Search Results

Search found 1236 results on 50 pages for 'nat papovich'.

Page 45/50 | < Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

  • Change source address based on destination IP

    - by hgj
    We have several "router" machines that gather a lot of external IP addresses on the same host and redirect, NAT or proxy the traffic to the internal network. They also act as routers for the machines on the internal network. This works fine, however I am unable to make the routing table, so I can change the source address, based on the destination a machine from the internal network want to access. Let's say I have a router, that has public addresses P1 (5.5.5.1/24) and P2 (5.5.5.2/24). All traffic goes through P1, but if necessary, the host is reachable on P2 too. This looks like this and works fine: > ip addr ... 1: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000 link/ether aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:11 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 5.5.5.1/24 brd 5.5.5.255 scope global eth1 inet 5.5.5.2/24 brd 5.5.5.255 scope global secondary eth1:p2 ... Now I want to use P2 as the source address, if I want to access the Google DNS service for example (8.8.8.8). So I add a row in the routing table like: > ip route add 8.8.8.8 via 5.5.5.254 dev eth1 src 5.5.5.2 > ip route ... default via 5.5.5.254 dev eth1 5.5.5.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 5.5.5.1 8.8.8.8 via 5.5.5.254 dev eth1 src 5.5.5.2 ... But this does not work. If I ping 8.8.8.8, the host still uses P1 as the source address, and does not use P2 at all for outgoing connections. Am I doing it right? I guess not...

    Read the article

  • Have servers behind OpenVPN subnet reach connecting clients

    - by imaginative
    I am trying to find some relevant documentation or what directives I need in either the OpenVPN server configuration or client configuration to accommodate for this use case. I have an OpenVPN server that clients connect to. The OpenVPN server can communicate directly with any of the clients already, this is not an issue. The client is able to reach any machine on the private subnet where OpenVPN resides, this is also not an issue. My issue is that the reverse is currently not possible - I have servers on the same subnet as the OpenVPN box that cannot reach any of the connecting clients. I'd like to be able to SSH to them and more, the same way the client can reach the servers behind the OpenVPN subnet. What do I need to do to make this possible? I already have masquerading rules set on the OpenVPN box: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.50.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE IP Forwarding is enabled: echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward I added a route on the server behind the private subnet to be aware of the route: 192.168.50.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN server will not redirect traffic

    - by skerit
    I set up an OpenVPN server on my VPS, using this guide: http://vpsnoc.com/blog/how-to-install-openvpn-on-a-debianubuntu-vps-instantly/ And I can connect to it without problems. Connect, that is, because no traffic is being redirected. When I try to load a webpage when connected to the vpn I just get an error. This is the config file it generated: dev tun server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt ca ca.crt cert server.crt key server.key dh dh1024.pem push "route 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0" push "redirect-gateway" comp-lzo keepalive 10 60 ping-timer-rem persist-tun persist-key group daemon daemon This is my iptables.conf # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 *raw :PREROUTING ACCEPT [37938267:10998335127] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [35616847:14165347907] COMMIT # Completed on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [794948:91051460] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [1603974:108147033] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [1603974:108147033] -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o venet0 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 *mangle :PREROUTING ACCEPT [37938267:10998335127] :INPUT ACCEPT [37677226:10960834925] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [35616847:14165347907] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [35680187:14169930490] COMMIT # Completed on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.4 on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [37677226:10960834925] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [35616848:14165347947] -A INPUT -i eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "BANDWIDTH_IN:" --log-level 7 -A FORWARD -o eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "BANDWIDTH_OUT:" --log-level 7 -A FORWARD -i eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "BANDWIDTH_IN:" --log-level 7 -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix "BANDWIDTH_OUT:" --log-level 7 COMMIT # Completed on Sat May 7 13:09:44 2011

    Read the article

  • Basic IPTables setup for OpenVPN/HTTP/HTTPS server

    - by Afronautica
    I'm trying to get a basic IPTables setup on my server which will allow HTTP/SSH access, as well as enable the use of the server as an OpenVPN tunnel. The following is my current rule setup - the problem is OpenVPN queries (port 1194) seemed to be getting dropped as a result of this ruleset. Pinging a website while logged into the VPN results in teh response: Request timeout for icmp_seq 1 92 bytes from 10.8.0.1: Destination Port Unreachable When I clear the IPTable rules pinging from the VPN works fine. Any ideas? iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.8.0.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --dport 1194 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i ! lo -d 127.0.0.0/8 -j REJECT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A OUTPUT -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -j REJECT

    Read the article

  • Securing NTP: which method to use?

    - by Harry
    Can someone good at NTP configuration please share which method is the best/easiest to implement a secure, tamper-proof version of NTP? Here are some difficulties... I don't have the luxury of having my own stratum 0 time source, so must rely on external time servers. Should I read up on the AutoKey method or should I try to go the MD5 route? Based on what I know about symmetric cryptography, it seems that the MD5 method relies on a pre-agreed set of keys (symmetric cryptography) between the client and the server, and, so, is prone to man-in-the-middle attack. AutoKey, on the other hand, does not appear to work behind a NAT or a masquerading host. Is this still true, by the way? (This reference link is dated 2004, so I'm not sure what is the state of art today.) 4.1 Are public AutoKey-talking time servers available? I browsed through the NTP book by David Mills. The book looks excellent in a way (coming from the NTP creator after all), but the information therein is also overwhelming. I just need to first configure a secure version of NTP and then may be later worry about its architectural and engineering underpinnings. Can someone please wade me through these drowning NTP waters? Don't necessarily need a working config from you, just info on which NTP mode/config to try and may be also a public time server that supports that mode/config. Many thanks, /HS

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN access to a private network

    - by Gior312
    There are many similar topics about my issue, however I cannot figure out a solution for myself. There are three hosts. A without a routable address but with an Internet access. Server S with a routable Internet address and host B behind NAT in a private network. What I've managed to do is a OpenVPN connection between A and B via S. Everything works fine so far according to this manual VPN Setup What I want to do is to connect A to Bs private network 10.A.B.x I tried this manual but had no luck. So A has a vpn address 10.9.0.10, B's vpn address is 10.9.0.6 and B's private network is 10.20.20.0/24. When at the Server I try to make a route to Bs private network like this sudo route add 10.20.20.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.9.0.6 dev tun0 it says "route: netmask 000000ff doesn't make sense with host route" but I don't know how to tell Server to look for a private network in a different way. Do you know how can I make it right ?

    Read the article

  • Trouble setting up incoming VPN in Microsoft SBS 2008 through a Cisco ASA 5505 appliance

    - by Nils
    I have replaced an aging firewall (custom setup using Linux) with a Cisco ASA 5505 appliance for our network. It's a very simple setup with around 10 workstations and a single Small Business Server 2008. Setting up incoming ports for SMTP, HTTPS, remote desktop etc. to the SBS went fine - they are working like they should. However, I have not succeeded in allowing incoming VPN connections. The clients trying to connect (running Windows 7) are stuck with the "Verifying username and password..." dialog before getting an error message 30 seconds later. We have a single external, static IP, so I cannot set up the VPN connection on another IP address. I have forwarded TCP port 1723 the same way as I did for SMTP and the others, by adding a static NAT route translating traffic from the SBS server on port 1723 to the outside interface. In addition, I set up an access rule allowing all GRE packets (src any, dst any). I have figured that I must somehow forward incoming GRE packets to the SBS server, but this is where I am stuck. I am using ADSM to configure the 5505 (not console). Any help is very much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Linux as a router for public networks

    - by nixnotwin
    My ISP had given me a /30 network. Later, when I wanted more public ips, I requested for a /29 network. I was told to keep using my earlier /30 network on the interface which is facing ISP, and the newly given /29 network should be used on the other interface which connects to my NAT router and servers. This is what I got from the isp: WAN IP: 179.xxx.4.128/30 CUSTOMER IP : 179.xxx.4.130 ISP GATEWAY IP:179.xxx.4.129 SUBNET : 255.255.255.252 LAN IPS: 179.xxx.139.224/29 GATEWAY IP :179.xxx.139.225 SUBNET : 255.255.255.248 I have a Ubuntu pc which has two interfaces. So I am planning to do the following: eth0 will be given 179.xxx.4.130/30 gateway 179.xxx.4.129 eth1 will be given 179.xxx.139.225/29 And I will have the following in the /etc/sysctl.conf: net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 These will be iptables rules: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT My clients which have the ips 179.xxx.139.226/29 and 179.xxx.139.227/29 will be made to use 179.xxx.139.225/29 as gateway. Will this configuration work for me? Any comments? If it works, what iptables rules can I use to have a bit of security? P.S. Both networks are non-private and there is no NATing.

    Read the article

  • How can I monitor network traffic?

    - by WIndy Weather
    I have a home network with about 10 devices including BluRay player [netflix] and both windows and linux machines. I need to collect network traffic statistics so that if questions come up about how much traffic I'm using I have the answer independent of my ISP. I've looked at DD-WRT, but I see that even buying a new router that will be supported is a problem since I might get the wrong version of the hardware. I have a DIR-655 and a DIR-501 - neither of which is supported. I don't mind buying new hardware, but it looks like a crap-shoot to get one that will work. DD-WRT looks like a bad solution unless someone knows of a place to get a router that is guaranteed to work. Does someone know of an arduino or other SBC solution? I have plenty of NAT routers already, so I just need traffic statistics for external traffic. The network is GBit Ethernet inside and Cable / soon to be DSL outside. The DIR-655 only gives me "packets", not bytes transferred oddly enough. Thanks, ww

    Read the article

  • Window 7 image in vmware will allow network connection out but not http

    - by Ormis
    I am currently trying to create a set of images to deploy on my network, but I've run in to a snag. When I create my own Windows 7 image I can successfully use NAT for connecting to the network but whenever I try to access a webpage I get nothing. To be more specific, All firewalls/iptables are disabled on my host machine, my virtual machine, and my network. I can do lookups and all addresses respond correctly (i'm even using Google's DNS). On the host OS i have full connectivity. On the virtual machine I can ping any device I want and all addresses resolve correctly. Within a browser I cannot reach any page via hostname or IP. I feel almost like port 80 is being blocked but i can't find any reason this would be the case. If anyone has had this occur before, I would love some insight to the problem. I initially asked this on stackoverflow and now my eyes are now opened up to superuser. Thank you for any help you can provide.

    Read the article

  • pfSense routing between two routers with shared network

    - by JohnCC
    I have a network set-up using two pfSense routers arranged like this:- DMZ1 WAN1 WAN2 DMZ2 | | | | | | | | \___ PF1 PF2___/ | | | | \___TRUSTED___/ Each pfSense router has its own separate WAN connection, and a separate DMZ network attached to it. They share a common TRUSTED LAN between them. The machines on the trusted network have PF1 as their default gateway. PF1 has a static route defined to DMZ2 via PF2, and PF2 has a static route to DMZ1 via PF1. There is NAT to the WAN but internal networks (DMZ1/2 and TRUSTED) use different RFC1918 subnets. I inherited this arrangement, and all used to work fine. I made a config change to PF1 (relating to multicast), and machines on DMZ2 suddenly could not talk to TRUSTED. I rolled the change back, but the problem persisted. What I guess you'd hope would happen is that TCP packets would go DMZ2 - PF2 - TRUSTED and on return TRUSTED - PF1 - PF2 - DMZ2. That's the only way I can see it would have worked. However, PF1 drops the returning packets. I've verified this using tcpdump. I've worked around this by adding static routes to DMZ2 via PF2 to the servers on TRUSTED, but some devices on there do not support static routes so this is not ideal. Is there way to make this arrangement work decently, or is the design inherently flawed? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Proxmox: VMs and different public IPs

    - by Raj
    I have a server which has two NICs and both are directly connected to internet. I have five different public IP addresses available for the VMs. The host machine (Proxmox) doesn't need to use any (it'll use a private IP and that's all) but will have internet connection. I've gone through the Proxmox documentation and I'm not able to understand the big picture to set up the right network configuration for my needs. In short, what I have is: One server (Proxmox, host machine) On that server, 5 VMs are created 5 public IP addresses available (one for each VM), let's say: 80.123.21.1, 80.123.21.2, 80.123.21.3, 80.123.21.4, 80.123.21.5 What I have now for the host is the following: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet manual auto eth1 iface eth1 inet manual auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 192.168.1.101 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet manual It can be reached from the internal network, so that's OK. It has internet connection, which is also OK. vmbr1 is going to be used by the VMs. Each VM will have its own IP on his network interfaces configuration file. For some reason, VMs will not have internet and they won't be able to have public IP address. If I use NAT, it will work correctly, but they will not use the public allocated IP addresses for them. Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • 403 Forbiden on Apache (CentOS) Server

    - by pouya
    These are my VM setup: HOST: windows 7 ultimate 32bit GUEST: CentOs 6.3 i386 Virtualization soft: Oracle virtualBox 4.1.22 Networking: NAT -> (PORT FORWARD: HOST:8080 => GUEST:80) Shared Folder: centos all the project files goes into shared folder and for each project file a virtualhost conf file is created in /etc/httpd/conf.d/ like /etc/httpd/conf.d/$domain I wasn't able to see anything in my browser before disabling both windows firewall and iptables in centos after that if i type for example: http://www.$domain:8080/ all i see is: Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. Apache/2.2.15 (CentOS) Server at www.$domain.com Port 8080 A sample Virtual Host conf file: <VirtualHost *:80> #General DocumentRoot /media/sf_centos/path/to/public_html ServerAdmin webmaster@$domain ServerName www.$domain ServerAlias $domain *.$domain #Logging ErrorLog /var/log/httpd/$domain-error.log CustomLog /var/log/httpd/$domain-access.log combined #mod rewrite RewriteEngine On RewriteLog /var/log/httpd/$domain-rewrite.log RewriteLogLevel 0 </VirtualHost> centos shared folder is availabe to guest at /media/sf_centos These are file permissons for sf_centos: drwxrwx--- root vboxsf vboxsf group includes: apache and root So these are my questions: 1- How to solve Forbidden Problem? 2- How to setup both host and guest firewalls? 3- How can i improve this developement environment to simulate production environment as much as possible specially security improvements?

    Read the article

  • Possible for linux bridge to intercept traffic?

    - by A G
    I have a linux machine setup as a bridge between a client and a server; brctl addbr0 brctl addif br0 eth1 brctl addif br0 eth2 ifconfig eth1 0.0.0.0 ifconfig eth2 0.0.0.0 ip link set br0 up I also have an application listening on port 8080 of this machine. Is it possible to have traffic destined for port 80 to be passed to my application? I have done some research and it looks like it could be done using ebtables and iptables. Here is the rest of my setup: //set the ebtables to pass this traffic up to ip for processing; DROP on the broute table should do this ebtables -t broute -A BROUTING -p ipv4 --ip-proto tcp --ip-dport 80 -j redirect --redirect-target DROP //set iptables to forward this traffic to my app listening on port 8080 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 80 -j TPROXY --on-port 8080 --tproxy-mark 1/1 iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp -j MARK --set-mark 1/1 //once the flows are marked, have them delivered locally via loopback interface ip rule add fwmark 1/1 table 1 ip route add local 0.0.0.0/0 dev lo table 1 //enable ip packet forwarding echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward However nothing is coming into my application. Am I missing anything? My understanding is that the target DROP on the broute BROUTING chain will push it up to be processed by iptables. Secondly, are there any other alternatives I should investigate? Edit: IPtables gets it at nat PREROUTING, but it looks like it drops after that; the INPUT chain (in either mangle or filter) doesn't see the packet.

    Read the article

  • How do I setup a proper VPN for my friends to play LAN games AND give them internet access?

    - by Gizmo
    I'm trying to setup a VPN on my local network, but everyone who connects to me DOES have access to my laptop but not to the internet or other devices on the network. How can I properly configure my VPN on windows to work correctly (giving internet + access to all devices on my network to the remote pc)? Or is there software on windows which makes creating a VPN server easier? or maybe a VMWare image linux vpn server? I can't find any of those! My requirement is that my friends don't have to install additional software, they have to be able to connect with default windows stuff. My OS is Windows 8 Standart edition (not pro or enterprise) OEM. Most of my friends have also windows 8, some windows 7. Extra info: My device is DMZ'ed (Demilitarized Zone, [disabled NAT on my device so it's accessible on the WAN]) I can access files, websites and services on other devices on my network, and all devices can access file shares, website and all other services on my device When enabling VPN everything works except the client is unable to get internet access or access to any device on my network, client has only access to my device.

    Read the article

  • SNMP query - operation not permitted

    - by jperovic
    I am working on API that reads a lot of data via SNMP (routes, interfaces, QoS policies, etc...). Lately, I have experienced a random error stating: Operation not permitted Now, I use SNMP4J as core library and cannot really pinpoint the source of error. Some Stackoverflow questions have suggested OS being unable to open sufficient number of file handles but increasing that parameter did not help much. The strange thing is that error occurs only when iptables is up and running. Could it be that firewall is blocking some traffic? I have tried writing JUnit test that mimicked application's logic but no errors were fired... Any help would be appreciated! Thanks! IPTABLES *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [2:96] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [68:4218] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [68:4218] # route redirect za SNMP Trap i syslog -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p udp -m udp --dport 514 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 33514 -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p udp -m udp --dport 162 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 33162 COMMIT *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT ..... # SNMP -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 161 -j ACCEPT # SNMP trap -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 162 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 33162 -j ACCEPT ..... -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT

    Read the article

  • Join Domain from VM

    - by Adis
    I have two VMs running on VMWare Player. I use NAT adapter settings. The host machine for VMs is running on corporate network. First VM has Domain controller running and I can log in on that machine using domain credentials. I named domain wm.local When I run IP config on this machine: IP: 192.168.87.132 Def Gataway: 192.168.87.2 DNS server: 192.168.87.2 DHCP server: 192.168.87.254 Second VM cannot join domain. When I try it with domain WM I'm propmted for credentials. And I enter Administrator credentials and than it waits for some time and I get response: "The specified domain either does not exist or could not be contacted" If i type wm.local as domain when trying to join it does not prompt me to login but just shows "An Active Directory Domain Controller (AD DC) for the domain wm.local could not be contacted. And here it takes no time to get this error message. Ipconfig on this machine: IP: 192.168.87.134 Def Gataway: 192.168.87.2 DNS server: 192.168.87.2 DHCP server: 192.168.87.254 I can ping second VM from first one. And I disabled firewalls on both machines. Any ideas? Is there any manual for this?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 as router with 2 nic

    - by Blue Gene
    I have been trying this setup for weeks and still can not make this to work... ubuntu 12.04 64 bit with 2 nic nic1: eth0:192.168.2.33 -static ip with internet access (connected to modem) nic2: eth1:192.168.1.2 -static ip connected to LAN. enabled ip_forward on ubuntu box net_ip_forward = 1 on the LAN with ip address 192.168.1.5 specified gateway as 192.168.1.2 and able to ping gateway.But can not ping public address.What am i missing? on router box: route -n Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 tried ip route add 192.168.2.0/24 via 192.168.1.2 dev eth0 route -n on LAN 192.168.1.5 Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.2 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.2.0 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 iptables default policy is to accept all. tracepath 8.8.8.8 from LAN 1: 192.168.1.5 0.060ms pmtu 1500 1: 192.168.1.2 3.367ms 1: 192.168.1.2 3.764ms 2: no reply Is there a way to make this work,other than NAT ing.

    Read the article

  • cheap gigabit switch for small business

    - by neoice
    my friend's business is currently borrowing my Adtran 1224R and is very happy with it. it's configured with a few VLANs to segment customers, internal traffic and public wifi. port 1 is a "trunk" port to the router, a chunky Linux box with iptables+NAT. they push a lot of traffic over the LAN (data backups) and really need gigabit. besides, I'd like my Adtran back :P my goal is to find a cheap(ish) switch that can function as a drop-in replacement. it looks like VLAN trunking is actually part of the 802.1q spec, so anything with VLAN support should cover the current trunk-to-router setup. it's nice to have both a web interface and SSH, but I can configure it either way if needed. things like the Netgear GS724T have caught my eye, but it seems like none of the hardware in the $300-500 range have really solid reviews. I'm concerned that "cheaper" hardware might not work for a network full of power users. does anyone have a recommendation for the Netgear GS724T or a switch that will meet my needs?

    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

  • Can I use squid (or anything) to do this?

    - by user269334
    I have a really crappy VPS, and a really good computer at my office (with a really good internet connection), but behind a NAT. Is it possible to expose my good computer by doing this: 1. The good computer connects to the VPS (and keeps the connection alive) 2. The users connects to the VPS, and sends http(s) requests to the VPS. 3. The VPS just passes that http(s) requests to the good computer (including some identifications, so the servers can distinguish connections) 4. The good computer passes that http(s) response to the VPS 5. In turn, the VPS receives the http(s) response, and passes back to the client. Is it possible to do this? (btw, the VPS and the good computer are located in different countries) And also, is this "reverse proxy"? I heard that reverse proxy is for protecting the internal network by putting a middle server. And will this affect SSL configurations? (or make SSL impossible?) I'm intending to run nginx on the good computer. Thanks in advance : )

    Read the article

  • IPTables Reroute SSH based on Connection string?

    - by senrabdet
    We are using a cloud server (Debian Squeeze) where public ports on a public IP route traffic to internal servers. We are looking for a way to use IPTables and ssh where based on some part of the ssh connection string (or something along these lines) iptables will reroute the ssh connection to the "right" internal server. This would allow us to use one common public port, and then re-route ssh connections to individual servers. So, for example we hope to do something like the following: user issues ssh connection (public key encryption) such as ssh -X -v -p xxx [email protected] but maybe adds something into the string for iptables to use iptables uses some part of that string or some means to re-route the connection to an internal server using something like iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING ! -s xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24 -m tcp -p tcp --dport $EXTPORT -j DNAT --to-destination $HOST:$INTPORT ....where $HOST is the internal ip of a server, $EXTPORT is the common public facing port and $INTPORT is the internal server port. It appears that the "string" aspect of iptables does not do what we want. We can currently route based on the IP table syntax we're using, but rely on having a separate public port for each server and are hoping to use one common public port and then re-route to specific internal servers based on some part of the ssh connection string or some other means. Any suggestions? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • ubuntu 12.04 kvm virtual server network setup, can't get the machine to be connectable

    - by xyious
    I have worked on my Ubuntu Server host for weeks now and I just can not manage to get the virtual machines into the network.... here's what I need to do: I need to be able to create virtual machines that have IP addresses that can be reached from the outside (192.168 network). I need to be able to connect to the virtual machines through ssh, ftp, http and preferably https, anything else doesn't matter that much. So far everything seems simple enough and I have a lot of leeway in terms of IP address range and server/client configuration. I have the option of taking part of a /24 net as most IPs aren't used, and if it's absolutely necessary I have the option of creating a new /24 subnet. Also have the option of reformatting and reinstalling OS on the host and recreating the virtual machines as nothing has been done other than trying to get virtual machines to work. I would prefer if the virtual machines were just part of the normal network which would be 192.168.5.0/24. The host machine has 2 network cards so I don't even necessarily need the Host to be connectable in the same /24 network. I have tried (I think) just about everything from about 5 different tutorials on bridging (giving br0 the same IP that eth0 used to have (Host is able to connect to VM and vice versa, VM doesn't have outside network access), having eth0 set up like it always was and having br0 have a different IP (same as above), NAT with port forwarding (which I would have preferred not to use but will if it works), turning off one of the hosts network cards and just using one of them, different subnets.... etc. I do know my way around iptables fairly well.... Host is 64bit Ubuntu Server 12.04, using libvirt/kvm. edits: Local network is 192.168.5.0/24, host has static ip 192.168.5.254, GW .5.1 which is also nameserver. We have a second Local network at 192.168.10.0/24 with .10.1 GW, but both hosts and VMs were supposed to go into the .5 subnet. The .10 subnet isn't required, but it wouldn't be horrible if the Host were only accessible in the .10 subnet.

    Read the article

  • IPtables and Remote Desktop with Proxy

    - by Sebastian
    So I setup a windows 2008 web server R2 on VirtualBox. Currently using Bridged Network. I can remote desktop to the machine hosting the VM (10.0.0.183) but cannot remote desktop to the VM itself (10.0.0.195). The remote port on the VM set to 5003. VM setup to accept remote connections (windows side). We also use a proxy for our internet, and I added these rules under NAT. (centOS 5) on our proxy box. -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 3389 -j ACCEPT -A REROUTING -i ppp0 -p tcp --dport 3389 -j REDIRECT --to-port 5003 -A FORWARD -d 10.0.0.195 --dport 5003 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT I've been trying for hours and hours and just cannot get it to work. I also used freedns so that we can use a domain name to connect too this VM over the internet. (the DNS points to our external IP address). If we don't get this right we will have to purchase a PPoE from an ISP to connect to this VM remotely, but I know that there is an alternative route if I can just get this port forwarding right!

    Read the article

  • Asterisk relay between multiple subnets

    - by immoune
    I wonder what's the best way to go when you have phones on multiple networks which are not directly reachable. I have 3 networks 10.3.x.x 10.6.x.x 10.17.x.x My asterisk server resides on the 10.3.0.5 IP. The machines from the 10.6 and 10.17 networks are routed here through VPN tunnels. At this point we don't talk about NAT anywhere on the network just pure routing. Since the 10.3.0.5 PBX has routes back to all the subnet's it has no problem to communicate with softphones/hardphones from these ranges. The problem comes from that Asterisk (as far as I understand) only responsible for the SIP communication part not the Audio/Video transmission which is in P2P fashion done between the devices. So although a client using sipdroid from 10.6.x.x is able to connect to the pbx (10.3.0.5) and dial a bria client on the 10.17.x.x network once the phone rings out and the call establishes no audio will be transmitted simply because it has no way to directly connect there. For this there are multiple solutions described in this text: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee480411%28v=winembedded.60%29.aspx What I would prefer is to keep these networks segregated as they are now. What would be the best solution? Is it possible to actually relay through all the audio/video information through the Asterisk server? That would be the best in my case, I using Astlinux there which has a lot of other parts. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >