Search Results

Search found 11524 results on 461 pages for 'insurance networking news'.

Page 233/461 | < Previous Page | 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240  | Next Page >

  • Too many Tunnel Adapter Interfaces

    - by Tomas Lycken
    If I open a command prompt on my machine and type ipconfig /all, I see lots of Tunnel adapter Local Area Connection* 9: Media state . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Connection-specific DNS Sufficx . . . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Microsoft 6to4 Adapter #5 Physical address. . . . . . . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-E0 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . . . : No Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . . . : Yes In fact, they're so many that my "real" adapters are pushed out of the stack, and can't be seen anymore. Is there any flag I can use on ipconfig to hide all virtual interfaces? Or is there some other way around this problem? Since they always say "Media disconnected" I suppose disabling could be an option, but if possible I'd rather not turn any functionality off. I just want to control what output I get from ipconfig. Also, I know these are related to IPv6 stuff. However, most of what I find on google merely states what these are, and that they're harmless - nothing about hiding/removing them.

    Read the article

  • No internet on some devices, still on WiFi

    - by Joost
    Ok, here's the situation. I live with 3 friends, and we often sit in the living room with laptops out. There's a WiFi router in the kitchen, and we have quite a stable connection. The issue, however, is this: sometimes, all of a sudden one of my friends loses internet connection. Even disconnecting/reconnecting to the WiFi network does not help. When we restart the router, though, it works like a charm again. The odd thing is, it happens just for this one Windows 7 laptop. We've switched routers (for a different reason) in the mean time, but the issue remained. This makes me suspect the laptop even more. I realise I've given little details, but I don't really know what to try/do. Any suggestions what it might be?

    Read the article

  • Where would an S3 upload speed cap originate?

    - by CoreyH
    I do a ton of uploading to S3 and am experiencing capped speeds and I can't quite figure out how to address it. The setup: Windows Server 2008 R2 x64, external HD, using a Java based upload tool called Jsh3ll and custom VBS scripts to kick the jobs off. Running one process at a time, I am always limited to about 4mbps. I have FiOS at 35/35mbps speeds, so it isn't an outright limit. AND, I can run parallel instances and can go all the way up to 35mbps, so I know the problem isn't gateway/nic/machine/amazon related. Running parallel instances works to a degree as a solution, but increases the complexity of my workflow greatly. Solving this would make my life dramatically easier. When I was first doing this I was playing around with a bunch of Windows TCP parameters and was able to briefly get unconstrained bandwidth, but it wasn't repeatable. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Using PVLANs with normal VLANs in a trunked environment

    - by user974896
    Assume a trunked environment with two switches, S1 and S2. The swtiches are connected with a trunk port designed to pass VLAN 26. What would happen if VLAN 26 on S2 is configured as a private-vlan with the default gateway and DHCP server and default gateway as promisc ports. What if S1's VLAN 26 is configured as a standard VLAN. Would the hosts on S1 be able to communicate with the promisc ports on S2? Would they be able to communicate with the hosts on S2? To further complicate things what if the DHCP server were to reside on S1 and I wanted S2 to have private VLANS with promisc ports as the gateway and DHCP server while still leaving S1 in a standard vlan configuration.

    Read the article

  • Any way to stop VMWare workstation from dropping SSH connections?

    - by oljones
    I have VMWare workstation 8 with a few Linux guests. I have had problems maintaining an active SSH connection to my VMs when they are in bridged mode. I first read that the onboard realtek network cards were not well supported so I bought a Intel Pro/1000 GT card. This supposedly had support. But this made no difference. Connections via SSH are active for about the first 3 minutes then hang and die. I have changed the TCP Checksum offload on the Intel and Realtek NICs, but this only works some of the time and even then not for very long. The best I could do was about 20 minutes before the connection was dropped. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 10.04 network manager issues

    - by Shark
    I was using the default network manager to connect to my wi-fi network, but if the connection is dropped or router restarted the network manager wont reconnect automatically after i guess a couple of tries and just gives a pop-up to connect manually . To avoid this annoyance I installed WICD but though it does try to reconnect to the network after a drop in connection it is unable to resolve the ip address and i am left with an even bigger annoyance . 1. Is there a way to counter either of these issues ? 2. Something like a background process that will check network status periodically and then try to connect to a favored network ? Edit- out put of lshw -C network *-network description: Wireless interface product: Broadcom Corporation vendor: Broadcom Corporation physical id: 0 bus info: pci@0000:12:00.0 logical name: eth1 version: 01 serial: c0:cb:38:18:9b:7f width: 64 bits clock: 33MHz capabilities: pm msi pciexpress bus_master cap_list ethernet physical wireless configuration: broadcast=yes driver=wl0 driverversion=5.60.48.36 ip=192.168.11.2 latency=0 multicast=yes wireless=IEEE 802.11 resources: irq:17 memory:fbc00000-fbc03fff *-network description: Ethernet interface product: RTL8101E/RTL8102E PCI Express Fast Ethernet controller vendor: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. physical id: 0 bus info: pci@0000:13:00.0 logical name: eth0 version: 02 serial: f0:4d:a2:94:2d:74 size: 10MB/s capacity: 100MB/s width: 64 bits clock: 33MHz capabilities: pm msi pciexpress msix vpd bus_master cap_list rom ethernet physical tp mii 10bt 10bt-fd 100bt 100bt-fd autonegotiation configuration: autonegotiation=on broadcast=yes driver=r8169 driverversion=2.3LK-NAPI duplex=half latency=0 link=no multicast=yes port=MII speed=10MB/s resources: irq:29 ioport:e000(size=256) memory:d0b10000-d0b10fff(prefetchable) memory:d0b00000-d0b0ffff(prefetchable) memory:fb200000-fb21ffff(prefetchable)

    Read the article

  • how to use iptables to block the IP of device connected to openwrt router

    - by scola
    I have two routers(A,B).the A connect to internet with IP:192.168.1.1 The openwrt router B connect the lan of A by bridge with static IP:192.168.1.111. I am learning to use iptables to control the devices connected to B(wlan) . I use my phone to connect wifi of B,the phone's IP is IP:192.168.1.100.it can surf the internet normally. I want to block the phone's IP to make the phone can not connect to internet. refer to http://bredsaal.dk/some-small-iptables-on-openwrt-tips iptables -A input_wan -s 192.168.1.100 --jump REJECT iptables -A forwarding_rule -d 192.168.1.100 --jump REJECT but it do not work.the phone still connect to internet normally. and I tried other chain(INPUT,OUTPUT,FORWARD).so many chains confused me. iptables -I OUTPUT -o br-lan -s 192.168.1.100 -j DROP and it do not work again. I'm sure that the iptables have no problem. root@OpenWrt:/etc# iptables -L|grep Chain Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) Chain FORWARD (policy DROP) Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) Chain forward (1 references) Chain forwarding_lan (1 references) Chain forwarding_rule (1 references) Chain forwarding_wan (1 references) Chain input (1 references) Chain input_lan (1 references) Chain input_rule (1 references) Chain input_wan (1 references) Chain output (1 references) root@OpenWrt:/etc# ifconfig br-lan Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 0C:82:68:97:57:BA inet addr:192.168.1.111 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::e82:68ff:fe97:57ba/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:14976 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:7656 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:2851980 (2.7 MiB) TX bytes:1902785 (1.8 MiB) eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 0C:82:68:97:57:BA UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:58201 errors:0 dropped:11 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:45012 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:54591348 (52.0 MiB) TX bytes:5711142 (5.4 MiB) Interrupt:4 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:312 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:312 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:39961 (39.0 KiB) TX bytes:39961 (39.0 KiB) mon.wlan0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 0C-82-68-97-57-BA-00-48-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:4900 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:32 RX bytes:1223807 (1.1 MiB) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 0C:82:68:97:57:BA UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:37346 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:49662 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:32 RX bytes:3808021 (3.6 MiB) TX bytes:54486310 (51.9 MiB) root@OpenWrt:/etc/config# cat network config 'interface' 'loopback' option 'ifname' 'lo' option 'proto' 'static' option 'ipaddr' '127.0.0.1' option 'netmask' '255.0.0.0' config 'interface' 'lan' option 'ifname' 'eth0' option 'type' 'bridge' option 'proto' 'static' option 'ipaddr' '192.168.1.111' option 'netmask' '255.255.255.0' option 'gateway' '192.168.1.1' option dns 192.168.1.1 and how to use iptables to control the network of wlan? Thanks in advance and sorry for poor English.

    Read the article

  • Superscope DHCP leases and configuration set up

    - by Vdub
    Hello I wanted to see if someone could help with a network problem I am having. Right now we have a super-scope and scopes of 192.168.50.1 and 192.168.51.1, as of now both are activated but only 192.168.50.1 is handing our leases, 192.168.51 wont. here is a summary of our network Gateway: watchguard firebox x750e for our router/gateway at 192.168.50.1 I set up as a secondary IP address 192.168.51.1 Server: Server 2008 r2 standard, running our DNS @ 192.168.50.242 and 8.8.8.8 as a secondary, AD, and DHCP. On that NIC card i have 192.168.50.242 as the IP address and 192.168.51.242 as a secondary. 192.168.50.1 as the default gateway and 192.168.51.1 as a secondary. Im am not very knowledgeable at this but as far as i have researched after adding a super scope and activating scopes, they should automatically start handing out addresses and I cant figure out why only one does. any help at all would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Cannot save properly the source of .html file containing Russian letters as .txt

    - by brilliant
    When I save the source of this page of a Russian website: http://www.mail.ru/ as a .txt file, all Russian letters turn into Chinese characters (I am working on a Chinese computer at the moment), but when I save another page of another Russian website: http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=/usr/local/share/starling/morpho&morpho=0&basename=\usr\local\share\starling\morpho\ozhegov\ozhegov&first=4001 also as a .txt file, all Russian letters are saved in it as the are. Why is it so?

    Read the article

  • Meaning of Bridge-Check in iptables flowchart

    - by networkIT
    In the famous iptables flow-chart what does bridge-check exactly stands for ? I couldn't find any documentation. The only clue I found was while scanning the MikroTik RouterOS documentation ( RouterOS is build upon a Linux 2.6.16 kernel ), I found this : In-interface Bridge = Checks if the input interface is a port for a bridge or is the bridge. Manual:Packet Flow Comparing both flow-charts brings clues that iptables Bridge-check might equal MikroTik In-Interface Bridge. Is this true ? Else, what might be the meaning of iptables Bridge-Check ?

    Read the article

  • xtreamer doesn't see Window 7 shares

    - by Assaf Lavie
    Weird situation after reinstalling Windows 7 on my PC. Suddenly the xTreamer (media streamer) that's connected to the same LAN doesn't see shares by my PC. Other PCs (and even a MacBook) on the same network can access these shares just fine. And the xTreamer is capable of seeing other shares in the network (e.g. by some other NAS server I have). It can't be permissions/firewall because the Mac does connect to the shares... I'm stumped. Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Looking for a router with multiple WAN ports and load balancing

    - by Cyrcle
    I'm going to be moving in a few months. The location I'm moving to is great except it's on a road with very few people, so the internet access option is limited to DSL at 1.6Mbps down, 384kbps up. This is much slower than I'm used to. One option is to get at least two of the DSL lines. There's also good possibility that I'll be able to get WiMax or similar. I've been looking around a bit and it seems like what I need is a load balancing router with multiple WAN ports. Can anyone recommend some good ones? I could also go with a small power efficient Linux box with multiple NICs. What would be good software for that? It'd need to be able to handle around 10Mbps. Thanks for any help

    Read the article

  • Local or public NTP servers?

    - by BeeOnRope
    For a relatively large network (thousands of hosts) - what are the arguments for and against running a locally managed (pool of) NTP server(s) (perhaps periodically set via some public NTP server) and having all other hosts on the network use that (pool of) NTP server(s) versus having all hosts simply use public NTP servers directly, say via ntp.pool.org? Aside from the pros and cons, What is typical best practice today?

    Read the article

  • Access server using IP on another interface

    - by Markos
    I am using Windows Server 2012 instead of a router for my home network. Currently I am using RRAS and computers from local network can access Internet correctly. Here is a map of the current setup: [PC1] ---| |---- (lan ip)[Server](wan ip)--> internet [PC2] ---| I have applications running on Server, such as IIS and others. All can be accessed from internet using wan ip and from lan using lan ip. I have a domain, lets say its my-domain.com, which is resolved to my wan ip. What I want is to enable my LAN computers to be able to connect to services on my server using the very same address as internet users: eg http://my-domain.com/. However this does not work for my lan computers. What I understand is that I need to set up some kind of loopback route in a way that packets comming to LAN interface get routed to WAN interface. But I haven't found how to achieve this (in fact, I don't know WHAT to search for). Feel free to ask for additional informations and I will try to update the question.

    Read the article

  • Can I use two internet connections simultaneously in Windows 7?

    - by Chibueze Opata
    I have two internet connections - one via a 3G modem, and the other via wireless. The modem is faster so I normally browse with it, but it does not support torrent downloads while my wireless does. When the two are connected, my PC automatically makes every connection through the modem. Is there a way I can force a particular program, eg. uTorrent to browse through my wireless internet connection instead? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • VirtualBox no network access

    - by Frantumn
    I'm on a work machine, setting up a virtual ubuntu image using virtual box. After I installed the image, I can't seem to connect to the internet. If I look at network and sharing center on my host OS (W7) I see that the VirtualBox Host-Only Network reads as "no network access" How can I set it up so that it uses the same network as the host OS. UPDATE! Okay, is there a way I can tell virtual box host-only network to use a proxy script?

    Read the article

  • Connecting two servers together - How to?

    - by Chris
    Is it possible to connect two servers running for example Windows Server 2003/2008 together. For example they are seen on the network as one server with the combination of all HDD from each server? Example: \\Server1 - 1 x 1tb hdd \\Server2 - 1 x 1tb hdd I would like users of the network to be able to store their documents on both servers for load balancing. So basically a RAID between the two servers? Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How secure is a subnet?

    - by HorusKol
    I have an unfortunate complication in my network - some users/computers are attached to a completely private and firewalled office network that we administer (10.n.n.x/24 intranet), but others are attached to a subnet provided by a third party (129.n.n.x/25) as they need to access the internet via the third party's proxy. I have previously set up a gateway/router to allow the 10.n.n.x/24 network internet access: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interface iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT However, I now need to enable access to users on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet to some private servers on the 10.n.n.x/24 network. I figured that I could do something like: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.n.n.x/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.n.n.x/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two public connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT My concern is that I know that the computers on our 129.n.n.x/25 subnet can be accessed via a VPN through the larger network operated by the provider - therefore, would it be possible for someone on the provider's supernet (correct term? inverse of subnet?) to be able to access our private 10.n.n.x/24 intranet?

    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

  • Slow write speeds on new Gigabit home file server

    - by Ryan Holder
    So I finally got all my parts delivered to setup a home file/backup server this week. It's currently running Ubuntu Server and I'm using Samba to share files on my network. The server currently has a 2TB WD Green drive in it connected to a Asus M5A78L-M This is then connected via CAT6a to my new Gigabit switch (TP-Link TL-SG1005D). My home desktop is then also connected to this switch and again also through CAT6a cable. Currently when transfering files I will get a perfect 100MB/s read from the server to my Windows machine. When copying from my Windows machine to the server I get around 30/38MB/s. I know this drive is capable is faster speeds so would anybody have an idea of where the bottleneck is? Any help would be greatly appreciated :) EDIT: I have found ftp's write speed is much closer to what my Samba read speed is so I'm going to give it a guess that is a software problem rather than hardware

    Read the article

  • How do I prevent internet access to a group of computers on my network?

    - by Kevin Boyd
    Well I have the following setup... Computer A , B and C are networked.... Computer A is connected to the internet, computer B and C are not setup for internet access currently but I guess its possible with some kind of setting they would eventually be able to access the internet and this is what I would like to prevent. In summary only A should have internet access while A and B and C should still be on intranet. Is this kind of config possible?, what kind of software or setup or tools would I need to achive this?

    Read the article

  • Choosing gateway router/firewall for small datacenter network [closed]

    - by rvs
    I'm choosing a gateway router/firewall for small internal network for medium-sized web service. Currently there are 5 servers in internal network, up to 50 http(s) requests/second, up to 1000 simultaneous connections, uplink is 100 Mbit. So, network is relatively small and not very busy and we don't like to buy some pricey monster like cisco or jupiper for this site. Instead we'd like to buy two affordable devices (one for spare), which can handle our workload now and some time in future (it might be up to 2x more in 1 year). I had some experience with Sonicwall NSA, but it seems to be too complex for this site (we don't need most of its features) and even too pricey when buying two of them. So, after some research I've come up with following options: Netgear Prosecure UTM Series (probably UTM25) Zyxel ZyWall Series (USG100 or USG200) Sonicwall TZ 210 Is this a good idea? All of the above seems to be more office products, not datacenter ones. Or we should stick with Sonicwall NSA? Does anyone have any hands-on experience with this models? Maybe some other advices? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Capabilities of business and SOHO routers

    - by Q8Y
    I'm currently studying for the CCNA certifications (especially for Cisco routers and configuration). I know that business routers provide more features than SOHO routers, the processing speed and RAM can be enough. Assume I need to connect a number of users through a network (accessing internet, share files, printers, ...). I have a high speed connection to the internet and I already applied QoS. How can I find out how many users such a single (SOHO) router could handle? In my case I'd attach to it multiple switches until I have the number of ports needed. Would everything work well and smoothly with 50 users? What about 300? At which point would I need a business router instead? If I implemented VLAN here, would it make any difference in the performance? When do I really need to use more than one router? (Both SOHO and business) I'm thinking that I may need them only if I want to increase the performance (instead of replacing the existing one) and if I have multiple locations, so in this situation I need to have multiple routers, right? Put differently: Is there is a need to have another router if my business all in one place?

    Read the article

  • ip conflict error

    - by mhay
    how to resolve ip conflict error ? i m getting my server's ip address when i m downloading from rapidshare ? and my ip address is different.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240  | Next Page >