Search Results

Search found 2863 results on 115 pages for 'sms gateway'.

Page 39/115 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • Getting Server 2008 R2 to ignore all traffic from Internet-facing NIC, leaving it to a VM

    - by Wolvenmoon
    I got in to Server 2008 R2 via Dreamspark and would like to start learning on it. I don't have much option but to put it on a system sitting between the Internet and my home LAN due to electricity bills and the fact that 3 computers in an 11x11 space in 102 degree weather is pretty stygian. Currently I use a ClearOS gateway to manage everything, what I'd like to do is take my server 2008 R2 box, which has two NICs, and drop it at the head of my network. I'd want Server 2008 R2 to ignore all traffic on the external facing NIC and pass it to a virtual ClearOS gateway, and to put all its Internet traffic through its other NIC - which will face the rest of my network and be the default gateway for it. The theory is to keep the potentially vulnerable Server 2008 R2 install as tucked behind a Linux box as possible, without sacrificing too much performance. This is a home network that occasionally hosts dedicated game servers and voice chat servers, so most malicious activity is in the form of drive by non-targeted attacks, however, I don't trust Windows Server because I don't know the OS well enough, yet. So, three questions: How do I do this, am I going to be reasonably more secure doing this than if I just let the Server 2008 R2 rig handle all the network traffic and DHCP (not an option), and should I virtualize the Server 2008 R2 rig instead and if so in what? (Core 2 Duo e6600 w/ 5 gigs usable RAM)

    Read the article

  • How to redirect all Internet traffic to OpenVPN Server

    - by JuliaS
    I have seen working solutions around the issue of forcing Internet traffic to go through the OpenVPN server but they are all done in Linux, all I want to know is how to add an entry to the route table in windows to make this happen. connectivity between the client and server is fine, my Windows 7 client can establish a connection to the Windows 2008 Server, but when established Internet traffic is still going from the local Windows 7 machine. Here are the details: Server: Windows 2008 Server with one NIC OpenVPN IP Address: 192.168.0.1 Local NIC IP Address (connects the server to the Internet): 10.242.69.107 Client: Windows 7 with one NIC OpenVPN IP Address: 192.168.0.2 ISP allocated IP Address: 10.0.8.2 (gateway 10.0.8.1) Server OpenVPN Config: dev tun ifconfig 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.2 secret static.key push "redirect-gateway def1" Client OpenVPN Config: remote xxx.xxx.com dev tun ifconfig 192.168.0.2 192.168.0.1 secret static.key I'm not an expert with adding routes...etc. I would be grateful if someone could let me know how to add this entry in my server/client route table. EDIT: Output from the client's netstat -rnv IPv4 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.0.8.1 10.0.8.2 20 10.0.8.0 255.255.255.252 On-link 10.0.8.2 276 10.0.8.2 255.255.255.255 On-link 10.0.8.2 276 10.0.8.3 255.255.255.255 On-link 10.0.8.2 276 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 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 127.0.0.1 306 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.252 On-link 192.168.0.2 286 192.168.0.2 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.2 286 192.168.0.3 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.2 286 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 10.0.8.2 276 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.0.2 286 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 10.0.8.2 276 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.0.2 286 ===========================================================================

    Read the article

  • Add Route for machine in same DC

    - by gary
    My routing table on my machine with IP of 46.84.121.243 currently looks like this - Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 46.84.121.225 46.84.121.243 21 46.84.121.224 255.255.255.224 On-link 46.84.121.243 276 46.84.121.239 255.255.255.255 On-link 46.84.121.243 21 46.84.121.243 255.255.255.255 On-link 46.84.121.243 276 46.84.121.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 46.84.121.243 276 I'm trying to access 46.84.121.239, which is my other machine in the same DC but my guess is the first rule is blocking it as it is trying to go via the gateway and failing - Tracing route to [46.84.121.239] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 OWNEROR-9O83HBL [46.84.121.243] reports: Destination host unreachable. Trace complete. I'm doing all this via RDP and already tried changing the metric on the persistent rule with devastating consequences! Here's the persistent rule (working) - Persistent Routes: Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 46.84.121.225 1 Any help to be able to access the 46.84.121.243 would be very helpful thanks very much.

    Read the article

  • connect server to server on secondary NIC

    - by microchasm
    Hi, I have a CentOS box with multiple NIC's running Apache. I also have another box running RHEL that will be the MySQL server. I'm trying to use the secondary NIC on the Apache box to connect directly to the MySQL server, but so far no luck. I want to isolate the MySQL box as much as possible which is why I'm going for a direct connection as opposed to running through a switch. I have a crossover cable running between them. IP configs: Apache box eth0 [to lan] ip addr: 192.168.200.100 netmask: 255.255.0.0 gateway: 192.168.111.1 eth1 [to mysql] ip addr: 192.168.200.101 netmask: 255.255.0.0 gateway: [blank] MySQL box eth0 [to apache] ip addr: 192.168.200.203 netmask: 255.255.0.0 gateway: 192.168.200.201 The rest of our network is on 192.168.111.0/24 subnet. Ping only returns Destination Host Unreachable. I've tried various variations of this setup (including straight through cable), and I can't seem to get them to talk to each other. Any help appreciated.

    Read the article

  • RRAS NAT not working on a certain computer

    - by legenden
    This is driving me crazy. I have a virtualized W2K8 server running RRAS. Every other computer or server on the network can access the internet through the NAT except one. On one server, it just won't work. I can ping the ip address of the NAT gateway just fine, and everything else works. (SMB, etc) DNS, which is hosted by the same server, also works just fine. I have even reinstalled the OS on the problem server and it still doesn't work. Recap of the steps I tried: There are 3 network cards in the server, I tried every one and different switch ports. Not a hardware problem. Reinstalled W2K8 R2 on server with the problem, didn't help. Tried the IP of the internet gateway directly - this did work (!). But I need NAT to work. All firewalls are disabled. Removed computer from domain, deleted computer membership in Active Directory Users and Computers and added it back. Disabled all other network adapters and set a static ip and specified the gateway ip manually. When I tracert a public IP, the first hop (or any other hop) comes up as: C:\>tracert www.google.com Tracing route to www.l.google.com [209.85.225.106] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 * * * Request timed out. 2 * * * Request timed out. From a different computer, on which NAT works, the first hop comes up as: tracert www.google.com Tracing route to www.l.google.com [209.85.225.105] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms * <1 ms xxxx [10.5.1.1] This is the most bizarre problem I ever came across, and I realize that it's a long shot asking it here given all the details, but I'm pulling my hair out. Maybe someone has an idea...

    Read the article

  • Mac WLAN 802.11b+g WPA1 connection issues

    - by Peto
    Hi, I have a Telewell TW-EA510v4 ADSL modem+WLAN router configured as follows: Mode: 802.11b+g Security Mode: WPA1 Pre-shared Key WPA Algorithms: TKIP Connections from only certain MAC addresses have been allowed and the MAC address of my Mac is in that list. The WLAN works just fine with iPhone and an old Acer laptop. It has worked for about two months or so with my MacBook Pro (year and a half or so old model). Ocassionally i've had minor problems with it, which have required either reboot of ADSL modem or reboot of my Mac. However now, for the last week or so I haven't been able to connect to it at all. This is what is what i get in the console when i try to connect: 5.5.2010 20.54.53 airportd[73731] Apple80211Associate() failed -3924 (Invalid PMK) 5.5.2010 20.54.53 Apple80211 framework[584] airportd MIG failed (Associate Event) = -3924 (Invalid PMK) (port = 104599) 5.5.2010 20.54.53 SystemUIServer[584] Error joining WLAN-M: Invalid password (-3924 Invalid master key) The pre-shared key I use is not incorrect. I'm 100% sure of that. The Error Log from the router only says this when I try to connect to it: May 05 21:09:54 home.gateway:i802_1x:none: <my mac address> associated May 05 21:10:00 home.gateway:i802_1x:none: <my mac address> disassociated May 05 21:10:01 home.gateway:i802_1x:none: <my mac address> disassociated Any ideas or tips to troubleshoot this further?

    Read the article

  • DD-WRT (WRT54G) and (THOMSON TG782) how to put them togather?

    - by FeRtoll
    Ok so let me explain, i bought WRT54G and successfully installed DD-WRT v24-sp1 (07/26/08) mini-special - build 9994. That's all ok no problems with it all normal functioning. And just to add (i don't need wireless, wireless is turned off always) What i want: ISP's router (TG782) from it's INTERNET port(out) cable "which was before in my pc" is connected to WRT54G's INTERNET port and then from WRT54G LAN port 1 to my pc. The problem: How do i connect and setup all? I have tried many times on many different ways but cant get it to work IF THE CABLE FROM TG782 IS CONNECTED TO WRT54G ON INTERNET PORT. If i connect the TG782 to Lan port 1 on WRT54G and my pc to lan port 2 then all works fine after i setup gateway and all. But i want to connect TG782 to Internet port of WRT54G because i need "Access Restrictions" and this only goes through WAN right? please correct me if i am wrong. What i have tried: This is how i have tried to setup all. The TG782 router ip is 192.168.1.1 And WRT54G ip is 192.168.1.30 so in WRT54G control panel i have setup like this: ----WAN Connection Type---- Connection Type: Automatic Configuration - DHCP STP: Disabled ----Router IP---- Local IP Address: 192.168.1.30 Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0 Gateway: 192.168.1.1 (the TG782) ----Network Address Server Settings (DHCP)---- DHCP Type: DHCP Server Start IP Address: 192.168.1.100 Maximum DHCP Users: 6 And this wont work i probably miss something more, if anyone can help i would be thankfull. Also i have to note that i have tried to set my network adapter on pc to use the gateway of WRT54G and ip 192.168.1.102 In short: i cant get it to work normal only as a switch! Thanks for any help! -------EDIT:------- Here is an image which maybe can help: http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/4227/allin1w.jpg

    Read the article

  • Sonicwall TZ210 - Set up public wifi on separate subnet & interface

    - by thomasjbarrett
    I want to set up a public wifi by connecting another router to the X6 interface, and put it on a separate subnet (192.168.10.0/24) & in the DMZ Zone to keep it away from the regular LAN. I believe I have the network settings correct: the router has acquired the IP and DNS information from the TZ210, and the TZ210 shows it as an active DHCP lease. X6 is in the DMZ. I now have a routing/NAT/firewall problem, since I can't get any traffic to travel from the subnet to the internet. I can't get to any external websites and can't ping the TZ210 from the subnet. X0 is the regular LAN, and X1 is the WAN. Looking for any tips or tutorials on this. Here's my current relevant rules: Routing Source: X6 Subnet Destination: Any Service: Any Gateway: Default Gateway Interface: X6 Source: Any Destination: X6 Subnet Service: Any Gateway: 0.0.0.0 Interface: X6 NAT Policies Source Original: Any Translated: WAN IP Destination Original: Any Translated: Original Inbound: X6 Outbound: X1 Source Original: Any Translated: U0 IP Destination Original: Any Translated: Original Inbound: X6 Outbound: U0 Firewall DMZ LAN : Deny All DMZ WAN : Allow All LAN DMZ : Allow All WAN DMZ : Allow All

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Measure Total Bandwidth for Billing

    - by TonyZ
    I am setting up a new network which customers will host their applications on. It needs to be able to scale out to a few hundred servers and each server will have several VMs on it. Right now in my test environment, after the telco router, we are using a Linux router/firewall which is then connected to a Layer 2 switch. Could be a layer 3 in the future. I need to track total bandwidth per VM for each machine, and I need to do it in a way that it is not part of the VM. Each VM will have a private class ip address which is Natted by the gateway, or we may eventually run more than firewall/reverse proxy off a layer 3 switch. So my thinking is that I can do it off of a promiscuous port on the switches, or at the gateway firewall. I would like to have an out of the box solution, preferably open source. Does anyone have suggestions on the easiest way to set this up, and the easiest tool to use. I have looked at the web sites for Nagios, Zenoss, Zabbix, ntops on the firewall, etc. It is hard to ascertain just from the web sites if they do exactly this or not. Obviously, performance is also somewhat key here. Anything running on the gateway should not drag it down doing traffic accounting. Thanks for any thoughts. Tony Zakula

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN with MacOS X Client and same subnets in local and remote net.

    - by Daniel
    I have a homenetwork 192.168.1.0/24 with gteway 192.168.1.1 and a remote network with the same parameters. Now I want to create a OpenVPN tunnel between those networks. I have no problems with Windows, because Windows routes everything to 192.168.1.0/24 except 192.168.1.1 throught the tunnel. On MacOS X however I see the folling line in the Details window: 2010-05-10 09:13:01 WARNING: potential route subnet conflict between local LAN [192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0] and remote VPN [192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0] When I list the routes I get the following: Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire default 192.168.1.1 UGSc 13 3 en1 127 localhost UCS 0 0 lo0 localhost localhost UH 12 3589 lo0 169.254 link#5 UCS 0 0 en1 192.168.1 link#5 UCS 1 0 en1 192.168.1.1 0:1e:e5:f4:ec:7f UHLW 13 17 en1 1103 192.168.1.101 localhost UHS 0 0 lo0 192.168.6 192.168.6.5 UGSc 0 0 tun0 192.168.6.5 192.168.6.6 UH 1 0 tun0 My Interfaces are en1 - My local Wifi network tun0 - The tunnel interface As can be seen from the routes above there is no entry for 192.168.1.0/24 that routes the traffic through the tunnel interface. When I manually route a single IP like 192.168.1.16 over the tunnel gateway 192.168.6.6, this works. Q: How do I set up my routes in MacOS X for the same behaviour as on windows, to route everything except 192.168.1.1 through the tunnel, but leave the default gateway to be my local 192.168.1.1 ?

    Read the article

  • Cisco Spam Blocker, Iron Port, Lotus Domino, Integration Help

    - by NickToyota
    Hi serverfault universe, I work for a medium sized (roughly 200 user) company. We are attempting to intagrate our new Cisco Spam Video Blocker (ironport) device into our network so that it acts as an incoming filter then passes it off to our Lotus domino mail server. And also vise versa. The way our network is setup currently has an mx record pointing to our Domino mail SMTP incoming server which is currently setup to be an inbound gateway and filter (using symantec domino mail software). We want to replace the inbound gateway with the ironport. Our company has also invested in a pool of external IP addresses which I believe has been currently assigned to our web, email, servers. What would the proper course of action be to successfully integrate the device be? Mx record change? Replace the domino gateway completely with the ironport? We attempted to set the ironport device to the external IP of what our mx record is pointing to without much success. Any help on proper setup would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Overriding some DNS entries in BIND for internal networks

    - by Remy Blank
    I have an internal network with a DNS server running BIND, connected to the internet through a single gateway. My domain "example.com" is managed by an external DNS provider. Some of the entries in that domain, say "host1.example.com" and "host2.example.com", as well as the top-level entry "example.com", point to the public IP address of the gateway. I would like hosts located on the internal network to resolve "host1.example.com", "host2.example.com" and "example.com" to internal IP addresses instead of that of the gateway. Other hosts like "otherhost.example.com" should still be resolved by the external DNS provider. I have succeeded in doing that for the host1 and host2 entries, by defining two single-entry zones in BIND for "host1.example.com" and "host2.example.com". However, if I add a zone for "example.com", all queries for that domain are resolved by my local DNS server, and e.g. querying "otherhost.example.com" results in an error. Is it possible to configure BIND to override only some entries of a domain, and to resolve the rest recursively?

    Read the article

  • When would a persistent route not be an active route?

    - by alnorth29
    I've added a persistent route to our Windows Server 2003 box using "route -p add". After a reboot the "route print" gave this: Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 10.91.131.1 10.91.131.9 20 10.88.0.0 255.255.255.252 10.88.0.1 10.88.0.1 30 10.88.0.1 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 30 10.91.131.0 255.255.255.0 10.91.131.9 10.91.131.9 20 10.91.131.9 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 20 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.88.0.1 10.88.0.1 30 10.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.91.131.9 10.91.131.9 20 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.88.0.1 10.88.0.1 30 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 10.91.131.9 10.91.131.9 20 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.88.0.1 10.88.0.1 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 10.91.131.9 10.91.131.9 1 Default Gateway: 10.91.131.1 =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: Network Address Netmask Gateway Address Metric 10.88.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.88.0.2 1 The route I added is listed as a persistent route, but not an active one. Why might this be the case? The route in question is for an OpenVPN connection, would that have anything to do with it?

    Read the article

  • pfSense router on a LAN with two gateways

    - by JohnCC
    I have a LAN with an ADSL modem/router on it. We have just gained an alternative high-speed internet connection at our location, and I want to connect the LAN to it, eventually dropping the ADSL. I've chosen to use a small PFSense box to connect the LAN to the new WAN connection. Two servers on the LAN run services accessible to the outside via NAT using the single ADSL WAN IP. We have DNS records which point to this IP. I want to do the same via the new connection, using the WAN IP there. That connection permits multiple IPs, so I have configured pfSense using virtual IP's, 1:1 NAT and appropriate firewall rules. When I change the servers' default gateway settings to the pfSense box, I can access the services via the new WAN IPs without a problem. However, I can no longer access them via the old WAN IP. If I set the servers' default gateway back to the ADSL router, then the opposite is true - I can access the services via the ADSL IP, but not via the new one. In the first case, I believe this is because an incoming SYN packet arrives at the ADSL WAN IP, and is NAT'd and sent to the internal IP of the server. The server responds with a SYN/ACK which it sends via its default gateway, the pfSense box. The pfSense box sees a SYN/ACK that it saw no SYN for and drops the packet. Is there any sensible way around this? I would like the services to be accessible via both IPs for a short period at least, since once I change the DNS it will take a while before everyone picks up the new address.

    Read the article

  • Creating Routes using the second NIC in the box

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

    Read the article

  • ipv6 with KVM on debian

    - by Eliasdx
    I have trouble setting up IPV6 on my Proxmox (KVM) server: My ISP sent me this information(xxx=placeholder): IPs: 2a01:XXX:XXX:301:: /64 Gateway: 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 /59 This is the interface setup on the host server: auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet static address 178.XX.XX.4 broadcast 178.XX.XX.63 netmask 255.255.255.192 pointopoint 178.XX.XX.1 gateway 178.XX.XX.1 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 iface vmbr1 inet6 static address 2a01:XXX:XXX:301::2 netmask 64 up ip -6 route add 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 down ip -6 route del 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 up ip -6 route add default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 down ip -6 route del default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 On the guest: auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 178.xx.xx.47 netmask 255.255.255.255 broadcast 178.xx.xx.63 gateway 178.xx.xx.1 pointopoint 178.xx.xx.1 iface eth0 inet6 static pre-up modprobe ipv6 address 2a01:XXX:XXX:301::2:2 netmask 64 up ip -6 route add 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev eth0 down ip -6 route del 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev eth0 up ip -6 route add default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev eth0 down ip -6 route del default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev eth0 Ipv4 works on both host and guest but Ipv6 only works "sometimes". It's up for minutes and then down again until I change something. However I can actually ping the host and the guest from both host and guest. host:~# ip -6 neigh 2a01:XXX:XXX:301::100:2 dev vmbr1 lladdr 00:50:56:00:00:e0 REACHABLE 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 lladdr 00:26:88:76:18:18 router STALE host:~# ip -6 route 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 metric 1024 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 2a01:XXX:XXX:301::/64 dev vmbr1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev vmbr0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev vmbr1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev tap101i1d0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 metric 1024 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 Does someone know why it isn't working? And is there a way to configure multiple v6 IPs from the same subnet so I can dedicate IPs to websites on a server with multiple virtualhosts?

    Read the article

  • RTNETLINK answers: File exists... maybe because assigned a new mac adress

    - by steven
    I got a "RTNETLINK answers: File exists Failed to bring up eth0:1" on "ifup eth0:1". I suspect it happens because i assigned a new mac adress in my VM's network adapter. Can you tell me how to fix the issue? My configuration looks like this: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface auto eth0 allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.1.80 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.1 dns-nameservers 192.168.1.1 # Alias being connected to 192.168.10.x Network auto eth0:1 allow-hotplug eth0:1 iface eth0:1 inet static address 192.168.10.83 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.10.10 dns-nameservers 192.168.10.1 Why do I get "RTNETLINK answer: File exists.." suddenly? I worked with this configuration before without problems. All i did in the past is to renew the adapters mac adress. At the moment I am connected to the 192.168.10.x Network and if I do /etc/init.d/networking stop /etc/init.d/networking start then i got "RTNETLINK [...] falied to bring up eth0:1" but the strage thing is that i am able to connect to 192.168.10.83 via ssh from my host machine. But I cannot reach the internet from the debian client. I hope it is clear what my problem is, now. update if i change my /etc/network/interfaces like this then "ifup eth0" fails, too with the same error! # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface auto eth0 allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.10.83 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.10.10 dns-nameservers 192.168.10.1 with verbose option enabled i got: Configuring interfache eth0=eth0 (inet) run-parts --verbose /etc/network/if-pre-up.d ip addr add 192.168.10.83/255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.10.255 dev eth0 label eth0 RTNETLINK answers: File exists Failed to bring up eth0. same if i type this manually: ip addr add 192.168.10.83/255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.10.255 dev eth0 label eth0

    Read the article

  • ipv6 with KVM on debian

    - by Eliasdx
    I have trouble setting up IPV6 on my Proxmox (KVM) server: My ISP sent me this information(xxx=placeholder): IPs: 2a01:XXX:XXX:301:: /64 Gateway: 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 /59 This is the interface setup on the host server: auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet static address 178.XX.XX.4 broadcast 178.XX.XX.63 netmask 255.255.255.192 pointopoint 178.XX.XX.1 gateway 178.XX.XX.1 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 iface vmbr1 inet6 static address 2a01:XXX:XXX:301::2 netmask 64 up ip -6 route add 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 down ip -6 route del 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 up ip -6 route add default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 down ip -6 route del default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 On the guest: auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 178.xx.xx.47 netmask 255.255.255.255 broadcast 178.xx.xx.63 gateway 178.xx.xx.1 pointopoint 178.xx.xx.1 iface eth0 inet6 static pre-up modprobe ipv6 address 2a01:XXX:XXX:301::2:2 netmask 64 up ip -6 route add 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev eth0 down ip -6 route del 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev eth0 up ip -6 route add default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev eth0 down ip -6 route del default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev eth0 Ipv4 works on both host and guest but Ipv6 only works "sometimes". It's up for minutes and then down again until I change something. However I can actually ping the host and the guest from both host and guest. host:~# ip -6 neigh 2a01:XXX:XXX:301::100:2 dev vmbr1 lladdr 00:50:56:00:00:e0 REACHABLE 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 lladdr 00:26:88:76:18:18 router STALE host:~# ip -6 route 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 metric 1024 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 2a01:XXX:XXX:301::/64 dev vmbr1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev vmbr0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev vmbr1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev tap101i1d0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 default via 2a01:XXX:XXX:300::1 dev vmbr1 metric 1024 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 Does someone know why it isn't working? And is there a way to configure multiple v6 IPs from the same subnet so I can dedicate IPs to websites on a server with multiple virtualhosts?

    Read the article

  • Debian Wheezy IPv6 isn't configured with ifup post-up hook

    - by aef
    We recently set up a server on Debian Wheezy Beta 3 (x86_64) which has a native IPv6 connection. We configured the eth0 interface to get the IPv6 configuration through some post-up hook commands in /etc/network/interfaces. The result is, that after the booting the system up, there is only IPv4 and an auto-configured link-local IPv6 address configured on the interface, as if the command has never been executed. When we additionally place the commands after the call to ifup -a inside the /etc/init.d/networking init script, everything works as expected and we have a fully configured interface after booting up. This is quite an ugly way to configure the interface. What are we doing wrong with the ifup post-up hooks? Or is this a bug? The section from /etc/network/interfaces looks like this (IP-addresses changed): allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 1.2.3.1 netmask 255.255.255.192 network 1.2.3.0 broadcast 1.2.3.63 gateway 1.2.3.62 dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8 dns-search mydomain.tld post-up ip -6 addr add 2001:db8:100:3022::2 dev eth0 post-up ip -6 route add fe80::1 dev eth0 post-up ip -6 route add default via fe80::1 dev eth0 I also tried it in this alternative way: auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 1.2.3.1 netmask 255.255.255.192 network 1.2.3.0 broadcast 1.2.3.63 gateway 1.2.3.62 dns-nameservers 8.8.8.8 dns-search mydomain.tld iface eth0 inet6 static address 2001:db8:100:3022::2 netmask 64 gateway fe80::1 What we added to /etc/init.d/networking: … case "$1" in start) process_options check_ifstate if [ "$CONFIGURE_INTERFACES" = no ] then log_action_msg "Not configuring network interfaces, see /etc/default/networking" exit 0 fi set -f exclusions=$(process_exclusions) log_action_begin_msg "Configuring network interfaces" if ifup -a $exclusions $verbose && ifup_hotplug $exclusions $verbose # Our additions ip -6 addr add 2001:db8:100:3022::2 dev eth0 ip -6 route add fe80::1 dev eth0 ip -6 route add default via fe80::1 dev eth0 then log_action_end_msg $? else log_action_end_msg $? fi ;; …

    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

  • How to route between 2 networks with a server with 2 network cards?

    - by LumenAlbum
    This is the first time I am faced with routing and it seems I have hit a dead end. I have the following scenario: client1: 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.0 gateway: 192.168.1.100 DNS server: 192.168.1.100 client2: 192.168.1.20 255.255.255.0 gateway: 192.168.1.100 DNS server: 192.168.1.100 server (Windows Server 2008 R2 with enabled RAS & Routing Services) network card 1 (connected to a switch along with the clients) 192.168.1.100 255.255.255.0 DNS server: 127.0.0.1 network card 2 (connected to the router) 192.168.2.100 255.255.255.0 gateway: 192.168.2.1 DNS server: 127.0.0.1 (DNS forwarding to 192.168.2.1) ISP router (with connection to internet) 192.168.2.1 Now in this scenario I have tried to route traffic from the 192.168.1.0/24 network with the clients to the 192.168.2.0/24 network with the routers to connect them to the internet. However, no matter what I do I get no positive ping to the router 192.168.2.1. Ping from 192.168.168.1.10 to 192.168.1.20: Success to 192.168.1.100: Success to 192.168.2.100: Success to 192.168.2.1: not reachable The routing table contains the 2 routes 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.2.0 as directly connected. Does anyone know where the routing fails? I have searched different forums but mostly found nothing relevant. One post however pointed out that in a similar situation the problem was that the router doesn't know the way back and the internet router would need a static route back to the first router. If that really is the case, I take it there is no solution with my equipment, because the standart ISP router doesn't allow to set any static routes.

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu IP Configuration - multiple subnets & interfaces

    - by HaydnWVN
    Have a 'new' mailserver running postfix on Ubuntu. We are having some problems configuring the subnets & interfaces. Basically 2 subnets (.253. & .254.) need to be connected through the 3rd subnet (.252.) where the Router is residing. # 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 auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 10.62.254.199 netmask 255.255.0.0 network 10.62.254.0 broadcast 10.62.255.255 #gateway 10.62.252.138 # dns-* options are implemented by the resolvconf package, if installed dns-nameservers 10.62.252.138 dns-search ***.com auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 10.62.253.199 netmask 255.255.0.0 network 10.62.253.0 broadcast 10.62.255.255 #gateway 10.62.252.138 #dns-nameservers 10.62.254.199 10.62.253.199 10.62.252.199 dns-nameservers 10.62.252.138 dns-search ***.com auto eth2 iface eth2 inet static address 10.62.252.199 netmask 255.255.0.0 network 10.62.252.0 broadcast 10.62.255.255 gateway 10.62.252.138 #dns-nameservers 10.62.254.199 10.62.253.199 10.62.252.199 dns-search ***.com I have an external support company who are looking into this (they built and configured this server), but it's taking far too long... So I'm looking to highlight the mistake!

    Read the article

  • Ping not working

    - by Nishant
    Ping is not working to and from this IP to my computer. inet addr:10.125.104.4 Bcast:10.125.111.255 Mask:255.255.240.0 My computer is like this Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.125.65.75 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.252.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 10.125.64.6 We both CAN reach the common gateway IP , 10.125.96.6 . What should I check ? What is the barrier in sending info if we both have a common gateway that is pingable ? Besides I can login to a intermediate server and ssh to this server also !!

    Read the article

  • Network outage caused by SMC8013WG Cable Modem/Router ?

    - by mkocubinski
    At work, we have a basic Class C Network. The gateway/router is a SMC8013WG (stock comcast commercial cable modem), and simple unmanaged switch (HP Pro Curve 1400 24G). The SMC8013WG is our default gateway as well as DHCP server. Periodically, I'd say almost every other day.. the entire network will just stop responding. I won't be able to ping/see the gateway, any computers on our local network, or anything on the internet. The only way to fix this is to unplug the Comcast cable modem, wait, and plug back in. This unfailingly fixes the problem. But this doesn't make much sense to me.. shouldn't the network still be fine locally, since everything is plugged into the switch anyway? Why would resetting the router fix this? Can anyone suggest anything to check to in order to narrow this problem down? Just to be clear.. here is the basic topology: { Internet } -- (12.345.67.89) Comcast Cable Modem (192.168.1.1) -- Switch -- 192.168.1.2-254 P.S. Our IT guy is in about 3 hours a day every other week or so, so.. we're kind of on our own most of the time.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >