Search Results

Search found 2778 results on 112 pages for 'ping fm'.

Page 48/112 | < Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >

• Find routers IP address on the other side

  - by corsiKa

  Here's the basic setup of my network In this diagram: 1: The internet c: cable 2: Wireless router w: wireless connection 3: A win7 box with internet connection sharing enabled 4: A wireless router, but I'm only using its LAN capabilities to connect box 5 to the internet. 5: A win7 box, the computer I'm using to make this post. So its internet works just fine. Now if I'm on box 5, and I ping 192.168.1.1, I hit 4. If I'm on box 3 and I ping 192.168.1.1, I hit 2. Now obviously box 3 does not think 4's IP address is 192.168.1.1, or I wouldn't be able to connect to the internet. Okay, now that you know as much as I do about my network, here's my question: If I was on box 3, how would I determine the IP address of 4? Basically I'm running a webserver on box 5 and want to access this webserver on box 3 and other boxes. So that's the end goal. If there's other information there that can help, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Problem connecting to remote network using demand-dial VPN interface with Windows Server 2003

  - by Mike Forman

  I have a Windows 2003 server (SP2) that I'm trying to set up route traffic from my local network using a VPN My local network has the following components: Broadband router (192.168.0.1) Windows Server with a single NIC running RRAS (192.168.0.2 def. gateway = 192.168.0.1) Client Machine (192.168.0.3 def. gateway = 192.168.0.1) Using a VPN connection, I am trying to access a remote machine (10.0.0.1 for example) I configured RRAS with a demand-dial interface for the VPN and set it to be a persistent connection. As part of that setup, a static route to 10.0.0.0 (255.255.0.0) was created. When at the console of the server, I can ping 10.0.0.1 with no problems I added a route on the client machine using the following command: ROUTE ADD 10.0.0.0 MASK 255.255.0.0 192.168.0.2 If I run tracert 10.0.0.1 from the client, the first hop is to 192.168.0.2 which tells me that route is working. However, I cannot ping 10.0.0.1 from the client machine. What am I missing? Hopefully something simple.

  Read the article

• How to configure network on Windows Server 2008

  - by Gokhan Ozturk

  I have a IBM x3400 Server Machine with Windows Server 2008 R2 installed on it. But, since I am not expert on networking I have some problems. These roles installed on my server: Active Directory DNS File Sharing Hyper-V ISS VPN There is two network card on them. I configured them like this: Local Connection 1: 192.168.30.3 255.255.255.0 192.168.30.2 127.0.0.1 Local Connection 2: 192.168.30.101 255.255.255.0 192.168.30.6 127.0.0.1 My problem is, when I use this Ip gateways, It is sharing internet to all computers. This is not I want. I want to use Local Connection 1 for internal network. I am giving all computers gateway and DNS IP as 192.168.30.3 The Local Connection 2 is for Hyper-V and VPN connections. 192.168.30.2 and 192.168.30.6 are my modem's gateways. I am using 192.168.30.6 external IP for VPN connections. There is two 24 port switches. There is a connection between them and this two ethernet card connected directly to them. And modems are connected to switches as well (Morems are not near the server. They are somewhere in the building). I disabled network Bridge and removed all ethernet cards from it. With this configuration, all computers can ping my server's IP (192.168.30.3) but on server I cannot ping any clients (Request timeout). What is the best way to configure my network? Thank you. Redgards

  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

• virtualized windows 2003 domain with CentOS 5.3 and poor connectivity

  - by Chris Gow

  I have a test lab set up running a virtualized windows 2003 domain on a CentOS 5.3(xen) host and am experiencing connectivity problems with guests running on other hosts that are part of the same domain. Here's the setup: On Computer A I have CentOS 5.3 running as the host and have virtualized windows 2003 servers for a primary domain controller, a backup domain controller and an exchange server. The primary domain controller also acts as a WINS and dns server. The windows domain appears on a separate subnet from my company's corporate network. Connectivity to any of the virtualized guests on Computer A is fine (remote desktop, ping, what have you). I have another host computer (Computer B) that also has a virtualized Windows 2003 server guest that is part of the same domain. However, connectivity to that guest is flaky at best. I continuously get at least 60% packet loss when I try to ping the guest, and due to that flakiness I can not access any of the services that it runs (remote desktop, web). Now here's the interesting part. It seems to affect only machines running on a different computer than the domain controller that are in the same domain. On Computer B there is another Windows 2003 guest that is not part of the test domain and is on my corporate network. There's no connectivity issues with that guest machine. The problem does not seem to be specific to Computer B either. I created a test VM on my local computer within the test domain and it exhibits the same behaviour as the guest in Computer B. A couple of items to note: - Host OS on both Computer A and B are the same CentOS 5.3 64 bit - Guest OS is Windows 2003 64 bit and 32 bit (the guest on Computer B is 32 bit) - Guest OSes are all up to date (as of Monday) - Host OS on Computer A was upgraded from CentOS 5.2 to 5.3 Update: Sorry I did not follow up with the comments from below. Computer A and B have been moved to their own dedicated switch and the problem has gone away. I'm not sure what the underlying problem(s) were though

  Read the article

• Xen virtual host can reach some sites but not others

  - by Tun H S Lee

  Okay, this is killing me. Debian Squeeze, Xen 4.0, brand new install. No iptables rules whatsoever except for the ones added by the default xen bridge script. Dom0 can reach the entire world, no problems. DomU can receive packets from some hosts, but not from others. For instance, if I ping Host A, it works fine. If I ping Host B, the DomU reports 100% packet loss. The hosts are random, but consistent (even after reboots). I can see no pattern to why some work and others don't. In fact, in some cases, different virtual hosts on the same server (an other server at a different data center) are divided; some work and others do not. I can reboot (DomU or Dom0 too) and the same hosts will work or fail as before. If I tcpdump on the Host B while pinging from the DomU, everything looks fine. It sees the echo request coming in and says it's sending one back. However, if I tcpdump peth0 on the Dom0, it never sees the echo reply. Any ideas what could be happening? I'm tearing my hair out here.

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2003 IPSec Tunnel Connected, But Not Working (Possibly NAT/RRAS Related)

  - by Kevinoid

  Configuration I have setup a "raw" IPSec tunnel between a Windows Server 2003 (SBS) machine and a Netgear FVG318 according to the instructions in Microsoft KB816514. The configuration is as follows (using the same conventions as the article): NetA | SBS2003 | FVG318 | NetB 10.0.0.0/24 | 216.x.x.x | 69.y.y.y | 10.0.254.0/24 Both the Main Mode and Quick Mode Security Associations are successfully completed and appear in the IP Security Monitor. I am also able to ping the SBS2003 server on its private address from any computer on NetB. The Problem Any traffic sent from a computer on NetA to NetB, or from SBS2003 to NetB (excluding ICMP Ping responses), is sent out on the public network interface outside the IPSec tunnel (no encryption or header authentication, as if the tunnel were not there). Pings sent from a computer on NetB to a computer on NetA successfully reach computers on NetA, but the responses are silently discarded by SBS2003 (they do not go out in the clear and do not generate any encrypted traffic). Possible Solutions Incorrect Configuration I could have mistyped something, somewhere, or KB816514 could be incorrect in some way. I have tried very hard to eliminate the first option. Have re-created the configuration several times, tried tweaking and adjusting all the settings I could without success (most prevent the SA from being established). NAT/RRAS I have seen multiple posts elsewhere suggesting that this could be due to interaction between NAT and the IPSec filters. Possibly the NetA private addresses get rewritten to 216.x.x.x before being compared with the Quick Mode IPSec filters and don't get tunneled because of the mismatch. In fact, The Cable Guy article from June 2005 "TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths" suggests that this is the case, (see step 2 and 4 of the Transit Traffic path). If this is the case, is there a way to exclude NetA-NetB traffic from NAT? Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions, and/or comments are appreciated.

  Read the article

• I just got a virus 6 mins ago, how? Situation.

  - by acidzombie24

  -Edit- for the people who say it isn't a virus. Norton does detect it as a virus, an icon was placed on my system tray and rkpg.exe is in my C: which was placed 6 min ago around the time my computer rebooted on its own causing me to lose data :@. Situation I on Windows XP, behind a Linksys router, I don't have DMZ on so nothing should be connecting to me. I had Firefox, MSN and Visual Studio opened. With C# I programmed a quick application to scan some pages with Internet Explorer. The site it was scanning was deviantART (which is pretty trustworthy), I doubt any banners there would hold a virus. I went to a suspicious site called freetxt.com but that was on Firefox and it didn't load the site. With an extra check I ping it and got this message "Ping request could not find host freetxt.com." The virus seems to be called braviax. Right now it brought up a message saying my computer may be infected? How on earth did it get in? I don't have uTorrent installed or any torrent or p2p applications. Nothing is installed on my computer that I haven't installed before and I know the exact time it installed because I see rkpg.exe on my C drive and my computer restarted on its own around the same time. For the previous 30 minutes actually the previous hour all I did was talk on MSN, not click any links (I went to freetxt on my own) and had that Internet Explorer thing running (which I programmed). How did it get in? I really doubt it came from a banner on deviantART and installed when I loaded the page with the webbrowser-control so something else may have happened? Is there any system defaults I should turn off? I have remote assistance off but even if it was on I shouldn't be infected due to the router not forwarding any ports?

  Read the article

• "Error 53" with local LAN machines after VPN session on server

  - by tim11g

  I have a Windows 2000 server with a Windows 7 client that occasionally gets "error 53" when accessing the server by name (net view \\server). It still works by IP address (net view \\192.168.0.1). The server's primary IP address (as shown in "routing and remote access" as "Gigabit Ethernet" is 192.168.0.1. There is also a secondary IP address shown as "Internal" which is 192.168.0.50 The server also supports VPN. When a VPN user connects, it gets an address in the range of 192.168.0.51 to .59. Normally (when there is no error), when the local LAN client runs "ping server", it resolves to 192.168.0.1. When the Error 53 problem happens, "ping server" resolves to 192.168.0.50. This problem seems to be related to when a user connects or has recently connected to the server VPN. Is there some connection between the VPN services on the server and the DNS services on the server that could cause a local LAN client to become confused about which IP address to use for the server? Or is there a misconfiguration in the VPN or DNS?

  Read the article

• Access node.js local server though mobile via same shared wifi

  - by laggingreflex

  EDIT: I was stuck in this situation before but then it was Apache-related But this time I'm using NodeJS, so the old answer doesn't help. I'm running apache a NodeJS webserver (on port 80) on Windows 7. I want to access the webserver through my mobile which shares the wifi router with my pc locally. http://localhost works from PC. But I can't access http://192.168.1.4 from either my phone or even my computer. ipconfig /all on my computer lists my ip address as 192.168.1.4 Wireless LAN adapter Wireless Network Connection: IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.4(Preferred) I can ping my phone's (internal) ip address [192.168.1.5] from PC and vice-versa, I can ping my PC [192.168.1.4] from my phone. So why can't I access http://192.168.1.4 from my phone? (or PC) Firewall is off.

  Read the article

• How do I access my webserver on my stationary from my laptop?

  - by Steven

  I'm running Apache on my stationary and I would like to access a website through my laptop. This is some of the Apache config: NameVirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80 <VirtualHost 127.0.0.1:80> ServerName mysite.com DocumentRoot I:/wamp/www/mysite/ </VirtualHost> ServerName localhost:80 <Directory /> Options FollowSymLinks AllowOverride all Order deny,allow Deny from all </Directory> On my laptop I've added the following to the HOSTS file: 10.0.0.3 mysite.com But accessing the page through mysite.com is not very successfull. If I enter the IP address directly, I only get a Forbidden message. What do I need to do in order to get this to work? Update I'm runing WAMPSERVER 2.1 (Apache 2.2.17) Apache is up and running I can ping 10.0.0.3 from laptop I'm not able to ping http://mysite.com from laptop IE gives me a 403 Forbidden - The website declined to show this webpage The only log that get's entries when trying to access the website from my laptop, is access.log. access.log 10.0.0.4 - - [13/Jun/2011:10:14:04 +0200] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 403 202 apache_error.log [Mon Jun 13 10:08:16 2011] [error] VirtualHost localhost:0 -- mixing * ports and non-* ports with a NameVirtualHost address is not supported, proceeding with undefined results UPDATE 2 My apache config has the following entry: AllowOverride all Order Deny,Allow Deny from all Allow from 127.0.0.1 Could it be that this Allow from is stopping other computers accessing the page?

  Read the article

• Nginx Server Block Not Working? - Already running other vhosts just this one not working

  - by daveaspinall

  Im running a Debian 6 LEMP server with multiple virtual hosts and everything has been fine for 5 or so sites. But I've just tried adding another but for some reason it's just not working. By not working I mean in Chrome I get the "Oops! Google Chrome could not connect to subdomain.domain.net" error. I've changed the domain for security to subdomain.example.com and the IP is masked. Hosts file (I have multiple sub domains): xxx.xxx.xx.xxx *.example.com *.example Server Block: server { listen 80; server_name subdomain.example.com; access_log /srv/www/subdomain.example.com/logs/access.log; error_log /srv/www/subdomain.example.com/logs/error.log; root /srv/www/subdomain.example.com/public_html; location / { index index.html index.htm index.php; } location ~ \.php$ { include fastcgi_params; fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:9000; fastcgi_index index.php; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name; } } I've created the system link to the file in the /etc/nginx/sites-enabled/ directory and restarted/reloaded nginx. DNS seems fine: # ping -c 2 subdomain PING subdomain.example.com (xxx.xxx.xx.xxx) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from www.example.com (xxx.xxx.xx.xxx): icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=0.035 ms 64 bytes from www.example.com (xxx.xxx.xx.xxx): icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.048 ms Checking the file with cURL works: # curl http://subdomain.example.com HTML - OK Emptied browser cache but still no dice. Anything I'm missing? Like I mentioned, I have a few sites running fine on the server currently so php-fpm etc etc are working. Any help would be much appreciated! Cheers, Dave

  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

• Steps to debugging web site latency and timeout issues

  - by Paperjam

  I have a client who has multiple offices around the country, all of which share the same Internet connection via their WAN. One specific office for this client is experiencing severe latency and timeout issues with my web site. Most, but not all, of the latency occurs on a specific ASPX page where multiple postbacks are made while populating cascading dropdown lists (rapid form submits). The latency is sporadic and can be anywhere from a few seconds to a full timeout. There is no indication that the timeouts are occurring on the server's end. The IT guy for this client is having trouble narrowing down the problem. Since it is affecting only one location for one client, I am led to believe it is not something with my site but something specific to that location. He's measured ping times while using the site and has noticed no real variance in ping times even when the page has timed out. I believe this may be being caused by some sort of Internet filter that doesn't like rapid form submits, but beyond a hunch I haven't a clue. My question is what things should I tell the IT guy to look for? While I'm not trying to provide active tech support for this issue, I would at least like to glean an understanding of what is going on and try to offer some sort of advice. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Router intermittently failing

  - by nomen

  My old Asus router died a few weeks ago, so I thought I'd set up my Debian box to deal with routing my home network. I have a few complications, but I adapted my configuration from a previously working configuration, and I don't see why I am having intermittent problems. But I am having them! Every so often, my SSH connections to the router (and to the Xen virtual machines hosted by the router) just drop. I am unable to use the router's dns server. I can't ping the router. Etc. All of these things work most of the time, but break down intermittently, for a few minutes at a time. (I can provide more details, but I'm not sure what will be helpful) /etc/network/interfaces: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # Gigabit ethernet, internal network auto eth0 allow-hotplug eth0 iface eth0 inet manual # USB ethernet, internet auto eth1 allow-hotplug eth1 iface eth1 inet dhcp # Xen Bridge auto xlan0 iface xlan0 inet static bridge_ports eth0 address 10.47.94.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 As I understand it, this is sufficient to create the network interfaces, and even do some switching between Xen hosts and my eth0 interface. I installed and configured Shorewall to manage routing between the bridge and my internet-facing interface: /etc/shorewall/zones fw firewall net ipv4 lan ipv4 /etc/shorewall/interfaces net eth1 detect dhcp,tcpflags,nosmurfs,routefilter,logmartians lan xlan0 detect dhcp,tcpflags,nosmurfs,routefilter,logmartians,routeback,bridge /etc/shorewall/policy net all DROP info fw net ACCEPT info all all REJECT info /etc/shorewall/rules DNS(ACCEPT) fw net DNS(ACCEPT) lan fw Ping(ACCEPT) lan fw ... and so on, these all work, when the router is accepting traffic at all. /etc/shorewall/masq eth1 10.47.94.0/24 Also, the router is currently "working", and I checked on a problematic client: arp infrastructure infrastructure.mydomain (10.47.94.1) at 0:23:54:bb:7d:ce on en0 ifscope [ethernet] I tried it when the router was down, and I (eventually) got the same response. It took about 30 seconds to return, though.

  Read the article

• Routing WIFI and LAN for specific traffic

  - by jakebird451

  I have two network devices aboard my macbook pro: WIFI (en1): Used for general traffic. Connects to an ip of 192.168.19.* via DHCP LAN (en0): Used for specific traffic. Connects to an ip of 192.168.2.10 as a static IP. Does not connect to a router, only a switch for direct routing connection. I have 4 IP addresses I need to access on the LAN: 192.168.2.1 192.168.2.21 192.168.2.20 192.168.2.30 The rest of the traffic needs to go to WIFI. I have tried setting up a routing table for the specific ip addresses, but I only managed to mess up my network. I do not venture out into the world of networking too often, but this was the latest command I have been trying: sudo route add -host 192.168.2.30 -interface en0 This command killed my ability to use ping. It told me that ping could not allocate memory (is that even possible)? It also killed my wifi access. Logging out and back in fixed the issue. I really do not mind to make this solution permanent, so I am fine with a temporary routing.

  Read the article

• VirtualName-based local development host behind corporate proxy (MAMP)

  - by geerlingguy

  I am behind a corporate proxy server/firewall, and this firewall seems to not be too happy with my idea of local development. On my home computer (Mac/Leopard), I have MAMP running, with a rule in /etc/hosts that directs dev.example.com to 127.0.0.1, and I have a virtualhost set up in the httpd.conf file which works great for me. However, at work, I set up the exact same configuration, but am not able to access dev.example.com, likely due to some address/DNS translation going on via the proxy server. Here are the relevant details from Terminal: $ ping dev.example.com PING dev.example.com (127.0.0.1): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.025 ms $ host dev.example.com Host dev.example.com not found: 3(NXDOMAIN) I've tried adding dev.example.com to the list of bypass addresses in System Preferences (the 'Bypass proxy settings for these Hosts & Domains' list), but that had no effect. Is there any way I can develop locally using name-based hosts at work? I can access localhost, but can't get to the dev.example.com (or any other custom virtualhosts) here at work, which complicates other matters related to the sites on which I'm working...

  Read the article

• Problem with connecting two different networks

  - by tanascius

  I have two networks: 192.168.13.0/24 (blue) and 192.168.15.0/24 (green). Computer A is connected to the 13-net, only. Computer B has two interfaces, one in each network. There is third computer that acts like a router and connects the 13-net to the 15-net (only in this direction). Now, I'd like to ping 192.168.15.100 from computer A to B. Unfortunately there is never a reply. But when I use a hub instead of a switch it works. In my opinion the ping packet travels through the switch to the router (which is the default route/gateway for A). The router sends the packet back to the switch to B. Probably B receives it on its 15-net interface but answers with it's 15th interface? Is this possible? The problem is, that B may have only a gateway 192.168.13.50 - but I am not really sure of it (B is a embedded system with limited configuration possibilities). Can anyone explain what happens here? Thank you!

  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

• Network card shuts down when stressed

  - by user142485

  I have a network card that functions fine with light use, but quits functioning after heavy use. I replaced it with a brand new one and still have the same issue, also updated drivers. It is a wired D-Link card. The Internet seems fine for a small amount of web browsing but when I run a bandwidth test it starts out fast and slows quickly until the card completely quits; I have a constant ping of the gateway going while I run this and it starts timing out after a couple seconds into the speed test. The card will stay on and the data light on it still flashes some but I cannot ping the gateway or anything else until the computer is rebooted. When I boot into safe mode I can browse and run the speed test fine with no problems. I am guessing that this is probably some program that is loading in regular mode but not safe mode that is causing the issue? I have very limited software (turned off av and firewall) on the computer but I am thinking that I'll just have to start eliminating start-up programs and see if that helps. This is on Windows 7 if that makes any difference. Anyone had a similar issue or have any other suggestions/ideas for narrowing down this problem?

  Read the article

• Throughput and why do ISPs sell too much bandwidth?

  - by jonescb

  I hope the question made sense how I worded it. :) I've been wondering, maximum theoretical bandwidth is measured as RWIN/RTT (Window size / round trip time) Source 1 and Souce 2 So if a major city only 100 miles away gives me a ping of 50ms, and I have the default 64kb TCP window size then my maximum throughput will be 12.5Mb/s. Everything further away would give me a higher ping and therefore a lower throughput. Is there any reason to buy something like FiOS with a 50Mb/s or greater connection? Will you ever be able to reach that kind of speed? I know you can increase the TCP window size to increase throughput, but it has to be at both ends which is a deal breaker because you can't control the server. I'm assuming other network protocols like UDP aren't quite as affected by latency as TCP is, but how much of overall network traffic does non-TCP make up vs TCP. Am I just misguided about how throughput works? But if the above is correct, then why should a consumer like me buy way more bandwidth than can be realistically used. Maybe the only reason is for downloading multiple things at once, or one thing from multiple servers/peers?

  Read the article

• Varnish going sick

  - by junke1990

  I'm having trouble with Varnish, it works for a couple of views and then just goes sick... The weird thing is that it does work for about 20 or 30 requests. If I call apache directly it works fine. I'm running Varnish Version: 3.0.3-1 on Debian Squeeze and, for now, Apache on port 80 and Varnish on port 8080 on the same server.. I'm using https://github.com/mattiasgeniar/varnish-3.0-configuration-templates as base for my VCLs and modified the VCLs to support Concrete5. Anyone any clue on how I should debug this? backend default { .host = "127.0.0.1"; .port = "80"; .connect_timeout = 1.5s; .first_byte_timeout = 45s; .between_bytes_timeout = 30s; .probe = { .url = "/"; .timeout = 1s; .interval = 10s; .window = 10; .threshold = 8; } } LOG 0 CLI - Rd ping 0 CLI - Wr 200 19 PONG 1353791312 1.0 0 CLI - Rd ping 0 CLI - Wr 200 19 PONG 1353791315 1.0 0 Backend_health - default Still sick 4--X-R- 0 8 10 0.000689 0.000000 HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently (the 301 is because I check for www.)

  Read the article

• Mixing both local and nonlocal addresses on three switches

  - by klew

  I have four computers that have nonlocal addresses like 150.X.X.X. Now I also get another few computers that should be only accessible through a gateway (it will be computing cluster) and they addresses are 10.0.0.X. I also wanted to include those four older computers to this new cluster, but I want them to be accessible from internet on nonlocal addresses (so I would like to set up them on both 150.X.X.X and 10.0.0.X addresses - I've set up it as interface eth0:0 since I have only one NIC). Those new computers have their switch and old computers also have their own switch. Both of them are connected to another (third) switch. The problem is that those old computers see each other (I can ping them), and also new computers see each other, but I can't ping old computer from new computer and vice versa. However pinging on nonlocal adresses works as expected. I looked into switch configuration and didn't find anything useful. I have no idea what I missed here. Can somebody help? All computers have Ubuntu Server 10.04

  Read the article

• Am I obliged to use ipv6 tunnel services if I want to be able to use it?

  - by Zagorax

  I was looking for configuring Slackware to use ipv6 but all instruction I found speak about using an ipv6 tunnel that encapsulate ipv6 request into ipv4 packet and send them to an external router that extracts ipv6 request and sends a reply (or, at least, this is what I understood). Is that necessary? Isn't there a way to configure a pure ipv6 system? If yes, could you please point me to a guide that clearly explain how to enable ipv6 without this trick? I would like to configure my Slackware desktop at first, and then do the same with my Centos server. EDIT: maybe I gave you too few information. Sorry. I'll write some more information thanks to the posted guide. ~$ test -f /proc/net/if_inet6 && echo "Running kernel is IPv6 ready" Running kernel is IPv6 ready So, it seems ipv6 is enabled in my kernel. Some other output from ifconfig, route and /etc/resolv.conf content (with opendns): ~$ /sbin/ifconfig wlan0 | grep inet6 inet6 addr: fe80::21f:3bff:fe60:cc5b/64 Scope:Link ~$ /sbin/route -A inet6 | grep wlan0 fe80::/64 :: U 256 0 0 wlan0 ff00::/8 :: U 256 0 0 wlan0 ~$ cat /etc/resolv.conf inet6 nameserver 2620:0:ccc::2 nameserver 208.67.222.222 nameserver 208.67.220.220 But still, with ping6 I can only ping localhost (::1). Everything else is unreachable. Normal ping works fine. That is why I was asking if I am obliged to use a tunnel.

  Read the article

• Windows Server don't connect to network share

  - by user104775

  Windows Server don't connect to network share. Network share is work. Ping Blockquote Pinging 109.123.146.223 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 109.123.146.223: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 109.123.146.223: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Reply from 109.123.146.223: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=63 Ping statistics for 109.123.146.223: Packets: Sent = 3, Received = 3, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms net view \shareaddress Blockquote System error 53 has occurred. The network path was not found. When network share was connected, I was got a error message: Blockquote \ "Mapped disk letter" refers to a location that is unavailable. It could be on a hard drive on this computer, or on a network. Check to make sure that the disk is properly inserted, or that you are connected to the Internet or your network, and then try again. If it still cannot be located, the information might have been moved to a different location Network share mounted via Group Policy. Any ideas?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >