Search Results

Search found 1370 results on 55 pages for 'nat gr'.

Page 4/55 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Can a NAT close out VPN connections?

  - by Scoop

  I have a client running on a VPN behind a NAT. The client becomes inaccessible after a while if it is not "active". The VPN software is PPTP and the OS of the client if Debian. I'm unsure about the exact cause of what makes it inaccessible or if it is another piece of software that is causing the problem. But my current thing I am trying to figure out is if the NAT is healing and causing the client VPN to become inaccessible. Could this be causing the problem or should I look elsewhere?

  Read the article

• NAT, iptables and problematic ports

  - by Rajie

  I am building a small office network with virtual machines. My schema is this: Computer A: gateway, ip 1.1.1.1, iptables used for NAT [eth0=public internet dhcp, dhcp; eth1=gateway] Computer B: client, ip 1.1.1.2, using gateway from Computer A. NAT is working, and Computer B can access the internet using the A's gateway. I redirected some incoming ports from A to B (for instance, if A receives a request to port 80, it goes automatically to Computer B's Apache). The thing is that I do not really understand how to open/close ports for Computer B from Computer A. I know how to close a port: iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j DROP And it will refuse all incoming (not output) connections to port 80. However, this works for main interface eth0. I tried to, for instance, drop ingoing and outgoing connections for Computer B, port 80: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DROP iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DROP But it does not work. And I cannot figure out what I am doing wrong. Any clue?

  Read the article

• Windows XP SP3 client over NAT to a Windows 2008 R2 SP1 file server disconnection

  - by Patrick Pellegrino

  we just transferred a pilot group from our old(!!) Netware infrastructure to an Microsoft infrastructure. Since then, our users got problems accessing their files. They all experience disconnection from the mapped drives. The file server is access via a WAN connection by a firewall (Sonicwall) between both network and we do NAT. All clients have Windows XP SP3 and the file server is an Windows 2008 R2 SP1. On the file server I got many Event Id 2012. Many post over the Internet suggested a problem between the SMB protocol and NAT. We need a short term fix to continue to transfer users from Netware to Microsoft after what will work to remove the NATing. I found this MS KB http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2444558 that suggested a kind of workaround for Windows 7 clients but I can found anything for Windows XP. Anyone can help me with this ? We don't want to stop the project and do a network job before migrating. Regards. Update: Our few Windows 7 computers doesn't seem to have this issue.

  Read the article

• KVM Guest with NAT + Bridged networking

  - by Daniel

  I currently have a few KVM Guests on a dedicated server with bridged networking (this works) and i can successfully ping the outside ips i assign via ifconfig (in the guest). However, due to the fact i only have 5 public ipv4 ip addresses, i would like to port forward services like so: hostip:port - kvm_guest:port UPDATE I found out KVM comes with a "default" NAT interface, so added the virtual NIC to the Guest virsh configuration then configured it in the Guest, it has the ip address: 192.168.122.112 I can successfully ping 192.168.122.112 and access all ports on 192.168.122.112 from the KVM Host, so i tried to port forward like so: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 5222 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.122.112:2521 iptables -I FORWARD -m state -d 192.168.122.0/24 --state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT telnet KVM_HOST_IP 5222 just hangs on "trying" telnet 192.168.122.112 2521 works [root@node1 ~]# tcpdump port 5222 tcpdump: WARNING: eth0: no IPv4 address assigned tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 65535 bytes 23:43:47.216181 IP 1.152.245.247.51183 > null.xmpp-client: Flags [S], seq 1183303931, win 65535, options [mss 1400,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 445777813 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 23:43:48.315747 IP 1.152.245.247.51183 > null.xmpp-client: Flags [S], seq 1183303931, win 65535, options [mss 1400,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 445778912 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 23:43:49.415606 IP 1.152.245.247.51183 > null.xmpp-client: Flags [S], seq 1183303931, win 65535, options [mss 1400,nop,wscale 3,nop,nop,TS val 445780010 ecr 0,sackOK,eol], length 0 7 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel [root@node1 ~]# iptables -L Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination ACCEPT all -- anywhere 192.168.122.0/24 state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination All help is appreciated. Thanks.

  Read the article

• NAT ports - how do they work?

  - by Davidoper

  I have the following network schema: Computer A: three nics: NIC 1 (eth0): dhcp, public internet NIC 2 (eth1): static 192.168.1.1, gateway for Computer B NIC 3 (eth2): static 192.168.2.1, gateway for Computer C Computer B: static 192.168.1.2, using gateway 192.168.1.1 (NIC 2). Computer C: static 192.168.2.2, using gateway 192.168.2.1 (NIC 3). So I applied this to get NAT working: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE Every computer can connect to the internet now. I have been applying rules to the main computer (Computer A), like dropping connections to some ports, e.g ssh: iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j DROP But for instance, now I would like only allow connections for ports 20,21,22,53 and 80 in Computer C, and ignore the outside traffic if it's not related to those ports. The allowed connections should be FROM Computer C to outside, but not from outside to Computer C (I mean - Computer C is not hosting any HTTP or SSH, but it is going to use them as a client). I guess this sould be done like this: iptables -A OUTPUT -i eth2 -o eth0 -p tcp --dport 21 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth2 -o eth0 -p tcp --sport 21 -m state --state ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT The last rule (dropping any other traffic different from those) is at the end of the configuration, so -A should be working correctly. The thing is... it is not working. If I put the last rule like this: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j DROP It just drops everything and, for instance, port 21 (previously opened as you can see above) is not either working. Can you tell me what could I have done wrong? I have been struggling with this problem for some time and I am unable to solve it. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Public-to-Public IPSec tunnel: NAT confusion

  - by WuckaChucka

  I know this is possible -- and apparently fairly common with larger companies that don't/can't route private addresses for overlap reasons -- but I can't wrap my head around how to get this to work. I'm playing around with pfSense, Vyatta and a Cisco 5505 right now, hardware-wise. So here's my setup: WEST: Vyatta outside: 10.0.0.254/24 inside: 172.16.0.1/24 machine a: 172.16.0.200/24 EAST: Cisco 5505 outside: 10.0.0.210/24 inside: 192.168.10.1 machine b (webserver): 192.168.10.2 So what we're trying to do is this: route traffic across the tunnel from machine A to machine B without using private addresses. i.e. 172.16.0.200 makes a TCP request to 10.0.0.210:80, and as far as EAST is concerned, it sees a src IP of 10.0.0.254. On WEST, I have your typical many-to-one Source NAT to translate 172.16.0.0/24 to 10.0.0.254 and that's confirmed to be working. Also on WEST, I have the following IPSec config: Local IP: 10.0.0.254 Peer IP: 10.0.0.210 local subnet: 10.0.0.254/32 remote subnet: 10.0.0.210/32 I have the reversed configuration on EAST. What happens when I make a request from machine A to 10.0.0.210:80 is that the SNAT translates the private address of machine A to 10.0.0.254 and it's routed out (and discarded at the other end) without establishing the tunnel. What I'm assuming is happening is that the inside interface on WEST receives a packet from 172.16.0.200 and since this doesn't match the local subnet defined in the tunnel configuration, it's not processed by the IPSec engine and the tunnel is not established. How do you make this work? Seems like a chicken and egg thing with the NAT and IPSec and I just can't wrap my head around how this can be done: can I say, "if a packet is received on the inside interface with a destination of 10.0.0.210, translate it to 10.0.0.254 before the IPSec engine inspects it"?

  Read the article

• Cisco ASA 8.2 ACL For NAT

  - by javano

  Sadly I have gone back in time to ASA 8.2(5)33 which I am not so familiar with. I have configured NAT between two interfaces but traffic isn't passing becasue I can't get the ACL to work; (The full config which isn't very big is here but to keep this post tidy I have just pasted the important parts below); interface Ethernet0/0 switchport access vlan 108 ! interface Ethernet0/6 switchport access vlan 104 ! interface Ethernet0/7 switchport access vlan 105 ! interface Vlan104 description BUILDING2 nameif BUILDING2 security-level 0 ip address 10.104.0.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Vlan105 description BUILDING1 nameif BUILDING1 security-level 0 ip address 10.105.0.1 255.255.255.0 ! interface Vlan108 description Main LAN VLAN nameif lan security-level 0 ip address 172.22.0.215 255.255.255.0 ! object-group network obj_net_Remote_Hosts network-object host 111.111.111.3 network-object host 111.111.111.65 object-group network obj_host_pc1_eth1 network-object host 10.104.0.111 object-group network obj_host_pc2_eth1 network-object host 10.104.0.112 object-group network obj_host_pc3_eth1 network-object host 10.104.0.106 object-group network obj_host_pc4_eth1 network-object host 10.104.0.107 object-group network obj_net_PCs description IPs of PCs group-object obj_host_pc1_eth1 group-object obj_host_pc2_eth1 group-object obj_host_pc3_eth1 group-object obj_host_pc4_eth1 access-list acl_NAT_pc1_91 extended permit tcp host 10.104.0.111 host 111.111.111.3 eq 8101 access-list acl_Permit_PCs extended permit tcp object-group obj_net_PCs object-group obj_net_Remote_Hosts eq 8101 ! global (BUILDING1) 11 111.111.222.91 netmask 255.255.255.255 nat (BUILDING2) 11 access-list acl_NAT_pc1_91 access-group acl_Permit_PCs in interface BUILDING2 route BUILDING1 111.111.111.3 255.255.255.255 10.105.0.2 1 route BUILDING1 111.111.111.65 255.255.255.255 10.105.0.2 1 When I try and connect from PC1 to ip 111.111.111.3 I see the following error logged on the ASA console; %ASA-2-106001: Inbound TCP connection denied from 10.104.0.111/38495 to 111.111.111.3/8101 flags SYN on interface blades What the duce!

  Read the article

• NAT vs public IP (and blocked ports)

  - by user1646166

  I have a problem with my ISP. They say that they don't block any ports and I have public IP, while I think these both statements are false. Before I talk to them again (which is really tough when my understanding of these terms is different than theirs) I would like to make some things clear. It seems like my computer is behind NAT (is it possible to have public IP and be behind NAT at the same moment?). When I check my IP, through some external server, and type that IP into browser I get a home page of some router (not mine). Isn't that a proof that my IP isn't public? Also, I have problems with making connections via some ports. E.g. when I'm trying to connect through some high port ( 1023) via SSH, it doesn't work. Is it possible that certain range of outgoing ports from my computer are blocked? Or is it simply because that my ssh client (PuTTY) can't receive incoming packets because of blocked incoming ports? To avoid some questions: it's not a problem with my router, I tried connecting my PC directly and it also didn't work, while having connected by 3G using phone with USB tethering, it does work. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Manual NAT on Checkpoint (Redirect all http requests to a local web server)

  - by B. Kulakli

  We have a proxy server in our internal network and I want to redirect all internet http requests to a web server in local network. It'll be like a Network Billboard that says "No direct connection is available. Set up your proxy etc." For example: A user starts the computer Opens the browser Tries to open www.google.com Should see web server output on local network Tries another web site on internet Should see web server output on local network Sets up proxy Tries to connect to a web site Web site should be loaded I have added a simple manual NAT rule to address translation in Checkpoint firewall but it simply does not work. Here is my address translation rule Source Destination Service T.Source T.Destination T.Service MY_PC A_GOOGLE_IP ALL ORIGINAL INT_WEB_SRV ORIGINAL Then when I ping A_GOOGLE_IP, replies come from INT_WEB_SRV, as I expected. However, when I try to connect A_GOOGLE_IP from browser (http://A_GOOGLE_IP), no replies come from SYN_SENT and falls into timeout. When I look at the firewall log of INT_WEB_SRV, I can see the incoming connection requests from MY_PC is accepted and NO denies. By the way, there is no problem to see INT_WEB_SRV (http://INT_WEB_SRV) from browser. My understanding is, my NAT rule at checkpoint NGX R60 does not include return packets. I definitely need some help.

  Read the article

• Manual NAT on Checkpoint (Redirect all http requests to a local web server)

  - by kulakli

  Hi, We have a proxy server in internal network and I want to redirect all internet http requests to a web server in local network. It'll be like a Network Billboard that say "No direct connection is available. Set up your proxy etc." For example: A user starts the computer Opens the browser Trys to open www.google.com Should see web server output on local network Trys another web site on internet Should see web server output on local network Sets up proxy Trys to connect to a web site Web site should be loaded I have added a simple manual NAT rule to address translation in Checkpoint firewall but it simply does not work. Here is my address translation rule Source Destination Service T.Source T.Destination T.Service MY_PC A_GOOGLE_IP ALL ORIGINAL INT_WEB_SRV ORIGINAL Then when I ping A_GOOGLE_IP, replies come from INT_WEB_SRV, as I expected. However, when I try to connect A_GOOGLE_IP from browser (http://A_GOOGLE_IP), No replies come from SYN_SENT and falls into timeout. When I look at the firewall log of INT_WEB_SRV, I can see the incoming connection requests from MY_PC is accepted and NO denies. By the way, there is no problem to see INT_WEB_SRV (http://INT_WEB_SRV) from browser. My understanding is, my nat rule at checkpoint NGX R60 does not include return packets. I definitely need some help. Regards, Burak

  Read the article

• Wireless router setup for 1-1 NAT

  - by Carlos

  What I have: A linksys router WAG160N with firmware version 2 A "pool" of 5 external static IP's provided by my ISP 213.xx.xxx.n All the required configuration values for the static IPs such as (Subnet Mask, Gateway and static DNS 1, 2, 3) Current WAN Configuration: Encapsulation: RFC 2364 PPPoA Multiplexing: VC QoS type: UBR DSL modulation: MultiMode What's connected to the network: 1 x Server (That I want to make available to the outside) 5 x Desktops with static internal IP's, such as 192.168.0.xx 2 x Network printers, also with internal static IP's 2 x Laptops 1 x NAS (Network Attached Storage) also on static IP What I want to do: I would like to make the server available from outside the network, for example from your house. The problem is that Im not really sure how to do this. I have tried following the steps on the instruction manual in Linksys but they do not seem to work, once I set it up as shown bellow, I loose internet and all hell breaks loose. Going into further detail, I would prefer if the network is changed as little as possible, by this I mean that all the computers stay networked within eachother and only the server is accessible from the outside the network. What I need HELP with: I have read around that it is possible to set a 1-1 NAT (I know where it is in the menu but have no clue what it does...) so that I can NAT a single public IP directly to a single private IP (in our case the server). But please, How do I do that? Or maybe an alternative?

  Read the article

• Libvirt/KVM in NAT: can't access from host (and can't forward)

  - by SharkWipf

  I'm trying to set up a port forward to a KVM guest, managed through Libvirt on Debian 6. The VM is running in NAT, through the "default" network. This all runs fine, the VM has full internet connection. However, the host cannot reach the vm internally. Neither ping, nc nor nmap on the NAT network give any signs of the VM. Due to this, the normal iptables forwarding rules don't work either. $ cat /etc/debian_version 6.0.5 $ libvirtd --version libvirtd (libvirt) 0.9.11.3 $ kvm --version QEMU emulator version 1.0 (qemu-kvm-1.0+dfsg-11, Debian), Copyright (c) 2003-2008 Fabrice Bellard ifconfig: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 54:04:a6:f1:6f:10 inet addr:x.x.x.x Bcast:x.x.x.x Mask:255.255.255.x inet6 addr: fe80::5604:a6ff:fef1:6f10/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:118902 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:142357 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:13247173 (12.6 MiB) TX bytes:95163190 (90.7 MiB) Interrupt:28 Base address:0xe000 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:230646 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:230646 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:204577107 (195.0 MiB) TX bytes:204577107 (195.0 MiB) virbr0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr fe:54:00:e2:d2:60 inet addr:192.168.122.1 Bcast:192.168.122.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:5050 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:961 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:666759 (651.1 KiB) TX bytes:400701 (391.3 KiB) vnet0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr fe:54:00:e2:d2:60 inet6 addr: fe80::fc54:ff:fee2:d260/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:5050 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:125687 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:500 RX bytes:739803 (722.4 KiB) TX bytes:6886609 (6.5 MiB)

  Read the article

• TCP/UDP hole punching from and to the same NAT network

  - by Luc

  I was wondering if tcp/udp hole punching would still work when you are in the same network (behind a NAT), and what the packet's path would be. What happens when using hole punching on the same network, is that it will send a packet out with the same destination and source address. Only the source and destination port would differ. I imagine a router with NAT loopback enabled will handle this as it should, but how about other routers? Would they drop the packet, or would a router (the first?) from the ISP bounce the packet back after which it gets handled okay? I'm wondering because I was thinking about using this technique to circumvent a block between peers in a network (like a school network where clients can only access the internet, but any contact with each other is blocked). The only other option is to use a man in the middle as proxy (tunnel?). The disadvantage of this is that you have to have a server with significantly more bandwidth than one that would only do hole punching. Also the latency would increase significantly.

  Read the article

• Cisco ASA 5505 - InterVLAN NAT Exemptions Implementation not working

  - by Brandon Bearden

  Short version is we cannot communicate between our subnets. We have a Cisco ASA 5505 we are using for our network router. We have a Netgear L3 switch behind that with 10 vlans. Each VLAN is on its own subnet. (10.0.10.x/24, 10.0.11.x/24, etc) So ASA Switch Hosts We have PAT for each subnet to our outside interface. Each subnet NATs out properly. I have NAT exemption enabled for 2 of the subnets (eventually I will need all, but am just testing at the moment). Config is here: http://pastebin.com/pDsG7hsh I have tried multiple ways for the NAT exemption to allow all traffic from our inside VLANS. At this point in time I am trying to get "Engineering" to communicate with all hosts on "AuthUser". I can ping some hosts, but not as many as if I am directly on the interface. I can reach a port 80 service, but not 443. I cannot access anything via hostname or NetBIOS. What am I missing to allow higher security level interfaces to fully communicate with lower security level interfaces? Thx!

  Read the article

• NAT / PAT Theoretical Question

  - by dbasnett

  Given the following simplistic network Would it be possible to construct NAT / PAT pools such that the PC's attached to the network could be identified by their port number. I understand that if I assign a public IP to each user I can identify them. What I am trying to do is to conserve Public IP's, but maintain the ability to identify the user from the public network. If your answer is vendor specific that is OK with me. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• vmware nat internet connection

  - by ziftech

  Host: Windows Server 2008 / VMWare Server 2 Has Internet connection ip: 172.17.62.1 (NAT adapter) no gateway, no dns Guest: Windows Server 2003 ip: 172.17.62.2 (NAT) gateway 172.17.62.5 (set in VMware network manager for NAT) Host and guest can see each other, but guest have no internet connection (only ping by ip) In what may be the problem? HOST Ethernet adapter VMware Network Adapter VMnet8: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : VMware Virtual Ethernet Adapter for VMnet8 Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-50-56-C0-00-08 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::f1c1:3518:abb4:c05%24(Preferred) IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 172.17.67.1(Preferred) Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DHCPv6 IAID . . . . . . . . . . . : 486559830 DHCPv6 Client DUID. . . . . . . . : 00-01-00-01-13-CF-8C-9F-40-61-86-2B-8F-AD DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Enabled GUEST DNS-suffix . . : Description. . . . . . . . . . . . : VMware Accelerated AMD PCNet Adapter Physical. . . . . . . . . : 00-0C-29-71-A5-43 DHCP . . . . . . . . . . . : no ip . . . . . . . . . . . . : 172.17.67.2 subnet mask . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 gateway . . . . . . . . . . : 172.17.67.5 DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . : 8.8.8.8 All firewalls are down, I can ping hosts, but no telnet connection - telnet google.com 80

  Read the article

• unable to connect to internet via NAT

  - by air

  i have configured NAT on my windows 2003 server. internet work fine on server but not working on clients. any good tetorial? Thanks

  Read the article

• How to forward OpenVPN Port to NAT'd XEN domU

  - by John

  I want to install a OpenVPN domU on XEN. Dom0 and domU are running Debian Squeeze, all domU are on a NAT'd privat network 10.0.0.1/24 My VPN-Gate is von 10.0.0.1 and running. How can I make it accessible under the dom0 public IP? I tried forwarding the port using iptables, but without any success. Here is what i did: ~ # iptables -L -n -v Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 1397 packets, 118K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 930 packets, 133K bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif5.0 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif5.0 udp spt:68 dpt:67 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif5.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif5.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif3.0 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif3.0 udp spt:68 dpt:67 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif3.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 10.0.0.5 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif3.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif2.0 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif2.0 udp spt:68 dpt:67 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state RELATED,ESTABLISHED PHYSDEV match --physdev-out vif2.0 0 0 ACCEPT all -- * * 10.0.0.2 0.0.0.0/0 PHYSDEV match --physdev-in vif2.0 147 8236 ACCEPT tcp -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 state NEW tcp dpt:80 13 546 ACCEPT udp -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:1194 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 1000 packets, 99240 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination ~ # iptables -L -t nat -n -v Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 324 packets, 23925 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 139 7824 DNAT tcp -- eth0 * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 tcp dpt:80 to:10.0.0.5:80 1 42 DNAT udp -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 udp dpt:1194 to:10.0.0.1:1194 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT 92 packets, 5030 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 863 64983 MASQUERADE all -- * eth0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 MASQUERADE all -- * eth0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 0 0 MASQUERADE all -- * eth0 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 180 packets, 13953 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination

  Read the article

• Does NAT change the source MAC address?

  - by user44073

  I'm trying to secure my home network but don't really need the complexity of a VPN so I'm trying to figure out other options. I'd like to allow my iPhone remote access to my home servers but I can't depend on the IP address because it changes quite often (due to the 3G network, etc). Can I filter incoming connections on my router (pfsense) by MAC address or does NAT change the source as it's passing through the different routers on the internet?

  Read the article

• Cisco 861 Router forces one-to-one NAT

  - by Slurpee

  I have a cisco 861 router that only allows one-to-one NATs in order to access the Internet. I would like for computers to get an address via DHCP from this router, and be able to access the Internet without needing to set a static NAT to one of my public IPs. What is wrong with the configuration? I have a basic understanding of the IOS CLI, most of the configuration file (edited for content) was created by my company's long gone Senior Network Engineer.

  Read the article

• Configuring Cisco 877W router from scratch for DHCP, WiFi, ADSL2+, NAT

  - by David M Williams

  Hi all, I apologise if this is a BIG question but I am quite lost with the Cisco IOS. I know what I want to achieve just not how to do it :( I have a Cisco 877W router with 4 FastEthernet interfaces, 1 ATM interface and 1 802.11 Radio. I want to set it up for a small network and am trying to construct a configuration below. I was using Google to try and flesh it out but I think I need help and guidance from actual experts! If it helps, output from show ver says Cisco IOS software, C870 software (C870-ADVSECURITYK9-M), version 12.4(4)T7, release software (fc1) ROM: System bootstrap, version 12.3(8r)YI4, release software Here's what I have so far, which hopefully outlines clearly enough what I am wanting to do. The bits in angle brackets are placeholders (eg the secret password). ! ! Set router hostname ! hostname Shazam ! ! Set usernames and passwords ! username david privilege 15 secret 0 <PASSWORD> enable secret <SECRETPASSWORD> ! ! Configure SSH and telnet access ! line vty 0 4 privilege level 15 login local transport input telnet ssh ! ! Local logging ! logging buffered 51200 warning ! ! Set date and time for NSW, Australia (GMT +10h) ! ! ! Set router IP address to 192.168.1.1 on FastEthernet0 port ! interface FastEthernet0 ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 no shut ip nat inside ! ! Forward any unknown DNS requests to Google ! ip dns server ip name-server 8.8.8.8 ip name-server 8.8.4.4 ! ! Set up DHCP ! DHCP pool covers 192.168.1.100 - .199 ! Set gateway and DNS server to be the router, ie 192.168.1.1 ! service dhcp ip routing ip dhcp excluded-address 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.99 ip dhcp excluded-address 192.168.1.200 192.168.1.255 ip dhcp pool <DHCPPOOLNAME> network 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 default-router 192.168.1.1 dns-server 192.168.1.1 lease 7 ! ! DHCP reservations ! ! Assign IP address 192.168.1.105 to MAC address 00-21-5D-2F-58-04 ! ! Configure ADSL2 connection details ! interface atm dsl operating-mode adsl2+ ! ! Set up NAT rules ! ! Forward port 35394 to 192.168.1.105 ! ! Set up WiFi ! ! SSID visible, WPA2 security, Pre-shared key I'm hoping most of this is boiler-plate stuff to you guys. I'm keen to not just get a working script but to actually understand it also. Unfortunately, I'm finding the Cisco reference material online very complex. Thank you!

  Read the article

• About Network Address Translation (NAT)?

  - by Rudi

  Just curious about a particular scenario of NAT. Let's suppose we have 4 computers sharing a global IP address under the NAT. I understand that the NAT box keeps an internal record to know which computer to forward requests to. But let's say on computer #2 I'm trying to download a file. And let's say on computer #1, #3, and #4, I'm just browsing the web normally. When the browser initiates a TCP connection to get that file, how does it know which computer to give it to? I mean like, each of the four computers is using port 80 to browse the web right? How does the NAT's record distinguish which "port 80" belongs to which computer?

  Read the article

• Configuring NAT and static IP on Cisco 877W

  - by David M Williams

  Hi all, I'm having trouble setting up a static IP reservation on a network. What I want to do is assign IP 192.168.1.105 to MAC address 00:21:5d:2f:58:04 and then port forward 35394 to it. If it helps, output from show ver says Cisco IOS software, C870 software (C870-ADVSECURITYK9-M), version 12.4(4)T7, release software (fc1) ROM: System bootstrap, version 12.3(8r)YI4, release software I have done this - service dhcp ip routing ip dhcp excluded-address 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.99 ip dhcp excluded-address 192.168.1.200 192.168.1.255 ip dhcp pool ClientDHCP network 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 default-router 192.168.1.1 dns-server 192.168.1.1 lease 7 ip dhcp pool NEO host 192.168.1.105 255.255.255.0 hardware-address 0021.5D2F.5804 ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.105 35394 <PUBLIC_IP> 35394 extendable However, the machine is getting assigned IP address 192.168.1.101 not .105 ... any suggestions? Thanks !

  Read the article

• VMWare Fusion cannot connect to the NAT connection on my Mac

  - by FFish

  I have been using VMWare Fusion on my Mac to check out my websites on localhost. Now I can't connect anymore with the NAT connection. There seems to be a problem with my IP address or Mac address? I have no idea what causes this, it was working fine before!? In the XP (SP2) VM, in the taskbar I see the Local Area Connection with the yellow warning icon. The bubble says: "This connection has limited or no connectivity. You might not be aisle to access the Internet or some network resources. For more information, click this message." Doing that opens up the Local Area Connection Status panel. In the Support tab, when I click the repair button I get following message: "Windows could not finish repairing the problem because the following action cannot be completed: Renewing IP address." Any help would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Teredo - how to connect to host behind NAT?

  - by Signum

  All I want to achieve is to establish connection to my simple server (written in C# using TcpListener class, if it makes any difference), on my computer which is behind NAT. It has some IPv6 address (it's public IP, starting with 2001:0) on Teredo interface. However, I cannot even ping it from outside my network, for instance I'm trying to ping this address from this website http://mebsd.com/ipv6-ping-and-traceroute, result - 100% packet loss. As I understood from reading about Teredo, there is no need for some port forwarding? So where could be the problem?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >