Search Results

Search found 1275 results on 51 pages for 'nat weiss'.

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 26/51 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • internet-based sync software that will keep running after Windows Live Sync stops doing PC-to-PC-syncs?

    - by Warren P
    According to the wikipedia page, Microsoft Live Sync will shortly stop offering the PC-to-PC sync service. There are lots of apps to sync two PCs on the same LAN, but I want to sync two PCs that are in different cities, across the internet, traversing two different NATs, and that requires some kind of service running in the internet that both connect into. There is already a few questions about syncing folders and files, but this is not a duplicate because none of them answer this basic question: Microsoft Live Sync works better than RSYNC, or any of the linked SYNC solutions in any of the "not really duplicates" because it works even when the two PCs have NAT and firewalls between them that forbid direct connectivity, because Windows Live Sync has a free always-on internet server that all the client PCs connect into. I'm looking for a FREE (no-fees) Microsoft Live Sync work-alike PC-to-PC sync solution that works between PCs and Macs, at least, as well as between PCs, and works behind NAT and firewalls at least as well as Microsoft's solution. (Note that Microsoft's solution makes only outbound socket calls to a microsoft server, so this solution must necessarily include a server-hub component that is hosted publically on a free site and which does not require that I set up and manage and pay for my own public internet hosting site) Hint: None of the answers in the linked duplicate are equivalent (PureSync,FreeFileSync,BestSync 2010,SyncButler,Comodo BackUp,QuickShadow,Gbridge) in that none of them work for the PC to Mac situation, where firewalls and nats prevent direct connection, or else they require money to be paid. When Microsoft Live Sync / Live Mesh finally kills direct PC-to-PC mode, the limitation will be that you will have to pay for more than 25 GB of cloud service, and you can then only sync PC #1 to PC #2 if you first sync to the cloud, then down to other clients. I can currently sync 100 gb of data from one computer to another, only temporarily "moving the data" through Microsoft's data servers without using up my Skydrive storage quota.

    Read the article

  • Possible to IPSec VPN Tunnel Public IP Addresses?

    - by caleban
    A customer uses an IBM SAS product over the internet. Traffic flows from the IBM hosting data center to the customer network through Juniper VPN appliances. IBM says they're not tunneling private IP addresses. IBM says they're tunneling public IP addresses. Is this possible? What does this look like in the VPN configuration and in the packets? I'd like to know what the source/destination ip/ports would look like in the encrypted tunneled IPSec Payload and in the IP packet carrying the IPSec Payload. IPSec Payload: source:1.1.1.101:1001 destination:2.2.2.101:2001 IP Packet: source:1.1.1.1:101 destination:2.2.2.1:201 Is it possible to send public IP addresses through an IPSec VPN tunnel? Is it possible for IBM to send a print job from a server on their network using the static-nat public address over a VPN to a printer at a customer network using the printer's static-nat public address? Or can a VPN not do this? Can a VPN only work with interesting traffic from and to private IP addresses?

    Read the article

  • iptables forwarding to a dummy interface

    - by madinc
    Hi, I'm trying to accomplish the following: I have a box with a service listening on a dummy interface (say 172.16.0.1), udp port 5555. Now what I'd like to do is to take packets that arrive on interfaces eth0 (1.1.1.1:5555) and eth1 (2.2.2.2:5555) and forward them to the service on the dummy interface, and have replies go back to clients out the same physical interface they came in. Clients must think they're talking to 1.1.1.1:5555 or 2.2.2.2:5555. I think I need a mix of iptables rules and packet marking, plus some iproute rules (if it's possible at all). What I tried is to catch packets coming in from eth0 and eth1, udp port 5555, and mark them with 1 and 2 respectively, and --save-mark in the connmark. Then I used a DNAT to 172.16.0.1. The service seems to be getting the packets. Now I'm not sure how to do the reverse. It seems that for packets originating from the box, you can't do anything before the routing decision, but that would be the place to restore the marks, and thus make a routing decision based on those. Here's what I have so far: iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d 1.1.1.1 -p udp --port 5555 -j MARK --set-mark 1 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d 2.2.2.2 -p udp --port 5555 -j MARK --set-mark 2 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d 1.1.1.1 -p udp --port 5555 -j CONNMARK --save-mark iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -d 2.2.2.2 -p udp --port 5555 -j CONNMARK --save-mark iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -m mark --mark 1 -j DNAT --to-destination 172.16.0.1 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -m mark --mark 2 -j DNAT --to-destination 172.16.0.1 # What next? As I said, I'm not even sure it can be done. To give a bit of background, it's an old OpenVPN installation that cannot be upgraded (otherwise I'd install a recent version that supports multihoming natively). Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • L2TP over IPSec VPN with OpenSwan and XL2TPD can't connect, timeout on Centos 6

    - by Disco
    I'm setting up LT2p over IPSec on my Centos 6.3 fresh install. I have iptables flushed, permit all. Whenever I try to connect, i get a 'no reply from vpn' and nothi Here's my ipsec.conf file (Server is 1.2.3.4) : config setup nat_traversal=yes virtual_private=%v4:10.0.0.0/8,%v4:192.168.0.0/16,%v4:172.16.0.0/12 oe=off protostack=netkey conn L2TP-PSK-NAT rightsubnet=vhost:%priv also=L2TP-PSK-noNAT conn L2TP-PSK-noNAT authby=secret pfs=no auto=add keyingtries=3 rekey=no ikelifetime=8h keylife=1h type=transport left=1.2.3.4 leftprotoport=17/1701 right=%any rightprotoport=17/%any My /etc/ipsec.secrets 1.2.3.4 %any: PSK "password" My sysctl.conf (appened lines) net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter = 0 net.ipv4.conf.all.send_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.send_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.conf.all.log_martians = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.log_martians = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.accept_source_route = 0 net.ipv4.conf.all.accept_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.conf.default.accept_redirects = 0 net.ipv4.icmp_ignore_bogus_error_responses = 1 Here's what 'ipsec verify' gives: # ipsec verify Checking your system to see if IPsec got installed and started correctly: Version check and ipsec on-path [OK] Linux Openswan U2.6.32/K2.6.32-279.19.1.el6.x86_64 (netkey) Checking for IPsec support in kernel [OK] SAref kernel support [N/A] NETKEY: Testing for disabled ICMP send_redirects [OK] NETKEY detected, testing for disabled ICMP accept_redirects [OK] Checking that pluto is running [OK] Pluto listening for IKE on udp 500 [OK] Pluto listening for NAT-T on udp 4500 [OK] Checking for 'ip' command [OK] Checking /bin/sh is not /bin/dash [WARNING] Checking for 'iptables' command [OK] Opportunistic Encryption Support [DISABLED] And I see xl2tpd is listening on 1701/udp : udp 0 0 1.2.3.4:1701 0.0.0.0:* 2096/xl2tpd

    Read the article

  • Is iptable capable of this or should I go with mod_proxy?

    - by Jesper
    I'm trying to configure my network to receive an incoming connection on one device and then redirect it to another device on a specific port. Right now I'm on about port 80 and a device running apache. The problem I'm facing is that when the forwarding is done it also sets the source ip to the first device instead of the source ip the user that connects to the service has. Let me illustrate it: [Internet User] = 7.7.7.7 connects to [Device 1] = 1.1.1.1:80 [Device 1] forwards it to [Device 2] = 1.1.1.2:80 [Device 2] outputs response that [Internet User] sees So on [Device 2] I will naturally see [Device 1]s IP in the logs, but I wanna see if there is a way to connect the internet user through [Device 1] to [Device 2] while seeing the real source IP in the logs on [Device 2]. Is that possible? My rule-set looks like this at the moment: (on Device 1) iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -j DNAT -p tcp --dport 80 --to-destination 1.1.1.2:80 iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING -j SNAT -p tcp -d 1.1.1.2 --to-source 1.1.1.1 On [Device 2] it accepts all incoming on port 80 from [Device 1] as well as accepts all related and established connections. So, would there be any way to get the real source onto [Device 2]? Let me know if you need more information!

    Read the article

  • Virtual Machine Network Architecture, Isolating Public and Private Networks

    - by Mark
    I'm looking for some insight into best practices for network traffic isolation within a virtual environment, specifically under VMWARE ESXi. Currently I have (in testing) 1 hardware server running ESXi but i expect to expand this to multiple pieces of hardware. The current setup is as follows: 1 pfsense VM, this VM accepts all outside (WAN/internet) traffic and performs firewall/port forwarding/NAT functionality. I have multiple public IP addresses sent to the this VM that are used for access to individual servers (via per incoming IP port forwarding rules). This VM is attached to the private (virtual) network that all other VMs are on. It also manages a VPN link into the private network with some access restrictions. This isn't the perimeter firewall but rather the firewall for this virtual pool only. I have 3 VMs that communicate with each other, as well as have some public access requirements: 1 LAMP server running an eCommerce site, public internet accessible 1 accounting server, access via windows server 2008 RDS services for remote access by users 1 inventory/warehouse management server, VPN to client terminals in warehouses These servers constantly talk with each other for data synchronization. Currently all the servers are on the same subnet/virtual network and connected to the internet through the pfsense VM. The pfsense firewall uses port forwarding and NAT to allow outside access to the servers for services and for server access to the internet. My main question is this: Is there a security benefit to adding a second virtual network adapter to each server and controlling traffic such that all server to server communication is on one separate virtual network, while any access to the outside world is routed through the other network adapter, through the firewall, and on the the internet. This is the type of architecture i would use if these were all physical servers, but i'm unsure if the networks being virtual changes the way i should approach locking down this system. Thank you for any thoughts or direction to any appropriate literature.

    Read the article

  • Windows Firewall Software to Filter Transit Traffic

    - by soonts
    I need to test my networking code for Nintendo Wii under the conditions when some specific Internet server is not available. Wii is connected to my PC with crossover ethernet cable. PC has 2 NICs. PC is connected to hardware router with ethernet cable. The hardware router serves as NAT and has an internet connected to its uplink. I set the Wii to be in the same lan as PC by using Windows XP Network bridge. I can observe the WII network traffic using e.g. Wireshark sniffer. Is there a software firewall that can selectively filter out transit traffic? (e.g. block outgoing TCP connections to 123.45.67.89 to port 443) I tried Outpost Pro 2009 and Comodo. Outpost firewall blocks all transit traffic with it's implicit "block transit packet" rule. If the transit traffic is explicitly allowed by creating the system-wide low level rule, then it's allowed completely and no other filter can selectively block it. Comodo firewall only process rules when the packet has localhost's IP as either source or destination, allowing the rest of the traffic. Any ideas? Thanks in advance! P.S. Platform is Windows XP 32 bit, no other OSes is allowed, Windows ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) doesnt work since the Wii is unable to connect, becides I don't like the idea of adding one more level of NAT.

    Read the article

  • AWS VPC ELB vs. Custom Load Balancing

    - by CP510
    So I'm wondering if this is a good idea. I have a Amazon AWS VPC setup with a public and private subnets. So I all ready get the Internet Gateway and NAT. I was going to setup all my web servers (Apache2 isntances) and DB servers in the private subnet and use a Load Balancer/Reverse Proxy to pick up requests and send them into the private subnets cluster of servers. My question then, is Amazons ELB's a good use for these, or is it better to setup my own custom instance to handle the public requests and run them through the NAT using nginx or pound? I like the second option just for the sake of having a instance I can log into and check. As well as taking advantage of caching and fail2ban ddos prevention, as well as possibly using fail safes to redirect traffic. But I have no experience with their ELB's, so I thought I'd ask your opinions. Also, if you guys have an opinion on this as well, would using the second option allow me to only have 1 public IP address and be able to route SSH connections through port numbers to respective instances? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • NTLM, Kerberos and F5 switch issues

    - by G33kKahuna
    I'm supporting an IIS based application that is scaled out into web and application servers. Both web and applications run behind IIS. The application is NTLM capable when IIS is configured to authenticate via Kerberos. It's been working so far without a glitch. Now, I'm trying to bring in 2 F5 switches, 1 in front of the web and another in front of the application servers. 2 F5 instances (say ips 185 & 186) are sitting on a LINUX host. F5 to F5 looks for a NAT IP (say ips 194, 195 and 196). Created a DNS entry for all IPs including NAT and ran a SETSPN command to register the IIS service account to be trusted at HTTP, HOST and domain level. With the Web F5 turned on and with eachweb server connecting to a cardinal app server, when the user connects to the Web F5 domain name, trust works and user authenticates without a problem. However, when app load balancer is turned on and web servers are pointed to the new F5 app domain name, user gets 401. IIS log shows no authenticated username and shows a 401 status. Wireshark does show negotiate ticket header passed into the system. Any ideas or suggestions are much appreciated. Please advice.

    Read the article

  • Linux VLAN Bridge

    - by raspi
    I have home network with VLANs, one for LAN, one for WLAN and one for internet. I'd like to use bridging so that instead of configuring these same VLANs to every machine, they had own VLAN ID and bridges were LAN, WLAN and internet. I've tried it but for some reason keep-alive/ttl seems to get broken because SSH sessions etc suddenly disconnects. We have this same setup working in workplace for 4+ years with 100+ customers but it's custom firewall/router hardware so accessing it is impossible. I know that it runs Linux. So what is Debian/Ubuntu default network settings doing wrong or is it just NIC driver/hw problem? I've tried to mess araund with ttl etc settings without any luck. The bad stuff is happening in the bridge because current VLAN-only setup works fine. interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 allow-hotplug eth1 iface eth0 inet static iface eth1 inet static auto vlan111 auto vlan222 auto vlan333 auto vlan444 auto br0 auto br1 auto br2 # LAN iface vlan111 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # WLAN iface vlan222 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # ADSL Modem iface vlan333 inet static vlan_raw_device eth1 # Internet iface vlan444 inet static vlan_raw_device eth0 # LAN bridge iface br0 inet static address 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0.111 bridge_stp on # Internet bridge iface br1 inet static address x.x.x.x netmask x.x.x.x gateway x.x.x.x bridge_ports eth1.333 eth0.444 bridge_stp on post-up iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o br1 -j MASQUERADE pre-down iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o br1 -j MASQUERADE # WLAN bridge iface br2 inet static address 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0.222 bridge_stp on Sysctl: net.ipv4.conf.default.forwarding=1

    Read the article

  • Cisco BVI: Claiming IP addresses

    - by cjavapro
    I would like to make sure I understand this correctly. Given a Cisco ISO router that is set up with a BVI (a variation of a bridge route).. and the following layout "ISP router" \ "Network switch" # nothing special here. | \ | \ | \ | \ "Router 1 with NAT" "Router 2 with BVI" If I understand correctly.. the outside of a BVI will only respond to IP addresses that have already been claimed on the inside of the BVI... example subnet is 123.123.123.??? and servers inside the BVI on 123.123.123.10 and 123.123.123.11, and the NAT router is holding a public IP address of 123.123.123.50. If a connection comes in to 123.123.123.10 it will be received by router 2 but if it is received on 123.123.123.50, it will be received by router 1 and not received by router 2. and if a connection comes in to 123.123.123.90 (does not exist) it will not be received by either router. Am I correct? Is it true that the BVI router will not even receive packets to IP addresses that it does not see as existing on the inside?

    Read the article

  • openvpn problem

    - by Jared Voronik
    I have a problem with openvpn. I have already setup openvpn sucessfully on some other servers in the past (basic configuration, nothing special). On this server, I used the same config file, but for setting up nat iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.4.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE doesn't work. It gives error: iptables v1.3.5: can't initialize iptables table `nat': Table does not exist (do you need to insmod?) Perhaps iptables or your kernel needs to be upgraded. How do I fix this error? Also, if I can't fix this error, can I do bridging instead of routing? I have only 1 interface, and I can connect to remote server only via ssh (and need to avoid reboots if at all possible) so if briding means a whole ethernet card has to be devoted to the openvpn (and no other servers) then briding is out, otherwise I can use briding. Do you know of a simple, step by step guide to configure openvpn briding (just simple openvpn server and clients that can access internet through vpn server, nothing fancy)?

    Read the article

  • Slackware - Assigning routes (IP address ranges) to one of many network adapters

    - by Dogbert
    I am using a Slackware 13.37 virtual machine within VirtualBox (current). I currently have a number of Ubuntu VMs on a single server, along with this Slackware VM. All VMs have been set up to use "Internal Network" mode, so they are all on a private LAN, and can see each other (ie: share files amongst themselves), but they remain private from the outside world. On on the these VMs (the Slackware one), I need to be able to grant it access to both this private network, and the internet at large. The first suggestion I found for handling this is to add another virtual network adapter to the VM, then set it to NAT. This results in the Slackware VM having the following network adapter setup: -NIC#1: Internal Network -NIC#2: NAT I want to set up the first network adapter (NIC#1) to handle all traffic on the following subnets: 10.10.0.0/255.255.0.0 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0 And I want the second virtual network adapter (NIC#2) to handle everything else (ie: internet access). May I please have some assistance in setting this up on my Slackware VM? Additionally, I have searched for similar questions on SuperUser and Stackoverflow, but they all seem to pertain to my situation (ie: they all refer to OSX, or Ubuntu via the use of some UI-based tool). I'm trying to do this on Slack specifically via the command-line. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • dhcp3-server (dhcpd) is tampering with host NIC

    - by user61000
    Hi all, I have a debian box that is serving as a router (using iptables NAT). When first turned on, everything works fine for a few minutes. Then the dhcp server assigns an IP (other than 192.168.0.1) to its' host NIC, eth0. This is NOT what I want. I just want dhcp3-server to listen on eth0, not assign it an IP, and changes the kernel routing table. This of course ruins the NAT capablities of the box. How can I tell the dhcp3-server NOT to do this? Thanks Before dhcp3-server tampers with eth0, the IP is 192.168.0.1, and the routing table looks like this: ~# netstat -r Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Iface 192.168.0.0 * eth0 173.33.220.0 * eth1 default 173.33.220.1 eth1 After dhcp3-server tampers with eth0, the IP is 192.168.0.3, and the routing table looks like this: ~# netstat -r Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Iface 192.168.0.0 * eth0 173.33.220.0 * eth1 default 192.168.0.1 eth0 default 173.33.220.1 eth1 SETUP Outbound NIC is eth1 Internal NIC is eth0 /etc/network/interfaces ... iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 /etc/default/dhcp3-server INTERFACES="eth0"

    Read the article

  • Can I use iptables on my Varnish server to forward HTTPS traffic to a specific server?

    - by Dylan Beattie
    We use Varnish as our front-end web cache and load balancer, so we have a Linux server in our development environment, running Varnish with some basic caching and load-balancing rules across a pair of Windows 2008 IIS web servers. We have a wildcard DNS rule that points *.development at this Varnish box, so we can browse http://www.mysite.com.development, http://www.othersite.com.development, etc. The problem is that since Varnish can't handle HTTPS traffic, we can't access https://www.mysite.com.development/ For dev/testing, we don't need any acceleration or load-balancing - all I need is to tell this box to act as a dumb proxy and forward any incoming requests on port 443 to a specific IIS server. I suspect iptables may offer a solution but it's been a long while since I wrote an iptables rule. Some initial hacking has got me as far as iptables -F iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --sport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 443 -j DNAT --to 10.0.0.241:443 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp -d 10.0.0.241 --dport 443 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A INPUT -j LOG --log-level 4 --log-prefix 'PreRouting ' iptables -A OUTPUT -j LOG --log-level 4 --log-prefix 'PostRouting ' iptables-save > /etc/iptables.rules (where 10.0.0.241 is the IIS box hosting the HTTPS website), but this doesn't appear to be working. To clarify - I realize there's security implications about HTTPS proxying/caching - all I'm looking for is completely transparent IP traffic forwarding. I don't need to decrypt, cache or inspect any of the packets; I just want anything on port 443 to flow through the Linux box to the IIS box behind it as though the Linux box wasn't even there. Any help gratefully received... EDIT: Included full iptables config script.

    Read the article

  • IP to IP forwarding with iptables [centos]

    - by FunkyChicken
    I have 2 servers. Server 1 with ip 1.1.1.1 and server 2 with ip 2.2.2.2 My domain example.com points to 1.1.1.1 at the moment, but very soon I'm going to switch to ip 2.2.2.2. I have already setup a low TTL for domain example.com, but some people will still hit the old ip a after I change the ip address of the domain. Now both machines run centos 5.8 with iptables and nginx as a webserver. I want to forward all traffic that still hits server 1.1.1.1 to 2.2.2.2 so there won't be any downtime. Now I found this tutorial: http://www.debuntu.org/how-to-redirecting-network-traffic-a-new-ip-using-iptables but I cannot seem to get it working. I have enabled ip forwarding: echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward After that I ran these 2 commands: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -s 1.1.1.1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to-destination 2.2.2.2:80 /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE But when I load http://1.1.1.1 in my browser, I still get the pages hosted on 1.1.1.1 and not the content from 2.2.2.2. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to set a static route for an external IP address

    - by HorusKol
    Further to my earlier question about bridging different subnets - I now need to route requests for one particular IP address differently to all other traffic. I have the following routing in my iptables on our router: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.1.1.0/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.2.2.0/25) 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 private 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 This configuration means that users will be forwarded through a modem/router with a public address - this is all well and good for most purposes, and in the main it doesn't matter that all computers are hidden behind the one public IP. However, some users need to be able to access a proxy at 192.111.222.111:8080 - and the proxy needs to identify this traffic as coming through a gateway at 129.2.2.126 - it won't respond otherwise. I tried adding a static route on our local gateway with: route add -host 192.111.222.111 gw 129.2.2.126 dev eth2 I can successfully ping 192.111.222.111 from the router. When I trace the route, it lists the 129.2.2.126 gateway, but I just get * on each of the following hops (I think this makes sense since this is just a web-proxy and requires authentication). When I try to ping this address from a host on the 129.2.2.0/25 network it fails. Should I do this in the iptables chain instead? How would I configure this routing?

    Read the article

  • Fortigate restrict traffic through one external IP

    - by Tom O'Connor
    I've got a fortigate 400A at a client's site. They've got a /26 from British Telecom, and we're using 4 of those IPs as a NAT Pool. Is there a way to say that traffic from 172.18.4.40-45 can only ever come out of (and hence go back into) x.x.x.140 as the external IP? We're having some problems with SIP which looks like it's coming out of one, and trying to go back into another. I tried enabling asymmetric routing, didn't work. I tried setting a VIP, but even when I did that, it didn't appear to do anything. Any ideas? I can probably post some firewall snippets if need be.. Tell me what you want to see. SIP ALG config system settings set sip-helper disable set sip-nat-trace disable set sip-tcp-port 5061 set sip-udp-port 5061 set multicast-forward enable end Interesting Sidenote VoIP phones, with no special configuration can register fine to proxy.sipgate.co.uk, which has an IP address of 217.10.79.16. Which is cool. Two phones are using a different provider, whose proxy IP address is 178.255.x.x. These phones can register for outbound, but inbound INVITEs never make it to the phone. Is it possible that the Fortigate is having trouble with 178.255.x.x as it's got a 255 in it? Or am I just imagining things?

    Read the article

  • IPTables forward from only one ip on my server

    - by user1307079
    I was able to get my server to forward connections on a certain port to a different IP, but when I add -d to specify an IP to froward from, It does not work. This is what I am trying, iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -d 173.208.230.107 -p tcp --dport 80 iptables -t nat -nvL-j DNAT --to-destination 38.105.20.226:80. It works fine without the -d. Here is my ifconfig dump: em1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.106 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 inet6 addr: fe80::2a0:d1ff:feed:d054/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:100058 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:18941701 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:12779711 (12.1 MiB) TX bytes:825498499 (787.2 MiB) Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 em1:9 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.107 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 em1:10 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.108 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 em1:11 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.109 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 em1:12 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:D1:ED:D0:54 inet addr:173.208.230.110 Bcast:173.208.230.111 Mask:255.255.255.248 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 Memory:fbde0000-fbe00000 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:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)

    Read the article

  • How do I enable Ubuntu Gnome system tools

    - by RussellW
    I am running Ubuntu 10 with Gnome 2.30.2. This is a VMWare workstation image provided by another company that I do not have support in this regard. I am trying to access the graphical tools for configuring the network, users, and services but the System-Administration menu does not have these options listed. The main issue I am trying to solve is to correct the problems with the gnome menu options and network settings I have the gnome-system-tools package installed, and I am unable to run command-line versions of the tools, such as nm-applet (I get no GUI if I run that command, the process is running in the background). I realize that I can perform many tasks command-line, but I would like to use the GUI for administrative functions as I am not overly proficient for all command for restarting services and setting a static IP with a specific gateway. Further, I can run gnome-nettool, but I cannot change the IP, I can only see my network card. nm-connection-editor does not show any network cards that I can configure to change the IP. Currently, I am getting a DHCP through my NAT in VMWare, I want to set it to a specific IP address though. Preferences Menu (note some missing options) ![Preferences Menu][1] Admin Menu (note some missing options) ![Admin Menu][2] Network Tools (I can view but not change IP address) ![Network Tools][3] Network Settings (Unable to change IP address) ![Network Settings][4] Network Connections (no connections listed, not even my existing ethernet NAT connection through VMWare) ![Network Connections][5] See images here that I have referenced: 1- http://i.imgur.com/kl8pP.png 2- http://i.imgur.com/K3Cjz.png 3- Iq7Xb.png 4- 7wheV.png 5- J2ad8.png

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN - Cannot browse ipv4 websites

    - by user1494428
    I have set up an openVPN tunnel on my VPS (OpenVZ - Ubuntu 12.04). The problem is I can only browse websites which support ipv6 like google. http://whatismyv6.com/ reports me that I've an ipv6 adress, so I guess this is the problem. Server configuration: dev tun server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt ca /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/ca.crt cert /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/server.crt key /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/server.key dh /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/dh1024.pem push "route 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0" push "dhcp-option DNS 8.8.8.8" push "dhcp-option DNS 8.8.4.4" push "redirect-gateway def1" comp-lzo persist-tun persist-key status openvpn-status.log log /var/log/openvpn.log verb 3 Client configuration: client remote xx.xx.xx.xx 1194 dev tun comp-lzo ca ca.crt cert client1.crt key client1.key redirect-gateway def1 verb 3 I have configured NAT with this command: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j SNAT --to xx.xx.xx.xx Can someone explain me how I can make it works (forcing ipv4?) I had the same problem with another vps and I also tried on another client (All Windows 7).

    Read the article

  • How to configure iptables to use apt-get in a server?

    - by segaco
    I'm starting using iptables (newbie) to protect a linux server (specifically Debian 5.0). Before I configure the iptables settings, I can use apt-get without a problem. But after I configure the iptables, the apt-get stop working. For example I use this script in iptables: #!/bin/sh IPT=/sbin/iptables ## FLUSH $IPT -F $IPT -X $IPT -t nat -F $IPT -t nat -X $IPT -t mangle -F $IPT -t mangle -X $IPT -P INPUT DROP $IPT -P OUTPUT DROP $IPT -P FORWARD DROP $IPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT $IPT -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT $IPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT $IPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp --sport 22 -j ACCEPT $IPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT $IPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp --sport 80 -j ACCEPT $IPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT $IPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp --sport 443 -j ACCEPT # Allow FTP connections @ port 21 $IPT -A INPUT -p tcp --sport 21 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT $IPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 21 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Allow Active FTP Connections $IPT -A INPUT -p tcp --sport 20 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT $IPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 20 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT # Allow Passive FTP Connections $IPT -A INPUT -p tcp --sport 1024: --dport 1024: -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT $IPT -A OUTPUT -p tcp --sport 1024: --dport 1024: -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT #DNS $IPT -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 --sport 1024:65535 -j ACCEPT $IPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 1:1024 $IPT -A INPUT -p udp --dport 1:1024 $IPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 3306 -j DROP $IPT -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 10000 -j DROP $IPT -A INPUT -p udp --dport 10000 -j DROP then when I run apt-get I obtain: core:~# apt-get update 0% [Connecting to ftp.us.debian.org] [Connecting to security.debian.org] [Conne and it stalls. What rules I need to configure to make it works. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Cannot browse ipv4 websites (OpenVPN )

    - by user1494428
    I have set up an openVPN tunnel on my VPS (OpenVZ - Ubuntu 12.04). The problem is when I'm connected to the vpn, I can only browse websites which support ipv6 like google. Ipv4 sites aren't loading (no error, just waiting indefinitely). http://whatismyv6.com/ reports me that I've an ipv6 address, so I guess this is the problem. Server configuration: dev tun server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt ca /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/ca.crt cert /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/server.crt key /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/server.key dh /etc/openvpn/easy-rsa/keys/dh1024.pem push "route 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0" push "dhcp-option DNS 8.8.8.8" push "dhcp-option DNS 8.8.4.4" push "redirect-gateway def1" comp-lzo persist-tun persist-key status openvpn-status.log log /var/log/openvpn.log verb 3 Client configuration: client remote xx.xx.xx.xx 1194 dev tun comp-lzo ca ca.crt cert client1.crt key client1.key redirect-gateway def1 verb 3 I have configured NAT with this command: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -j SNAT --to xx.xx.xx.xx Can someone explain me how I can make it works (forcing ipv4?) I had the same problem with another vps and I also tried on another client (All Windows 7).

    Read the article

  • ASA 5505 VPN setup. VPN works but still unable to reach devices in the inside network.

    - by chickenloop
    I've setup a Remote Access VPN on my Cisco ASA 5505. I'm able to connect to my ASA via my phone or the Cisco client, but I'm unable to reach devices in my inside LAN when connected via VPN. The setup is the following: Inside Network : 10.0.0.0/24 VPN_POOL: 172.16.0.0/24 Outside Network: 192.168.1.0/24 ASA is not the perimeter router, there is another device on the 192.168.1.0/24 network which is connected to my cable provider. Obviously UDP port 500 and 4500 are forwarded to the ASA's outside interface. Everything works perfectly, besides the VPN stuff. Config: interface Vlan1 nameif inside security-level 100 ip address 10.0.0.254 255.255.255.0 interface Vlan2 description Outside Interface nameif outside security-level 0 address 192.168.1.254 255.255.255.0 object network VPNPOOL subnet 172.16.0.0 255.255.255.0 object network INSIDE_LAN subnet 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 Then the exempt NAT rule. nat (inside,outside) source static INSIDE_LAN INSIDE_LAN destination static VPNPOOL VPNPOOL I don't think that the problem is with the VPN config, as I can successfully establish the VPN connection, but just in case I post it here: group-policy ZSOCA_ASA internal group-policy ZSOCA_ASA attributes vpn-tunnel-protocol ikev1 split-tunnel-policy tunnelspecified split-tunnel-network-list value Split-Tunnel default-domain value default.domain.invalid tunnel-group ZSOCA_ASA type remote-access tunnel-group ZSOCA_ASA general-attributes address-pool VPNPOOL default-group-policy ZSOCA_ASA tunnel-group ZSOCA_ASA ipsec-attributes ikev1 pre-shared-key ***** Any ideas are welcome. Regards.

    Read the article

  • iptables, forward traffic for ip not active on the host itself

    - by gucki
    I have kvm guest which's netword card is conntected to the host using a tap device. The tap device is part of a bridge on the host together with eth0 so it can access the public network. So far everything works, the guest can access the public network and it can be accessed from the public network. Now the kvm process on the host provides a vnc server for the guest which listens on 127.0.0.1:5901 on the host. Is there any way to make this vnc server accessible by the ip address which the guest is using (ex. 192.168.0.249), without interrupting the guest from using the same ip (port 5901 is not used by the guest)? It should also work when the guest is not using any ip address at all. So basically I just want to fake IP xx is on the host and only answer/ forward traffic to port 5901 to the host itself. I tried using this NAT rule on the host, but it doesn't work. Ip forwarding is enabled at the host. iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dst 192.168.0.249 --dport 5901 -j DNAT --to-destination 127.0.0.1:5901 I assume this is because the IP 192.168.0.249 is not not bound to any interfaces and so no ARP requests for it get answered and so no packets for this IP arrive at the host. How can make it work? :)

    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 | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >