Search Results

Search found 1193 results on 48 pages for 'cisco pix'.

Page 24/48 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

• How do ISPs/Colocation Facilities limit bandwidth for Ethernet Drops?

  - by Kyle Brandt

  I have switch providers and have run into some problems with bandwidth limitations. I have more bandwidth then before, but there are performance issues. The router is connected to a 100mBit port, but they limit it to arbitrary settings (in software I imagine). It seems when I go above the limit, the provider starts to drop packets beyond the limit (This is what they said they do as well). Is it possible the previous provider did something like queuing packets above the this limit before dropping them? Is anyone aware of not only what can be done, but what is typical? Also, is there anything I can do on my Cisco router to help this situation? It would seem I am pretty helpless if the packets are dropped before they reach my interface (The traffic that is high is inbound to my network).

  Read the article

• Provisioning SIP Phones over the internet

  - by Jorge Fernandez

  I have a few SIP Phones that are located of site and connect to my PBX over the internet to make calls. For some reason one of these phones has become unprovisioned. In my office phones get provisioned by the server via TFTP. The ones that I have off site I pre-provisioned manually before I sent them off-site (I'm in Florida the phone is in New Jersey). Whats the best way to provision these over the internet? TFTP is very insecure. Sending the plain text profiles with the SIP Account and Password over the internet is out of the question. The phones have been off-site for about 6 months without any issues. Im using Trixbox and Cisco 7940 Phones.

  Read the article

• OS X 10.8.3 + attempt to change VPN settings = no more VPN access

  - by nicole

  I am running Mountain Lion and had gotten very tired of re-entering my password at random times when using my school's VPN network (I don't know much about these, but the type is Cisco IPSec according to the setup instructions I followed a while back). In an attempt to make life easier, I followed the instructions here, but, alas, any attempt to connect with VPN was met with the message "A configuration error has occurred. Verify your settings and try connecting again" (or something along those lines.) I then tried to do the steps in the blog post in reverse and change everything back. Upon (supposedly) doing that, though, a new error message came when attempting to connect to VPN: "The negotiation with the VPN server failed. Verify the server address and try reconnecting." Now I have no idea what to do. Is there a way to reset all VPN-related things in my system so that I can follow my school's instructions and just start over?

  Read the article

• Dynamic VPN tunneling technologies

  - by Adam

  Ok, so I'm asking a more specific question this time. I'm writing a paper about Cisco's DMVPN and one of the tasks I have is to make the analysis of available network solutions which use dynamic VPN tunnels. Because the paper is about DMVPN, I have to compare those solutions to it. I know there are a lot of dynamic tunneling technologies but I'm looking for ones that can be compared to DMVPN. So the question is: are there any technologies which use dynamic VPN tunnels (not necessarily using crypto) that can be compared to DMVPN? What are those technologies?

  Read the article

• CentOS Installation on a Cisco MCS 7800

  - by William

  Hello, I'm having some problems installing CentOS 5.5 Final (i386) Onto my server, a Cisco MCS 7800. The problem comes very early into the installation. When the welcome screen comes up ans gives you the option on how to boot into the DVD, Ill press enter to go into the graphical installer. The Screen will then have a blinking cursor in the top left of the screen and will never go away (I thought that it just might need time but I let it sit for over 5 hours.) I then booted into it again and tried using Linux Text thinking it was a problem with graphical installer. That didn't work, same problem. Then I tried a DVD of RHEL 5 and got the same problem, both graphical and Linux text. At this point i think its a hardware problem. The Server has 2GB of ECC RAM, 1 Pentium 4 CPU @ 3.06GHZ and 2 WD Hard Drives (80GB) Configured for RAID 0. ( Also there is a option in the BIOS for what OS type and that is set to Linux.) If anyone has any idea what is going on, it would be helpful. ================Edit================== ooshro, typing "text" doesn't change a thing. still stuck at the blinking cursor. I looked it up and its really the same thing as typing "linux text", which as stated in the first part of my question, i've already done.

  Read the article

• Cisco RV042 VPN with Dynamic IPs - Remote Gateway Not Resolving

  - by Rister

  I have an existing network setup that I inherited from my predecessor. Currently there are two sites, each with a Linksys RV042 VPN router running the 1.3.12.19-tm firmware. They are currently set up with a Gateway to Gateway VPN. One site has a static IP, the other has a Dynamic IP with a hostname set up on no-ip.com. My company is looking to set up another site so I purchased another RV042 only this one was Cisco branded and it is running the latest firmware. I had assumed that I would be able to configure a vpn from our main office (the dynamic ip) to the new site with this router quite easily. However when I set up a new VPN tunnel on either device, it stays on Waiting for Connection and the Remote Gateway shows an ip address of 0.0.0.0 rather than the remote ip address. The other VPN tunnel is still working and I don't see any obvious misconfiguration on the new router. It seems that the router is not resolving the Dynamic DNS address and therefore not giving me the option to connect the VPN. Does a Gateway to Gateway VPN work with Dynamic IP addresses on each end? Are the firmware versions not compatible? Is there something I've missed?

  Read the article

• Connecting office to data center via Metro-ethernet

  - by Eric

  I am installing a metro ethernet link from my office to my data center. The office will have a cisco 3750 with several vlans. The data center end will have a more complicated set up. The metro e from the office will connect to a 2960, which will have two other 2960s with a few vlans and a 2811 router connected to it for connectivity to our other environments and the internet. I am looking at implementing this by connecting the office 3750 and the data center 2960 with a dot1q trunk and doing all routing at the 2811. I will configure subinterfaces for gateways for each of the vlans on the 2811. I work for a small company and don't have much of a budget for an ideal architecture. I can post a simple diagram if needed for clarification. Is there anything I am missing here? I feel like I am forgetting something very basic and want to make sure I eliminate any boneheaded mistakes.

  Read the article

• Access VirtualBox client (WinXP) from host (Linux) when client is connected to VPN

  - by hsz

  Hello ! I have a host (Ubuntu Linux) with VirtualBox on which is installed client (Windows XP). I set bridge connection for them. Host has IP 192.168.0.102 and client 192.168.0.103. On client I've installed WAMP server and on host I can access it by simply call 192.168.0.103. When I connect on client to the Cisco VPN (need access to database over VPN) I cannot access that server from host. What should I do to make it work ?

  Read the article

• No blocked ports on internal interface of ASA

  - by blsub6

  I have a cisco ASA 5505 with three interfaces: Internal (100), DMZ (50) and External (0). The internal has a IPSEC VPN tunnel to my internal network I couldn't log in to my domain because of all of the port restrictions and such. I tried monitoring the traffic through the interface, seeing what it's blocking and then unblocking those ports but even then it didn't work completely correctly I finally just added a rule to permit any ip traffic from any network to any network on the internal interface and, of course, it worked fine But is that good security practice? Should I be blocking ports on an interface that's internal and over a VPN with the highest security level?

  Read the article

• WinXP workgroup, 3 routers 3 computers

  - by Silvera

  I have 3 computers with WinXP x86, and 3 Cisco 1800 series routers. I'm trying to create a workgroup so that the 3 computers can share files with eachother. They can ping eachother (without any internet connection), and the routers setup is correctly configured (with interfaces, ip adresses, and ports). But none of the computers can see eachother, even though they are on the same network. My first question would be - can it be done the way it is currently configured - and, if yes, how, or can anyone point me in the right direction?

  Read the article

• Apache Virtual Hosts behind Cisco Router

  - by Theo

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

  Read the article

• What ports do I allow over my internal firewall interface?

  - by blsub6

  I have a Cisco ASA that I have VPN tunnels to connect my internal Windows network. I ran into some trouble logging into my domain so I unblocked all the ports on that internal interface. On a previous question posted here, the general consensus was that I should be blocking ports on my inside interface but my question is: what ports should I unblock? I've tried unblocking ports 88, 139, 135, 389, and 445 and Windows logins still give me problems. Is there some MS documentation somewhere that tells me what I need to unblock to allow Windows logins and other things?

  Read the article

• Windows updates behind a physical firewall with only IP based rules and generic outbound connections are turned off

  - by user125245

  I have some boxes that I do not want to allow any in or outbound traffic to the internet Except for windows updates. However the fire wall in place (Cisco ASA) apparently only supports ip based rules. As best I can tell access to Microsoft updates via anything other then the half dozen URL masks the Microsoft lists as needed does not appear possible. I have kicked around building a full WSUS that I would then manually copy the update files to so that no direct Microsoft access is needed but this sounds very top heavy for the very few boxes involved. I have also kicked around manual updates all around but am not certain how to be conveniently and confidently sure that the correct updates are being applied in the correct order. Any ideas from any direction would be appreciated. I want this as simple / cost effective as possible but have very little flexibility on the only absolutely required internet access policy.

  Read the article

• Linux QoS (Skype / BitTorent / SIP / HTTP priority)

  - by Andre

  We are configuring a linux box that will act as internet gateway for an office of 30-50 computers. We are using iptables/HTB for traffic shaping. Is there a way to match traffic on L7 level? It's easy to identify traffic by TCP/UDP ports (like SIP and HTTP). But what if we are dealing with Skype & BitTorent? It was surprise for me that there is no powerful and matured sulution for tasks like this. I found only l7-filter (http://l7-filter.clearfoundation.com/) patch for the Linux kernel, but it's no longer supported (it seems to). Moreover it couldn't be compiled with modern Linux kernels. The only option I found was to use a Cisco router. Are there other ways to identify and shape Skype and Bittorent traffic?

  Read the article

• Network connectivity issue

  - by kubiej21

  I am a novice cisco user and I am trying to investigate as to why one of our connections went down. We have a fiber network ring that is operating just fine. Connected to this ring via ethernet, is a lone 3560. This connection has worked flawlessly for the past year and a half. This morning, I noticed that I could not connect to that remote switch. I checked the configurations on both switches, and nothing has changed (as I expected). In the field, the port lights were flashing, indicating that some sort of communication is occurring. There is only 1 ethernet cable that has been run between these two locations, so testing an alternate path is not possible. What else can I do to fix this connection?

  Read the article

• Switch to switch encryption over a wireless bridge (TrustSec?)

  - by metatheorem

  I am planning to connect an existing Cisco 3750 switch to a 3560C switch over a wireless PTP bridge. The bridge will be WPA2 protected, but I am looking for an additional measure of security between the switches to prevent other wireless access through either switch. They do not support IPSec, only 802.1Q tunnels, and buying additional hardware is not likely an option. I am looking into using TrustSec manual mode between the switches. After some effort reading into TrustSec and MACsec, I am mostly certain this is a good choice over the wireless bridge, keeping in mind it is a shared medium. Two questions: Can I reliably prevent other wireless traffic from accessing the switches using TrustSec? Does anyone know of any better options with the 3000 series switches?

  Read the article

• Excluding four IP's from a /32 static route

  - by Justin

  I have a Cisco ASA routing a /32 of public addresses (non RFC-1812) through a private link. When the device sees the destination address it selects the private route instead of going out over the public network. This works great but I am now trying to exclude 4 IP's from the private route. Traffic to these addresses should go over the public internet instead of being routed over the private network. Can I just add anothe route for these four IP's or do I have to modify the existing route for the /32?

  Read the article

• Bridging two networks

  - by Jukodan

  I'm hoping you may be able to offer some advice as I'm not very familiar with setting up routers/access points. I have a network of computers on an active directory domain on the 192.NET. I then have another network on the 10.NET that needs to have access to the domain on the 192.NET. I am using cisco/linksys routers. What methodology would you suggest so that these two can communicate and I can add the computers form the 10.NET to the domain? Edit: Basically, I'm having trouble figuring out how to setup a static route

  Read the article

• Implement QoS/Bandwidth Management or Upgrade Bandwidth?

  - by Michael

  A question that I'm faced with currently. Here's my setup: Cisco ASA 5510 15Mbps Internet Connection @ $1350/month The bandwidth was originally meant for 35-45 people but we've grown quite quickly to roughly 60-65 people. Needless to say, when I check bandwidth logs it's almost always spiked at 15Mbps. I did use Wireshark to do some poking around to see what was hogging up our bandwidth but with everything running through CDNs and Cloud Services it proved difficult to get a good grasp of where our bandwidth was going. So the question is do I ONLY implement bandwidth management through ASA OR upgrade the Internet to 50Mbps ($1600/month) and then implement bandwidth management through ASA? Any suggestions on how to segment the 15Mbps connection if we decided ONLY to go with the bandwidth management solution? Thanks. UPDATE 1 Installed PRTG and used packet content to monitor the traffic. As I suspected still pretty vague. My Top Connections include the following: a204-2-160-16.deploy.akamaitechnologies.com ec2-50-16-212-159.compute-1.amazonaws.com a204-2-160-48.deploy.akamaitechnologies.com a72-247-247-133.deploy.akamaitechnologies.com mediaserver-sv5-t1-1.pandora.com Other than the Pandora destination, the rest doesn't tell me much on how to properly control the bandwidth. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks. M

  Read the article

• Skype performance in IPSEC VPN

  - by dunxd

  I've been challenged to "improve Skype performance" for calls within my organisation. Having read the Skype IT Administrators Guide I am wondering whether we might have a performance issue where the Skype Clients in a call are all on our WAN. The call is initiated by a Skype Client at our head office, and terminated on a Skype Client in a remote office connected via IPSEC VPN. Where this happens, I assume the trafficfrom Client A (encrypted by Skype) goes to our ASA 5510, where it is furtehr encrypted, sent to the remote ASA 5505 decrypted, then passed to Client B which decrypts the Skype encryption. Would the call quality benefit if the traffic didn't go over the VPN, but instead only relied on Skype's encryption? I imagine I could achieve this by setting up a SOCKS5 proxy in our HQ DMZ for Skype traffic. Then the traffic goes from Client A to Proxy, over the Skype relay network, then arrives at Cisco ASA 5505 as any other internet traffic, and then to Client B. Is there likely to be any performance benefit in doing this? If so, is there a way to do it that doesn't require a proxy? Has anyone else tackled this?

  Read the article

• Site to Site VPN with Fault Tolerence

  - by Nordberg

  Hello, I have a situation where I require an IPSEC tunnel between two sites. Site 2 is a small branch office with basic (ADSL) connectivity and Site 1 is the "main" office with SDSL and ADSL for redundancy should the SDSL fail. From Site 1, all traffic bound for the 172.0.0.0 network will then be sent down another IPSEC tunnel to a supplier's Remote Server. See this page for the basic premise (this is a rough idea and things can be moved about etc...) I am considering specifying Cisco ASA devices as the firewalls for both sites for all connections. Would it be possible to employ something like HSRC to provide a backup at Site 1 should the SDSL go down? I suppose the key aims here are that Site 2 can somehow failover to initiate a VPN to the ASA behind the ADSL at Site 1. I will have a 21 subnet mask on all internet connections so can play with Class C routing if need be... If I'm barking up the wrong tree with HSRC, is there another way I can acheive this without massive expenditure on Barracuda routers et al? Many Thanks.

  Read the article

• ASA DHCP Relay configuration..

  - by Jeff

  I have locations in different cities, connected using 2 Cisco ASA devices. my main location, corporate, use the IP 192.168.1.x The second location, remote store, use the IP 192.168.3.x I have a DHCP server (192.168.1.254) at my corporate location. I have created a scope for the 192.168.1.x which works fine for the corporate location. I created a scope for the remote location (192.168.3.x) on my DHCP server and tried to configure the remote ASA DCHP Relay, on the remote ASA: I disabled the DHCP Server on the inside. I enabled DHCP Relay on the inside, with set route set at yes. I set the Global DHCP Relay Servers, specify up to four servers to which DHCP requests would be relayed. I added my DHCP, 192.168.1.254 I flashed these settings to the ASA and gave it a try, didn't do anything. am i missing something - forgetting something. not really sure what im doing wrong. DHCP Settings on remote ASA: dhcp-client update dns server both dhcpd dns 192.168.1.254 dhcpd ping_timeout 750 dhcpd domain JEWELS.LOCAL dhcpd auto_config outside dhcpd update dns both ! dhcpd address 192.168.3.2-192.168.3.33 inside ! dhcprelay server 192.168.1.254 outside dhcprelay enable inside dhcprelay setroute inside on my local ASA: i have two ACLs for UDP ports 67 and 68 permitting any inbound traffic from the remote locations IP ... dhcprelay timeout 120

  Read the article

• Why does nmap ping scan over a VPN link return all hosts alive?

  - by ewwhite

  I'm curious as to why running an nmap -sP (ping scan) on a remote subnet linked via a Cisco site-to-site IPSec tunnel returns "host up" status for every IP in the range. [root@xt ~]# nmap -sP 192.168.108.* Starting Nmap 4.11 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2012-11-22 14:08 CST Host 192.168.108.0 appears to be up. Host 192.168.108.1 appears to be up. Host 192.168.108.2 appears to be up. Host 192.168.108.3 appears to be up. Host 192.168.108.4 appears to be up. Host 192.168.108.5 appears to be up. . . . Host 192.168.108.252 appears to be up. Host 192.168.108.253 appears to be up. Host 192.168.108.254 appears to be up. Host 192.168.108.255 appears to be up. Nmap finished: 256 IP addresses (256 hosts up) scanned in 14.830 seconds However, a ping of a known-down IP simply times out or doesn't return anything... [root@xt ~]# ping 192.168.108.201 PING 192.168.108.201 (192.168.108.201) 56(84) bytes of data. --- 192.168.108.201 ping statistics --- 144 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 143001ms Is there a more effective way to scan live devices connected in this manner?

  Read the article

• Port translation in router causing some email to fail

  - by user22037

  We are in the process of setting up a spam filter (SAVASM). One change we are making is to push incoming email on port 25 through our spam filter/server but have users actually send their email on a different port. I am attempting to make this happen by using port address translation to send port 25 traffic to the SAVASM server IP. As a step in making this change I setup port translation without actually changing the IP addresses. The NAT rules for the email server went from one Static NAT rule with no port specified, to multiple Static NAT rules each with a port or group matching the Access Rules for that server (smtp, pop3, http, https, and some other custom ports). The problem we are running into is confusing. Some outgoing mail through this server is failing when the router has the multiple NAT rules with port translation settings. Email goes through fine FROM our email to our internal accounts and to Gmail. However email fails when FROM our client's email address TO our client's email or their personal Comcast. The only situation that worked for them was if they changed FROM to Comcast and then messages went through fine to both Comcast and the client's accounts. Switching back to regular Static NAT rule everything then worked for them. Does anyone have a clue as to what might be going on? We are on a Cisco ASA 5500 box.

  Read the article

• Why is the link between my switch and my router always negotiating half-duplex mode?

  - by Massimo

  I have a Cisco 2950 switch which has one of its ports connected to an Internet router provided by my ISP; I have no access to the router configuration, but I manage the switch. If I leave all switch ports with their default setup (auto-negotiation of speed and duplex mode), this link always connects at 100 MBit/s, but in half-duplex mode. I've tried replacing the cable, and also moving the link to another switch port: the result is always the same. A different device connected to the same port (or to any switch port, really) shows no problem at all. It could be guesed that someone configured the router to only connect in half-duplex mode... BUT, here's the catch: if I manually force the switch port to full-duplex mode (duplex full in the interface configuration), the link goes up, stays up and is completely stable. So: The connection is not forced to half-duplex mode by the router, otherwise it would not connect at all if I force the switch end to full-duplex. There is no actual link problem, otherwise the full-duplex connection would not go up or would at least show some errors. But if I leave the port free to auto-negotiate, it always connects in half-duplex mode. Why?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >