Search Results

Search found 2401 results on 97 pages for '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 28/97 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • How to route broadcast packets from machine with two network interfaces on same subnet

    - by Syam
    I run RHEL 5 and have two NICs on one machine connected to the same subnet: eth0 192.168.100.10 eth1 192.168.100.11 My application needs to receive and transmit UDP packets (both unicast & broadcast) via these interfaces. I've found the way to handle the ARP problem and I've added routes to handle the routing problem: ip rule add from 192.168.100.10 lookup 10 ip route add table 10 default src 192.168.100.10 dev eth0 (and similarly, table 11 for eth1) The problem is that only unicast packets gets routed properly. Broadcast packets always go out through eth0. I tried removing the rule for 192.168.100.0 & 192.168.100.255 from table 255 and adding them to my tables. But then I see ARP requests being given out for packets to 192.168.100.255 (obviously, no nodes respond and nobody gets any data). Due to several techno-political issues, I'm stuck with this configuration and can't change subnets or try something different. I've tried SO_BINDTODEVICE and it works, but I'd prefer a solution that doesn't need my application to run as root. Is there a way to get this working? Any help is highly appreciated.

    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

  • Route web traffic through a separate iterface

    - by tkane
    I'd like to route web traffic through the wlan0 interface and the rest through eth1. Can you please help me with the iptables commands to achieve this. Below is my configuration. Thank you :) Edit: This is about desktop configuration not a web server set up. Basically I want to use one of my connections to browse the web and the other one for everything else. ifconfig: eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1d:09:59:80:70 inet addr:192.168.2.164 Bcast:192.168.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::21d:9ff:fe59:8070/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:33 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:41 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:4771 (4.7 KB) TX bytes:7081 (7.0 KB) Interrupt:17 wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1c:bf:90:8a:6d inet addr:192.168.1.70 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::21c:bfff:fe90:8a6d/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:77 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:102 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:14256 (14.2 KB) TX bytes:14764 (14.7 KB) route: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 2 0 0 wlan0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 wlan0 default adsl 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1

    Read the article

  • Route web browsing through a separate iterface

    - by tkane
    I'd like to route web browsing through the wlan0 interface and the rest through eth1. Can you please help me with the iptables commands to achieve this. Below is my configuration. Thank you :) Edit: This is about desktop configuration not a web server set up. Basically I want to use one of my connections to browse the web and the other one for everything else. ifconfig: eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1d:09:59:80:70 inet addr:192.168.2.164 Bcast:192.168.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::21d:9ff:fe59:8070/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:33 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:41 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:4771 (4.7 KB) TX bytes:7081 (7.0 KB) Interrupt:17 wlan0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1c:bf:90:8a:6d inet addr:192.168.1.70 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::21c:bfff:fe90:8a6d/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:77 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:102 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:14256 (14.2 KB) TX bytes:14764 (14.7 KB) route: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 1 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 2 0 0 wlan0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 wlan0 default adsl 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1

    Read the article

  • Packet flooding while configuring a Debian L2TP/IPSec client?

    - by Joseph B.
    I'm currently at my wits end trying to configure an L2TP over IPSec VPN connection on my Debian using openswan and xl2tp box connecting to a server of unknown configuration. I've managed to successfully establish the connection and everything appears to be working well until I attempt to set the VPN connection as my default route, at which point I see a massive flood of packets simultaneously being transmitted (on the tune of ~1.5 GB in about 2min) until the server drops my connection. Prior to this network traffic on all my interfaces is minimal. According to iftop the majority of this traffic appears to be coming out of port 12, although I can't seem to figure out how to finger a specific process. If I instead just route traffic destined for 74.0.0.0/8 through it I'm able to access Google's servers through the VPN without issue. My xl2tp.conf file is: [lac vpn-nl] lns = example.vpn.com name = myusername pppoptfile = /etc/ppp/options.l2tpd.client My options.l2tpd.client file is: ipcp-accept-local ipcp-accept-remote refuse-eap require-mschap-v2 noccp noauth idle 1800 mtu 1410 mru 1410 usepeerdns lock name myusername password mypassword connect-delay 5000 And my routing table looks like: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.5.2.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 10.0.50.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.50.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.0.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo default * 0.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 ppp0 I'm seeing absolutely nothing in auth.log and syslog during this time and can't seem to find any other log files it might be writing to. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Preventing endless forwarding with two routers

    - by jarmund
    The network in quesiton looks basically like this: /----Inet1 / H1---[111.0/24]---GW1---[99.0/24] \----GW2-----Inet2 Device explaination H1: Host with IP 192.168.111.47 GW1: Linux box with IPs 192.168.111.1 and 192.168.99.2, as well as its own route to the internet. GW2: Generic wireless router with IP 192.168.99.1 and its own route to the internet. Inet1 & Inet2: Two possible routes to the internet In short: H has more than one possible route to the internet. H is supposed to only access the internet via GW2 when that link is up, so GW1 has some policy based routing special just for H1: ip rule add from 192.168.111.47 table 991 ip route add default via 192.168.99.1 table 991 While this works as long as GW2 has a direct link to the internet, the problem occurs when that link is down. What then happens is that GW2 forwards the packet back to GW1, which again forwards back to GW2, creating an endless loop of TCP-pingpong. The preferred result would be that the packet was just dropped. Is there something that can be done with iptables on GW1 to prevent this? Basically, an iptables-friendly version of "If packet comes from GW2, but originated from H1, drop it" Note1: It is preferable not to change anything on GW2. Note2: H1 needs to be able to talk to both GW1 and GW2, and vice versa, but only GW2 should lead to the internet TLDR; H1 should only be allowed internet access via GW2, but still needs to be able to talk to both GW1 and GW2. EDIT: The interfaces for GW1 are br0.105 for the '99' network, and br0.111 for the '111' network. The sollution may or may not be obnoxiously simple, but i have not been able to produce the proper iptables syntax myself, so help would be most appreciated. PS: This is a follow-up question from this question

    Read the article

  • Linksys SFE2000 Interface

    - by boburob
    I have a real problem with a layer 3 Linksys switch. First, every time it looses power, it seems to reset back to an older config. Not only this, but when this happens it looses interface settings on one subnet. This would not be a problem but I am completely unable to get to the interface on the working side. It allows me to log on and then just displays a blank screen. I have tried this on: IE6 IE7 IE8 IE9 Firefox 3.5 Opera Chrome All with the same results, except for Opera, which loads half the interface but nothing I can really use. I really need to get onto this switch so I can sort out routing and VLAN tagged ports, so if anyone has any ideas on either of these issues please let me know ASAP! Thanks! Also, due to its location and my lack of laptops with serial connections I cannot putty into it. UPDATE: Looked into this a bit more and it looks like this model of switch does not save the current config to boot unless you make sure to save it yourself, which explains the first issue, however the broken interface is more worrying!

    Read the article

  • Service redirection on same network

    - by Unode
    I have a network on which I run multiple servers each dedicated to a given service. Because most services run on distinct ports I'm currently looking for a way of unifying "all" services into a single "proxy" machine. The idea is to abstract which machine is being accessed but still allow direct connection if needed/requested. This "proxy" machine has only one network interface which is part of the same network as all the other service providing machines. I've looked into Routing and NAT but I've so far failed to figure out how to make it work. I tried to achieve this using shorewall but couldn't find clear examples. However I'm not entirely sure this is the best/simplest strategy. With that said, what would be the best way of achieving this result? Example case: Proxy IP - Listening port - Send requests to 192.168.0.50 80 192.168.0.1:80 " 22 192.168.0.2:2222 " 3306 192.168.0.3:3000 " 5432 192.168.0.4:5432 " 5222 192.168.0.5:5222 PS: I'm not concerned with the single-point-of-failure nature of the proxy. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Linux: Three default gateways?

    - by Daniel
    My server has three default gateways, how can that be? Shouldn't there be one default gw? I have three NICs, each attached to a separate subnet: server1:~# route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.5.0.0 * 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth3 localnet * 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.8.0 * 255.255.255.192 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 10.5.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth3 default 192.168.8.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 default 10.1.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Sometimes, I can't ping a host on the Internet, sometimes I can. What I want is traffic to the Internet (0.0.0.0) routed through a specific NIC. Can I just add a route for 0.0.0.0 and default gw to one of the eth0-3 interfaces? Will it break my connection? I'm using Debian, here is my /etc/network/interfaces: # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system # and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5). # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 10.1.0.4 netmask 255.255.255.224 network 10.1.0.0 broadcast 10.1.0.31 gateway 10.1.0.1 allow-hotplug eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.8.4 netmask 255.255.255.192 network 192.168.8.0 broadcast 192.168.8.63 gateway 192.168.8.1 allow-hotplug eth3 iface eth3 inet static address 10.5.0.4 netmask 255.255.255.224 network 10.5.0.0 broadcast 10.5.0.31 gateway 10.5.0.1

    Read the article

  • Trouble connecting a Ubuntu system to IPv6 tunnel over NAT

    - by John Millikin
    I'm trying to set up an IPv6 tunnel, via Hurricane Electric's tunnel-broker service. I've configured my system using their example commands: # $ipv4a = tunnel server's IPv4 IP # $ipv4b = user's IPv4 IP # $ipv6a = tunnel server's side of point-to-point /64 allocation # $ipv6b = user's side of point-to-point /64 allocation ip tunnel add he-ipv6 mode sit remote $ipv4a local $ipv4b ttl 255 ip link set he-ipv6 up ip addr add $ipv6b dev he-ipv6 ip route add ::/0 dev he-ipv6 And have configured my desktop to be in my NAT router's DMZ. The router is running Tomato firmware. But I can't ping any IPv6 services: $ ping6 -I he-ipv6 '2001:470:1f04:454::1' PING 2001:470:1f04:454::1(2001:470:1f04:454::1) from 2001:470:1f04:454::2 he-ipv6: 56 data bytes From 2001:470:1f04:454::2 icmp_seq=1 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable From 2001:470:1f04:454::2 icmp_seq=2 Destination unreachable: Address unreachable I can ping my local address: $ ping6 -I he-ipv6 '2001:470:1f04:454::2' PING 2001:470:1f04:454::2(2001:470:1f04:454::2) from 2001:470:1f04:454::2 he-ipv6: 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2001:470:1f04:454::2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.037 ms 64 bytes from 2001:470:1f04:454::2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.039 ms I don't know much about routing, but results I found online suggested the output of ip -6 route and ip addr could be useful: $ ip -6 route 2001:470:1f04:454::/64 via :: dev he-ipv6 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev virbr0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 via :: dev he-ipv6 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295 default dev he-ipv6 metric 1024 mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295 $ ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 100 link/ether 00:1c:c0:a1:98:b2 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.1.10/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global eth1 inet6 fe80::21c:c0ff:fea1:98b2/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 3: virbr0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN link/ether 36:4c:33:ab:0d:c6 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.122.1/24 brd 192.168.122.255 scope global virbr0 inet6 fe80::344c:33ff:feab:dc6/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 4: vboxnet0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN qlen 1000 link/ether 00:76:62:6e:65:74 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 5: pan0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 qdisc noop state DOWN link/ether 7e:29:5e:7c:ba:93 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 6: sit0: <NOARP> mtu 1480 qdisc noop state DOWN link/sit 0.0.0.0 brd 0.0.0.0 7: he-ipv6@NONE: <POINTOPOINT,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1480 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN link/sit 24.130.225.239 peer 72.52.104.74 inet6 2001:470:1f04:454::2/64 scope global valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever inet6 fe80::1882:e1ef/128 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

    Read the article

  • Real server, Multiple IP Addresses, HyperV Virtual Server, How to partition IPs across real and Virtual NICs

    - by Steven_W
    This is a slightly difficult problem to explain without same basic background information - I'll try and refine the question later as necessary Originally, I have a single hosted server (Win 2008R2) with the following range of 8 IP addresses. - Single NIC - IP: x.x.128.72 -> x.x.128.79 - Subnet: x.x.255.192 - GW: x.x.128.65 After installing Hyper-V and setting up a single virtual server on the same box, I then wanted to assign one of the IP addresses to the virtual server, leaving everything else running normally. -- Firstly, I tried using the "External" network, but (even after setting IPs on the "Virtual Adapter" similar to Here but struggled to get networking running at all. I needed to keep the server running (otherwise I would have spent more time pursuing this approach) Q1 ... Was this a sensible thing to do ? Should I have carried on down this route ? -- I then decided to try different approach - Set the HyperV network to "Internal" (visible to Management OS) - Physical NIC - IP: x.x.128.72 -> x.x.128.75 - Subnet: x.x.255.192 - GW: x.x.128.65 - Virtual NIC - IP: x.x.128.78 - Subnet: x.x.255.252 - GW: x.x.128.72 ... { The same as the IP of the physical NIC ) - Virtual OS-NIC - IP: x.x.128.77 - Subnet: x.x.255.252 - GW: x.x.128.78 ... { The same as the IP of the host virtual-NIC ) -- Surprisingly enough, this approach actually worked, and I was able to connect from all the following: - Internet to/from physical NIC (x.x.128.72) - physical NIC (x.x.128.72) to virtual-OS-NIC (x.x.128.77) e.g. testing via ping + FTP - Internet to/from virtual-OS-NIC (x.x.128.72) -- The problem I have is that this approach seems to only last for a short while (a few hours). After this time, it seems that I lose the ability to connect from Virtual-OS-NIC to/from the internet (but I can still connect from the host-OS to the virtual-OS and from the host-OS to the internet) I have re-tested this a couple of times with the same results ... I leave the server on for a few hours (e.g. overnight), and when I come back in the morning, the Virtual-OS loses the ability to route to the internet -- I'm not quite sure what to look at next (or whether I'm going about this completely the wrong way ) One "possible relevant item" is that the host-OS is also running RRAS (Routing and Remote Access), but this is only to run a simple VPN -- Q2 - Wheat should I be looking at next ? (Any good references / recommendations of what to try) Would appreciate any thoughts or comments (even if you tell me I'm going about this the wrong way)

    Read the article

  • Windows 8 ignores more specific route

    - by Lander
    OS: Windows 8 I have a cabled NIC (connected to router with ip 192.168.1.0) and a WIFI NIC (connected to a router with ip 192.168.1.1) . I want all traffic to go through the cabled NIC, except the 192.168.1.0/8 range should use the wifi-nic. This was working fine in Windows 7, without any manual configuration. In Windows 8 however, it's not. My routing table: =========================================================================== Interface List 14...f2 7b cb 13 e7 f0 ......Microsoft Wi-Fi Direct Virtual Adapter 13...b8 ac 6f 54 d2 5c ......Realtek PCIe FE Family Controller 12...f0 7b cb 13 e7 f0 ......Dell Wireless 1397 WLAN Mini-Card 1...........................Software Loopback Interface 1 15...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Microsoft ISATAP Adapter 16...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface =========================================================================== IPv4 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.198 30 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.233 20 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.0.233 276 192.168.0.233 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.233 276 192.168.0.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.233 276 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.198 31 192.168.1.198 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.198 286 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.0.233 276 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.1.198 286 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.233 276 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.198 286 =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: None I added the rule for 192.168.1.0. I would think Windows should use this rule for the IP 192.168.1.1 because it's more specific than the default-route. However it's not: C:\Windows\system32>tracert 192.168.1.1 Tracing route to 192.168.1.1 over a maximum of 30 hops 1 58 ms 4 ms 4 ms 192.168.0.1 2 68 ms 12 ms 11 ms ^C So... What do I do wrong? And how can I make Windows use the wireless NIC for 192.168.1.0/8

    Read the article

  • Why is Linux choosing the wrong source ip address

    - by Scheintod
    and what to do to let it choose the right one? This all happens inside an OpenVZ container: The Host is Debian/Wheezy with Redhat/OpenVZ Kernel: root@mycl2:~# uname -a Linux mycl2 2.6.32-openvz-042stab081.5-amd64 #1 SMP Mon Sep 30 16:40:27 MSK 2013 x86_64 GNU/Linux The container has two (virtual) network interfaces. One in public and one in private address-space: root@mycl2:~# ifconfig 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) venet0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:127.0.0.2 P-t-P:127.0.0.2 Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:475 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:775 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:32059 (31.3 KiB) TX bytes:56309 (54.9 KiB) venet0:0 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:80.123.123.29 P-t-P:80.123.123.29 Bcast:80.123.123.29 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 venet0:1 Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet addr:10.0.1.29 P-t-P:10.0.1.29 Bcast:10.0.1.29 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1500 Metric:1 The route to the private network is set manually: root@mycl2:~# route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 venet0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 venet0 Tring to ping others on the private network leads to the wrong source address been choosen: root@mycl2:~# ip route get 10.0.1.26 10.0.1.26 dev venet0 src 80.123.123.29 cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 Why is this and what can I do about it? EDIT: If I create the route with (thanks to Joshua) ip route add 10.0.0.0/8 dev venet0 src 10.0.1.29 it is working. But according to man ip-route the src parameter should only set the source-ip if this route is chosen. But if this route is chosen then the source-ip would be that anyway.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET PageMethods and The HTTP verb POST used to access path is not allowed

    - by LookitsPuck
    So, I'm using URL routing with WebForms. I run locally through the Visual Studio web server, and everything is hunky-dory. I deploy locally to IIS (XP, so it's IIS5), and therefore I need to make sure that I have my app wildcard mapped so the URL routing is handled properly. However, doing this makes all my PageMethods fail with this message: The HTTP verb POST used to access path is not allowed Something like /default.aspx/SendMessage does not work. I've seen solutions that exclude .svx and .asmx files, however, since this is a page method, this is a .aspx file. I know the solution is to move these files outside of .aspx, however, I have quite a few functions throughout the site in these various files. I guess I could create a single web service, and have all the functions there, however, I'm curious if there's a quick and easy way to fix this? Thanks all, -Steve

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC Areas: How to hide "Area" name in URL?

    - by Mark Redman
    When running the MVC 2 Areas example that has a Blog Area and Blog Controller the URL looks like this: http://localhost:50526/Blog/Blog/ShowRecent in the format: RootUrl / AreaName / ControllerName / ActionName Having just discovered MVC Areas, it seem like a great way to organise code, ie create an Area for each section, which in my case each section has its own controller. This means that each AreaName = ControllerName. The effect of this is the double AreaName/ControllerName path in the Url eg /Blog/Blog/ above Not having a complete clear understanding of routing, how could I setup routing to not show the AreaName?

    Read the article

  • Using URL Routing for Web Forms with .ashx files

    - by RandomBen
    I am developing a .NET 3.5 Web Forms based website that uses URL Routing. So far I have created a few routes and I have had no issue. I now have a .ashx file that is going to handle sending .pdf files from a table in SQL Server to the website when someone clicks on a link. Normally when I create a Handler it would look like this: return BuildManager.CreateInstanceFromVirtualPath("~/ViewItem.aspx", typeof(Page)) as Page; For my .ashx file I tried: return BuildManager.CreateInstanceFromVirtualPath("~/FileServer.ashx", typeof(Page)) as Page; This doesn't work though because fileserver.ashx is not a page so casting it as typeof(Page)) as Page is going to fail. What do I cast the VirtualPath as instead of Page or is there some other way I should be doing this.

    Read the article

  • ASP .NET MVC partial views and routing

    - by Johnny
    Hi, I have an MVC view that contains a number of partial views. These partial views are populated using partial requests so the controller for the view itself doesn't pass any data to them. Is it possible to reload the data in one of those partial views if an action was triggered in another? For example, one partial view has a jqGrid and I want to refresh the data in another partial view when a user selects a new row in this grid. Is there a code example for this scenario (in C#) that I can look at to see what am I doing wrong? I am using ajax calls to trigger a new request but non of the partial views are refreshed so I am not sure if the issue is with the routing, the controller, or if this even possible at all! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Asp.Net MVC style routing in Django

    - by Andrew Hanson
    I've been programming in Asp.Net MVC for quite some time now and to expand a little bit beyond the .Net world I've recently began learning Python and Django. I am enjoying Django but one thing I am missing from Asp.Net MVC is the automatic routing from my urls to my controller actions. In Asp.Net MVC I can build much of my application using this single default route: routes.MapRoute( "Default", // Route name "{controller}/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = "" } // Parameter defaults ); In Django I've found myself adding an entry to urls.py for each view that I want to expose which leads to a lot more url patterns than I've become used to in Asp.Net MVC. Is there a way to create a single url pattern in Django that will handle "[Application]/view/[params]" in a way similar to Asp.Net MVC? Perhaps at the main web site level?

    Read the article

  • Mod-Rewrite rules are breaking 404 routing

    - by Sparky672
    I am using the following mod-rewrite in my .htaccess file: RewriteRule ^$ pages/ RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule ^(.*)$ pages/$1 [L] The intention is to hide the subdirectory called /pages/ from displaying in the URL. So this: http://mysite.com/pages/home.html Will look like this: http://mysite.com/home.html It works but there are some unintended consequences. As a direct result of the .htaccess code I posted above, my 404 routing is no longer working at all. Anything that should trigger a 404 error page is instead generating a 500 Server Error. How to fix?

    Read the article

  • How to redirect every uri calls to one controller, except some static ones?

    - by Oden
    Hey, Im using codeigniter and want to make my portal a bit more seo friendly. I have a controller (articles) witch handles every article, on my portal. The URL looks like this: example.com/articles/category-sub-category/article-name I'm using mod rewrite module to hide my index.php, and codeigniter routing to hide the controller action that handles every call. I want to hide articles too, but if i hide it, every call goes to the articles controller, and thats not what i want, because i want my url look like this: example.com/category-sub-category/article-name Ive tried it with regexp routing rules in the routes.php but i found no way to make it right.

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net MVC Outbound Route Matching Problem When Using ActionLink

    - by Godders
    Hi there, Hoping for some help after reading into MVC routing and not coming up with the answer myself. I have the following routes registered: public static void RegisterRoutes(RouteCollection routes) { routes.IgnoreRoute("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}"); routes.MapRoute( null, "YourFeedback/Article/{resourceId}", new { controller = "YourFeedback", action = "Index", contentTypeId = new Guid(ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["ArticleLibraryId"]) }); routes.MapRoute( "Default", // Route name "{controller}/{action}/{id}", // URL with parameters new { controller = "Home", action = "Index", id = "" } // Parameter defaults ); } I have the following ActionLink in an aspx view: <%=Html.ActionLink("Your Feedback", "Article", "YourFeedback", new { resourceId = Model.ContentId.ResourceId }, new { @class = "yourFeedback" })%> My understanding of MVC routing is that this would render a anchor link with href of "/YourFeedback/Article/101" where 101 comes from Model.ContentId.ResourceId. Yet the anchor link href is rendered as "YourFeedback/Article/resourceId=101". Any ideas where I'm going wrong? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • host MVC app inside a website

    - by Nishant
    I have a website (not a web application- in visual studio you get two options-create a website/project) running on IIS 6.0. Now I want to develop few features in MVC architecture. So I created one MVC application in visual studio and everything is working fine on localhost as a separate application. Now I want to host this MVC app also inside the website I have already deployed. I created a virtual directory(MVCDir) inside the default website in IIS 6.0. The global.asax file which was in root folder I added the routing function- Shared Sub RegisterRoutes(ByVal routes As RouteCollection) routes.Ignore("{resource}.axd/{*pathInfo}") routes.Ignore("{resource}.aspx/{*pathInfo}") routes.MapPageRoute("Default4", "{controller}/{action}/{id}", "~/MVCDir", False, New RouteValueDictionary(New With {.controller = "Home", .action = "Index", .id = Mvc.UrlParameter.Optional})) End Sub * NOTE- If I write routes.ignoreRoute instead of routes,ignore it says- IgnoreRoute is not a member of System.Web.RoutingCollection* I called this routing function inside application_start function now when I run domain.com/home/index How to solve this problem? it says resource not found

    Read the article

  • Getting MVC default route to go to ~/default.asp

    - by Dave Hanna
    I am adding some MVC features to an existing site (FWIW, most of which is in classic ASP). As a result, I need to keep the default routing going to ~/default.asp (at a minimum - preferably the default document specified in IIS). Is there a way to write the route in RegisterRoutes so that a request for the root of the site (e.g., http://localhost, http://localhost/, or http://localhost/default.asp) will directly get the default page, and not attempt to find a controller/action? Or do I need to write my own HttpModule that will filter it and keep it from getting to the MvcHandler (as in this blog)? BTW, I have googled this, but most of the hits are for MVC version 1 or older, and default routing appears to have changed in version 2 (i.e, there is no more default.aspx that redirects to ~/Home), so they are not directly applicable. Even so, the ones that were there didn't address this problem.

    Read the article

  • ActiveMQ & Camel - How to create dependency in routing paths

    - by CodeMedic
    I have a message routing to implement, which has routes that vary according to the message content. Some strands of the route are dependent on other. If for example I have Data_A which has Task_A and Task_B to be performed on it. Whereas Data_B has only Task_B to be performed on it. Here each Task has a queue served by consumers. If Task_A should be performed only after Task_B if Task_B is requested on the data, how do I set-up such dependencies?

    Read the article

  • How to deal with routing when developing a custom CMS in Codeigniter

    - by Ashley Ward
    Hi All - I’m a recent user of Codeigniter and am developing a simple backend CMS to manage pages. Based on a URL (in this example I have hidden “index.php”) : mysite.com/pagename I would like the system to detect if there is a value of “pagename” in my database, if there is, I need the system to re-route to a custom controller (eg: Pagemaker) and if there is no record called pagename, just do it’s normal thing (i.e. find a controller called pagename) Currently I have: $route['(:any)'] = "pagemaker/create/$1"; whereby all requests are forwarded to my custom function. However I want to change this structure so that if the page does NOT exist in the db, the traditional codeigniter request process is followed. Can anyone offer any advice about how to complete this? Or any advice about routing custom CMS’s in codeigniter in general?

    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 | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >