Search Results

Search found 5084 results on 204 pages for 'policy routing'.

Page 56/204 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Are neighbors formed in EIGRP and OSPF always directly connectly?

    - by xczzhh
    I always thought that neighbors formed in EIGRP were not necessarily directly connected because the only requirement for two routers to be neighbors is that they share the same Autonomous System and K-values, but it seems that I was wrong. I have looked up several books, they do not seem to give a clear answer. And I am even more confused with OSPF... Please, give me some light here. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Linux router with diffent gateways for incomming and outgoing connections

    - by nkout
    I have the following topology: LAN Users:192.168.1.2 - 254 (192.168.1.0/24) gateway1: 192.168.2.2/24 used for all outgoing connections of LAN users (default gateway) gateway2: 192.168.3.2/24 used for incoming services (destination NAT, ports 80,443 are forwarded to 192.168.2.1) linux router-server R eth0 192.168.1.1/24: LAN eth1 192.168.2.1/24: WWAN1 eth2 192.168.3.1/24: WWAN2 I want to: route all outgoing traffic coming from LAN and R via 192.168.2.2 route the responses to incoming connections via 192.168.3.2 My config: ifconfig eth0 up 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig eth1 up 192.168.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig eth2 up 192.168.3.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 echo 0 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward route add default gw 192.168.2.2 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d !192.168.0.0/16 -j MASQUERADE I want to add iptables rule to mark incoming traffic from WWAN2 and send back the responses to WWAN2, while keeping default gateway on WWAN1

    Read the article

  • ip route add HOMEIP via SERVERIP disconnects me from ssh

    - by Arya
    I want to use a vpn connection on my Debian server but I get disconnected from ssh if I connect to the vpn. I thought by using the "ip route add" I can prevent getting disconnected from my server and it will continue to use the main connection for communication between my computer and the server, and the vpn for communication with other ips. This is the command I use ip route add PUBLICHOMEIP via PUBLICSERVERIP But I get disconnected after the "ip route add" command too. Am I making a mistake anywhere?

    Read the article

  • Can't connect to server from certain machines

    - by Joel Coel
    On a small college campus we have a VLAN setup for the computer labs. These machines get assigned IP addresses in the 192.168.7.xxx range. In the server room, all of the server are on the default VLAN and assigned an IP address in the 10.1.1.xxx range. For the most part this works, but the lab machines are unable to connect to one of the servers. They can't even ping it. They can talk to other servers on the same switch as this server just fine. At first I thought it might be a vlan issue, but I changed the server port vlan to match other known-working ports with no effect. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to route traffic from one subnet through a specific SOCKS proxy in other subnet?

    - by Yegor Razumovsky
    Here is my network map: Internet | | Router (192.168.1.1) | | (192.168.1.100) (wireless) MacBook ( mac os x / windows 7 / ubuntu. It doesn't matter ) (192.168.2.1) (wired) | | TargetComputer (192.168.2.2) I want to route all traffic from TargetComputer 192.168.2.2 through socks proxy running on my macbook. On target computer i can only change IP settings ( ip address, subnetmask, gateway, dns ).

    Read the article

  • Redirecting and Remapping with mod_rewrite

    - by Droid646197
    First of all, am new to doing back-end server admin.. I have a main website being served on at certain IP. I have a blog address that lives on another IP, which was used on wordpress.com. When a user typed in blog.domain.com it would resolve to the Wordpress.com site. Since coming on board (two months) they wanted me to bring the blog in house. So, I set up a wordpress install at domain.com/blog. I would like blog.domain.com (different ip) to resolve to domain.com/blog but still using blog.domain.com is this possible with Apache and mod_rewrite?

    Read the article

  • Multiple network cards, controlling where my traffic goes

    - by thefinn93
    This is an Ubuntu 12.04 server install. I have multiple network cards, eth0 and eth1 lets call them. eth0 is connected to the internet, and all of my traffic goes through it, until eth1 gets plugged in. Then the machine tries to send everything through eth1, which for various and sundry reasons does not go out to the Interent. The only traffic it doesn't send through eth1 is traffic on eth0's subnet. It also will not accept inbound connections on eth0 from outside of eth0's subnet. I'd like all outbound traffic to go out eth0, but I'd like incoming connections from to either card from any subnet to work.

    Read the article

  • OpenBSD: Gateway outside subnet (works in Linux)

    - by kshade
    We need to set up an OpenBSD host to use a default gateway that's outside of it's subnet. This is all I need to do on Linux (not the actual IPs) to achieve it: ifconfig eth0 33.33.33.33/31 up route add 33.33.33.254 dev eth0 route add default gw 33.33.33.254 The problem is that we don't know the proper equivalent of the middle command in OpenBSD. The man page says: If the destination is directly reachable via an interface requiring no intermediary system to act as a gateway, the -iface modifier should be specified; Sadly we can't seem to figure out how to make it work with that. This is a virtual host on an OVH server, they have documentation for many other operating systems showing how to do it here: http://help.ovh.co.uk/BridgeClient

    Read the article

  • How to setup an Openvpn server with two gateways to internet

    - by fourat
    I have an openvpn server behind two wan interfaces: eth1 and eth2 where eth1 is the default gw and eth2 is where openvpn binds to. The problems my ovpn server is replying back to ovpn client via the default gw (through eth1) and the tcp negociation is lost before establishing any tunnel. Here's what's happening: wan client -----> eth2 ----> openvpn -----> eth1 ----> lost and not delivered back to client Is there a way to tell ovpn to stick on eth2 and consider it for all traffic ?

    Read the article

  • Route a specific user's traffic via VPN but still allow local networking

    - by wbg
    So, I want to route certain traffic via a VPN connection and the rest via my normal Internet connection. I want to run several different programs and most of them don't support binding to a specific network interface (tun0 in my case). I've managed to send a specific user's traffic via the VPN following the answers given here: iptables - Target to route packet to specific interface? But unfortunately, when I run a server that connects to the Internet and has a web interface running on a local IP (127.0.0.1/192.168.0.*), all the Internet traffic correctly goes via tun0, but I'm unable to connect to the web interface from a local IP as a different user. When I log in as the VPN-ified user, I can access services running on local IPs, but other users/machines can't access any servers I start. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

    Read the article

  • Route gaming data over wireless and everything else through LAN?

    - by Alex
    I have two internet connections available to me. One is via LAN.. not a great ping, but fast downloads. The other is via USB wireless adapter.. good ping, but slow downloads. I want to connect to both of them simultaneously. I want to be able to specify which data or application will use the wireless connection and route everything else through the lan connection. Is this possible, and how would I do it? Windows 7 x64 is my operating system. Here is the data from route print: http://pastebin.com/vsjQRpSM I'm still unsure of how to use this to make all of my data go through the nvidia lan interface, even after reading route /? Also, if I'm able to achieve that, will it override the ForceBindIP?

    Read the article

  • Can I set up two NICs bridged together and still SSH into the bridging machine?

    - by squinlan
    I have a ubuntu box setup with two NICs. I can bridge them together just fine, but I haven't been able to setup a way to SSH into the box once the connections are bridged together. Here's my /etc/network/interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth1 iface eth1 inet manual auto eth0 iface eth0 inet manual auto br0 iface br0 inet static address 192.168.33.213 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.33.1 bridge_ports eth0 eth1 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 bridge_maxwait 0 This works just fine for bridging, but I'm not able to SSH into the box. I tried setting up another interface on one of the NICs: auto eth0:1 iface eth0:1 inet static address 192.168.33.215 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.33.1 But this really didn't help. Is it possible to ssh into a machine that has all of its NICs bridged? If it is, how?

    Read the article

  • Access to a network server without port forwarding

    - by SdevDavid
    I have a network with the following structure. The server in PC2 is simple socket server TCP in 8080 port. I need to access to PC2 from other external network by socket client. This socket client knows the public IP (85.xxx.xxx.x), the private IP (192.168.0.21) and the port. How I can access PC2 without port forwarding on the router? If possible, I would like to have a reference in any programming language of this case.

    Read the article

  • Configure server on network to analyze traffic

    - by Strajan Sebastian
    I have the following network: http://i.stack.imgur.com/rapkH.jpg I want to send all the traffic from the devices that connect to the 192.168.0.1 router to the 192.168.10.1 router(and eventually to the Internet), by passing through the server and an additional router. Almost 2 days have passed and I can't figure what is wrong. While searching on the Internet for some similar configuration I found some articles that are somehow related to my needs, but the proposed solutions don't seem to work for me. This is a similar article: iptables forwarding between two interface I done the following steps for the configuration process: Set static IP address 192.168.1.90 for the eth0 on the server from the 192.168.1.1 router Set static IP address 192.168.0.90 for the eth1 on the server from the 192.168.0.1 router Forwarded all the traffic from 192.168.0.1 router to the server on eth1 interface witch seems to be working. The router firmware has some option to redirect all the traffic from all the ports to a specified address. Added the following rules on the server(Only the following, there aren't any additional rules): iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -m state -–state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT I also tried changing iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -m state -–state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT into iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT but still is not working. After adding the following to enable the packet forwarding for the server that is running CentOS: echo 1 /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 After a server restart and extra an extra check to see that all the configuration from above are still available I tried to see again if I can ping from a computer connected to 192.168.0.1/24 LAN the router from 192.168.1.1 but it didn't worked. The server has tshark(console wireshark) installed and I found that while sending a ping from a computer connected to 192.168.0.1 router to 192.168.1.1 the 192.168.0.90(eth1) receives the ping but it doesn't forward it to the eth0 interface as the rule tells: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT and don't now why this is happening. Questions: The iptables seem that don't work as I am expecting. Is there a need to add in the NAT table from iptables rules to redirect the traffic to the proper location, or is something else wrong with what I've done? I want to use tshark to view the traffic on the server because I think that is the best at doing this. Do you know something better that tshark to capture the traffic and maybe analyze it?

    Read the article

  • How to configure OpenVPN server to use custom default gateway?

    - by Arenim
    I have a vpn server at address 10.1.0.2 and the server have another ip in it's network -- 10.0.0.2 in his subnet (it's a tun2socks router). But default server's gateway is NOT 10.0.0.2 (and it's ok) but another external IP. I want all the client's traffic to be forwarded through this ip address -- 10.0.0.2. Here is part of my server's config: dev tap0 server-bridge 10.1.0.1 255.255.255.0 10.1.0.50 10.1.0.100 push "route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" ; now client can ping 10.0.0.2 push "redirect-gateway def1 bypass-dhcp" push "dhcp-option DNS 10.1.0.1" push "dhcp-option WINS 10.1.0.1" in fact i want some like push "redirect-gateway 10.0.0.2" How can I achieve this?

    Read the article

  • identify a router that cuts certain port

    - by Sergiks
    Is there a way to identify which particular router between me and some server blocks connections on certain port? I am in a hotel in Thailand, where they have recently changed some settings in their equipment, and now I cannot reach any of my servers in Europe and USA by SSH / port 22. More traditional ports like 80 or 21 are open. traceroute command shows each particular router in the middle. But is there a way to identify one that filters out port 22?

    Read the article

  • What is "Disable class based route addition" good for?

    - by JRoppert
    In the advanced TCP/IP settings of a VPN connection, i found a checkbox labeled with "Disable class based route addition". The checkbox is only enabled as long as "Use default gateway on remote network" is switched off. What is "Disable class based route addition" good for? Detailed instructions to find the settings: Open Properties of VPN connection Go to Networking tab Open Properties of "Internet Protocol Version 4 (TCP/IPv4)" (and/or TCP/IPv6) Click "Advanced..." Button Change to "IP Settings" tab Here you can find the checkboxes mentioned above

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN and brouting issue

    - by JavierMartinz
    I have a Guest XEN Machine in which I want to connect by OpenVPN to other network. But I have this problem: when I want to connect to that OpenVPN I get a lot of TLS handshake errors because I think that the packages did not come rightly. When, at the end, the guest machine achieve to connect (after several tries) I can't ping the other machines of the OpenVPN network. Except sometimes, where if I ping 20 times MAYBE i get ping-answer in 1-2 times. I think that this problem is related about how the HOST Xen machine 'filters' the packages to the bridge. I mean, I think that all the outgoing guest machines packages are good but the incoming traffic to the guests is not recognized well. How could I detect/solve the problem? Im using Debian Linux in both machines

    Read the article

  • What are the methods of separating network spaces in a LAN?

    - by dash17291
    Please detail me the methods. My thoughts: put the servers in separate (sub)networks the servers are forced to go through the firewall but no NAT is required assign more IP addresses to the internal interface of the server choosing gateway addresses from the clients and servers IP address ranges split DNS Netfilter/{iptables, ipset} could be heavily involved, I'm talking about Linux servers. See for example: Destination NAT Onto the Same Network from internal clients Please do not explain what is NAT or DNS. This is a theoretical question, but my poor English knowledge prevent me to describe it in a fancy fashion.

    Read the article

  • Route using certain IP address

    - by spa
    I have a server with two public IPs. Both IPs are added to eth0 using ip addr add. Now I'd like to contact a server which uses IP address filtering. Only requests are allowed which use the second IP address. Is there are way to set this up using the standard route command in Linux? I guess that's not the case. So the only solution I see right now: Setup a virtual device let's say eth0:0 and bind the second IP address to it. Then I can reference the device in the route command. Edit: I can't use the second IP as primary one easily as this IP is used as failover IP.

    Read the article

  • It is okay to set MASQUERADE at 2 network interfaces in a Linux server?

    - by Patrick L
    There is a Linux server with 3 network interfaces, eth0, eth1, eth2. IP forwarding has been turn on in this server. eth0 is connected to 10.0.1.0/24. Its IP is 10.0.1.1. eth1 is connected to 172.16.1.0/24. Its IP is 172.16.1.1. Server A can ping router C at 172.16.1.2. eth2 is connected to 192.168.1.0/24. Its IP is 192.168.1.1. Server A can ping server B at 192.168.1.2. Router C is able to route to 172.16.2.0/24 and 172.16.3.0/24. [10.0.1.0/24] | 172.16.2.0/24------| | [C]------172.16.1.0/24------[A]------192.168.1.0/24------[B] 172.16.3.0/24------| We have set MASQUERADE at eth0. When server B (192.168.1.2) connect to 10.0.1.0/24, IP MASQUERADE will happen at eth0. Can we set MASQUERADE at eth1? Is it okay to set MASQUERADE at more than 1 network interfaces in Linux?

    Read the article

  • Why does my ping command (Windows) results alternate between "timeout" and "network is not reachable"?

    - by Sopalajo de Arrierez
    My Windows is in Spanish, so I will have to paste console outputs in that language (I think that translating without knowing the exact terms used in english versions could give worse results than leaving it as it appears on screen). This is the issue: when pinging a non-existent IP from a WinXP-SP3 machine (clean Windows install, just formatted), I get sometimes a "Timeout" result, and sometimes a "network is not reachable" message. This is the result of: ping 192.168.210.1 Haciendo ping a 192.168.210.1 con 32 bytes de datos: Tiempo de espera agotado para esta solicitud. Respuesta desde 80.58.67.86: Red de destino inaccesible. Respuesta desde 80.58.67.86: Red de destino inaccesible. Tiempo de espera agotado para esta solicitud. Estadísticas de ping para 192.168.210.1: Paquetes: enviados = 4, recibidos = 2, perdidos = 2 (50% perdidos), Tiempos aproximados de ida y vuelta en milisegundos: Mínimo = 0ms, Máximo = 0ms, Media = 0ms 192.168.210.1 does not exist on the network. DHCP client is enabled, and the computer gets assigned those network config by the router. My IP: 192.168.11.2 Netmask: 255.255.255.0 Gateway: 192.168.11.1 DNS: 80.58.0.33/194.224.52.36 This is the output from "route print command": =========================================================================== Rutas activas: Destino de red Máscara de red Puerta de acceso Interfaz Métrica 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.11.1 192.168.11.2 20 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.11.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.11.2 192.168.11.2 20 192.168.11.2 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 20 192.168.11.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.11.2 192.168.11.2 20 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.11.2 192.168.11.2 20 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.11.2 192.168.11.2 1 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.11.2 3 1 Puerta de enlace predeterminada: 192.168.11.1 =========================================================================== Rutas persistentes: ninguno The output of: ping 1.1.1.1 Haciendo ping a 1.1.1.1 con 32 bytes de datos: Tiempo de espera agotado para esta solicitud. Tiempo de espera agotado para esta solicitud. Tiempo de espera agotado para esta solicitud. Tiempo de espera agotado para esta solicitud. Estadísticas de ping para 1.1.1.1: Paquetes: enviados = 4, recibidos = 0, perdidos = 4 1.1.1.1 does not exist on the network. and the output of: ping 10.1.1.1 Haciendo ping a 10.1.1.1 con 32 bytes de datos: Respuesta desde 80.58.67.86: Red de destino inaccesible. Tiempo de espera agotado para esta solicitud. Tiempo de espera agotado para esta solicitud. Respuesta desde 80.58.67.86: Red de destino inaccesible. Estadísticas de ping para 10.1.1.1: Paquetes: enviados = 4, recibidos = 2, perdidos = 2 (50% perdidos), 10.1.1.1 does not exist on the network. I can do some aproximate translation of what you demand if necessary. I have another computers in the same network (WinXP-SP3 and Win7-SP1), and they have, too, this problem. Gateway (Router): Buffalo WHR-HP-GN (official Buffalo firmware, not DD-WRT). I have some Linux (Debian/Kali) machine in my network, so I tested things on it: ping 192.168.210.1 PING 192.168.210.1 (192.168.210.1) 56(84) bytes of data. From 80.58.67.86 icmp_seq=1 Packet filtered From 80.58.67.86 icmp_seq=2 Packet filtered From 80.58.67.86 icmp_seq=3 Packet filtered From 80.58.67.86 icmp_seq=4 Packet filtered to the non-existing 1.1.1.1 : ping 1.1.1.1 PING 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. ^C --- 1.1.1.1 ping statistics --- 153 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 153215ms (no response after waiting a few minutes). and the non-existing 10.1.1.1: ping 10.1.1.1 PING 10.1.1.1 (10.1.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. From 80.58.67.86 icmp_seq=20 Packet filtered From 80.58.67.86 icmp_seq=22 Packet filtered From 80.58.67.86 icmp_seq=23 Packet filtered From 80.58.67.86 icmp_seq=24 Packet filtered From 80.58.67.86 icmp_seq=25 Packet filtered What is going on here? I am posing this question mainly for learning purposes, but there is another reason: when all pings are returning "timeout", it creates an %ERRORLEVEL% value of 1, but if there is someone of "Network is not reachable" type, %ERRORLEVEL% goes to 0 (no error), and this could be inappropriate for a shell script (we can not use ping to detect, for example, if the network is down due to loss of contact with the gateway).

    Read the article

  • How to route traffic via another machine before the default gateway

    - by Rich
    At the moment I have a router on 192.168.0.1, a Linux box on 192.168.0.2 and desktop clients from 192.168.0.3. Everything works with 192.168.0.1 as the default gateway. I'd like to send the traffic from the desktop clients via the Linux box before it goes out through the router so I can sniff the traffic (some of these are wireless connections). Can I set the default gateway to 192.168.0.2 on the desktop clients and then perhaps add some iptables rules to forward this traffic through 192.168.0.1? Quite happy to change the client desktops to another subnet if that makes it easier. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • what route to add to windows so that..

    - by baobeiii
    what route to add to windows so that while using openvpn i have internet connectivity, but if openvpn tunnel collapses then my computer has no routes to use and so has no connectivity. My computer normally needs the default route 0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254. I just need a route that only allowed traffic destined for the openvpn server ip. The traffic has to go through 192.168.1.254 however as that is my home networks internet gateway router thingy. Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >