.255 media: autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) status: active And this is the routing table: Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire default 192.168.100.1 UGSc 139 32 en0 10.37.129/24 link#8 UC 2 0 vnic1 10.37.129.2 0:1c:42:0:0:9 UHLWI 0 839 lo0 10.37.129.255 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff UHLWbI 0 4 vnic1 10.211.55/24 link#7 UC 2 0 vnic0 10.211.55.2 0:1c:42:0:0:8 UHLWI 0 840 lo0 10.211.55.255 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff UHLWbI 0 4 vnic0 127 127.0.0.1 UCS 0 0 lo0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 3 507924 lo0 169.254 link#4 UCS 0 0 en0 172.16.42/24 link#10 UC 2 0 vmnet8 172.16.42.1 0:50:56:c0:0:8 UHLWI 0 839 lo0 172.16.42.255 link#10 UHLWbI 1 24 vmnet8 192.168.100 link#4 UC 2 0 en0 192.168.100.1 0:e0:7c:7e:f:99 UHLWI 139 0 en0 777 192.168.100.101 127.0.0.1 UHS 0 0 lo0 192.168.100.255 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff UHLWbI 0 4 en0 192.168.116 link#9 UC 2 0 vmnet1 192.168.116.1 0:50:56:c0:0:1 UHLWI 0 839 lo0 192.168.116.255 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff UHLWbI 0 4 vmnet1 When I ping 192.168.100.1, it works. When I ping 192.168.0.249, it also works. However, when I try to ping 192.168.0.1 it does not. Does anyone has any way to solve this? Is there a way to debug it? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Recommended method for routing www to zone apex (naked domain) using AWS Route 53

    - by Dan Christian
    In my AWS Route 53 control panel I simply have 2 A records currently set up for the 'www' and the 'non www' names. Both point to the Elastic IP address associated with my EC2 Instance. This works well and my website is available at both variations but I really want all 'www' to route to the 'non www'. What is the reccomened method, using AWS Route 53, for routing all traffic that comes to... www.example.com to example.com

    Read the article

  • linux multipath routing load balance

    - by user52883
    I would like to know how to load balance two Business DLS links which have fixed IPs. I believe it would look something like this: ip route add default scope global \ nexthop via gatewayDLS1 dev interface1 weight 1 \ nexthop via gatewayDLS2 dev interface2 weight 1 Is this be all I need in order to get multipath routing? Please, give me a more detailed answer if possible, thanks you.

    Read the article

  • Should I implement slugs with my already fairly long URLs?

    - by Earlz
    I'm considering implementing slugs in my blog. My blog uses MongoDB. One of the side-effects of using MongoDB is that it uses relatively long hex string IDs. Example before: http://lastyearswishes.com/blog/view/5070f025d1f1a5760fdfafac after: http://lastyearswishes.com/blog/view/5070f025d1f1a5760fdfafac/improvements-on-barelymvc Of course, that's a relatively short title.. I have some longer ones, but intend to limit the maximum character limit for slugs to something reasonable. At what point does a URL become so long that it hurts SEO instead of improves it? In this case, should I leave my URLs alone, or add slugs?

    Read the article

  • Hybrid wireless network repeating

    - by Oli
    Summary: I'd like to use two Ubuntu computers to extend/compliment an existing wireless access point. I have a network which currently looks a bit like this: What the diagram doesn't show is the interference caused by our house. It's a wifi-blocking robot sent here from the past. The two wired computers are in areas where the signal is most blocked (not by design, just a happy co-incidence). Both wired computers have fairly good network cards. They're both Ubuntu machines and I would like to turn them into additional base stations. I know I could throw more networking hardware at this (network extenders or cable in additional, pure wireless access points) but I've got two Linux machines sitting in ideal places and I feel like they should be able to help me out. I've tried ad-hoc networks but I need something that is a lot more transparent (eg you can migrate from base to base without a connection dropping); it should look like one network to clients.

    Read the article

  • Forward TCP Connections with Iptables

    - by opc0de
    I receive connections to my server from several ip addresses I want to route these connections just like rinetd does but based on the ip the connection is coming from to connect to a specified host. Just like this: IP 10.10.12.1 => CONNECTS TO MY SERVER => MY SERVER REDIRECTS IT TO 82.12.12.1 IP 10.10.12.2 => CONNECTS TO MY SERVER => MY SERVER REDIRECTS IT TO 81.121.12.10 etc Is it possible or do I need to write my own daemon to achieve this functionality ?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >