Search Results

Search found 1965 results on 79 pages for 'salt packets'.

Page 56/79 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

• OpenVPN - client-to-client traffic working in one direction but not the other

  - by Pawz

  I have the following VPN configuration: +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ | outpost |----------------| kino |----------------| guchuko | +------------+ +------------+ +------------+ OS: FreeBSD 6.2 OS: Gentoo 2.6.32 OS: Gentoo 2.6.33.3 Keyname: client3 Keyname: server Keyname: client1 eth0: 10.0.1.254 eth0: 203.x.x.x eth0: 192.168.0.6 tun0: 192.168.150.18 tun0: 192.168.150.1 tun0: 192.168.150.10 P-t-P: 192.166.150.17 P-t-P: 192.168.150.2 P-t-P: 192.168.150.9 Kino is the server and has client-to-client enabled. I am using "fragment 1400" and "mssfix" on all three machines. An mtu-test on both connections is successful. All three machines have ip forwarding enabled, by this on the gentoo boxes: net.ipv4.conf.all.forwarding = 1 And this on the FreeBSD box: net.inet.ip.forwarding: 1 In the server's "ccd" directory is the following files: client1: iroute 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 client3: iroute 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 The server config has these routes configured: push "route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0" push "route 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0" route 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 route 10.0.1.0 255.255.255.0 Kino's routing table looks like this: 192.168.150.0 192.168.150.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 10.0.1.0 192.168.150.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.0.0 192.168.150.2 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.150.2 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 Outpost's like this: 192.168.150 192.168.150.17 UGS 0 17 tun0 192.168.0 192.168.150.17 UGS 0 2 tun0 192.168.150.17 192.168.150.18 UH 3 0 tun0 And Guchuko's like this: 192.168.150.0 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 10.0.1.0 192.168.150.9 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 192.168.150.9 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 Now, the tests. Pings from Guchuko to Outpost's LAN IP work OK, as does the reverse - pings from Outpost to Guchuko's LAN IP. However... Pings from Outpost, to a machine on Guchuko's LAN work fine: .(( root@outpost )). (( 06:39 PM )) :: ~ :: # ping 192.168.0.3 PING 192.168.0.3 (192.168.0.3): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 192.168.0.3: icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=462.641 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.3: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=557.909 ms But a ping from Guchuko, to a machine on Outpost's LAN does not: .(( root@guchuko )). (( 06:43 PM )) :: ~ :: # ping 10.0.1.253 PING 10.0.1.253 (10.0.1.253) 56(84) bytes of data. --- 10.0.1.253 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 2000ms Guchuko's tcpdump of tun0 shows: 18:46:27.716931 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 1, length 64 18:46:28.716715 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 2, length 64 18:46:29.716714 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 3, length 64 Outpost's tcpdump on tun0 shows: 18:44:00.333341 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 3, length 64 18:44:01.334073 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 4, length 64 18:44:02.331849 IP 192.168.150.10 > 10.0.1.253: ICMP echo request, id 63009, seq 5, length 64 So Outpost is receiving the ICMP request destined for the machine on it's subnet, but appears not be forwarding it. Outpost has gateway_enable="YES" in its rc.conf which correctly sets net.inet.ip.forwarding to 1 as mentioned earlier. As far as I know, that's all that's required to make a FreeBSD box forward packets between interfaces. Is there something else I could be forgetting ? FWIW, pinging 10.0.1.253 from Kino has the same result - the traffic does not get forwarded. UPDATE: I've found that I can only ping certain IP's on Guchuko's LAN from Outpost. From Outpost I can ping 192.168.0.3 and 192.168.0.2, but 192.168.99 and 192.168.0.4 are unreachable. The same tcpdump behavior can be seen. I think this means the problem can't be due to ipforwarding or routing, because Outpost can reach SOME hosts on Guchuko's LAN but not others and likewise, Guchuko can reach two hosts on Outpost's LAN, but not others. This baffles me.

  Read the article

• Count all received packet using Tshark

  - by user1269592

  i am build application who start capturing via Tshark with command line and i am looking for option to count all the received packets after i am start Tshark process this is my function who start the process: int _interfaceNumber; string _pcapPath; Process tshark = new Process(); tshark.StartInfo.FileName = _tshark; tshark.StartInfo.Arguments = string.Format(" -i " + _interfaceNumber + " -V -x -s " + _packetLimitSize + " -w " + _pcapPath); tshark.StartInfo.RedirectStandardOutput = true; tshark.StartInfo.UseShellExecute = false; tshark.StartInfo.CreateNoWindow = true; tshark.StartInfo.WindowStyle = ProcessWindowStyle.Hidden; tshark.Start(); maybe someone had an idea ?

  Read the article

• How a router decides destination of packet?

  - by user58859

  I have basic networking question. Scenario : Two pc's are communicating on a wan. Both the pc's ate behind routers or modems. My question : Both the pc's have public IP of each other. That public IP is most of the time is either of the router or of the modem. There can be more then one pc's behind those routers and modems. Then how the pc's are communicating. I can understand the packets can reach upto those routers or modems. But what after that. In the packet , destination IP is public IP. Then how the router or modem decides where to send the packet? Can anybody explain me this please. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Cisco ASA - NAT'ing VPN traffic

  - by DrStalker

  I have an IPsec VPN setup like this: [Remote users]-[Remote ASA] <-VPN-> [My ASA]-[Subnet A]-[Router 2]-[Subnet B] The VPN is set to handle traffic between [remote users] and [Subnet A]; it does not include [Subnet B]. Pretend the firewall rules for all routers are to permit everything. Now I want to redirect traffic that comes over the VPN to a specific IP on [subnet A] (192.168.1.102) to an IP on [Subnet B] (10.1.1.133) If I add a rule on [My ASA] to NAT traffic to original IP 192.168.1.102 to new IP 10.1.1.133, 1) Will this affect the connections coming in over the VPN? (ie: the VPN packets are unencrypted and then NAT is applied) 2) Will this work when the post-NAT target is on Subnet-B, which is not part of the VPN traffic selection?

  Read the article

• iptables and snatting to different networks

  - by codingfreak

  linuxbox (p.q.r.t) | | INTERNAL ------ ABCD ----- INTERNET (p.q.r.s) (m.n.o.k) ABCD has 3 interfaces connected to linuxbox, INTERNAL N/W, INTERNET. Linuxbox has a private address (p.q.r.t). At present I am snatting the packets from linuxbox to INTERNET at ABCD. I have a small doubt regarding the FTP from linuxbox since I have to support ftp from linuxbox to both INTERNAL N/W as well as in INTERNET. How can I right a rule in iptables present in ABCD where it can decide if the destination ip-address of ftp server is within INTERNAL N/W or in INTERNET and do natting accordingly.

  Read the article

• ASA5500 series logging for management interface in transparent mode

  - by ANervousTwitch

  i have a cisco asa5520 in transparent mode. the interface is on the same subnet as some windows machines, which are generating a lot of broadcast traffic that is filling up the logs. is there any way to have it not log that its blocking those packets? its a bunch of these messages: "through-the-device packet to from management-only network is denied: udp src..." im also seeing some of those zeroconf requests that id like to drop logging for. i tried to just put a rule on the management interface, but apparently thats not allowed.

  Read the article

• SQUID Transparent SSL proxy (no intercept)

  - by user974896

  I know how to have squid work as a transparent proxy. You put it into transparent mode then use your router or IPTABLES to forward port 80 to the squid port. I would like to do the same for SSL. Every guide I see mentions setting up keys on the squid server. I do not want squid to actually decrypt the SSL traffic then establish a connection with the server, rather I would like squid to simply forward the SSL traffic as is. The only thing I would like to do is be able to check the SSL request for any offending IPs and drop the packets if the destination is one of them.

  Read the article

• servers connected to a poweredge 6248 receive traffic for their 'neighbours'

  - by Hannes

  In the network we have a few vlans but at the moment I was investigating vlan2 which carries the most traffic. When tcpdumping on the eth0.2 interface, I see a lot of packets arriving which are not addressed to, nor coming from the server. I checked this on several servers in the network and they all have the same issues. In short, our switches don't switch the traffic but threat it like they are a hub. Can you tell me what settings on the dell poweredge 6248 should prevent this behaviour?

  Read the article

• scp to remote servers stalls, unable to isolate cause

  - by Rolf

  When I copy a large file (100+mb) to a remote server using scp it slows down from 2.7 mb/s to 100 kb/s and downward and then stalls. The problem is that I can't seem to isolate the problem. I've tried 2 different remote servers, using 2 local machines (1 osx, 1 windows/cygwin), using 2 different networks/isps and 2 different scp clients. All combinations give the problem except when I copy between the two remote servers (scp). Using wireshark I could not detect any traffic volume that would congest the network (although about 7 packets/sec with NBNS requests from the osx machine). What in the world could be going on? Given the combinations I've used there doesn't seem to be any overlap in the thing that could be causing the trouble.

  Read the article

• Can I create a virtual network interface to connect to a real network device?

  - by michelemarcon

  I have a networked windows pc with 2 network interfaces. The first connects to a lan with ip address 10.1.. The second connects to another lan with ip address 10.2.. Maybe it's a dumb question, however is it possible to virtualize the second network interface, so that the pc can connect to the 2 lans? If necessary, I may switch to linux or paravirtualization. CLARIFICATION: I want to send DHCP broadcast packets on the second lan, but not on the first lan. I want to do it with one single physical network interface. At the moment, I'm not using any virtualization software.

  Read the article

• How to calculate required switch speed based on network usage?

  - by tobefound

  I have a 48 port HP Procurve Switch 2610 (J9088A) that can handle 13.0 million PPS (packets per second) and features wire speed switching capacity at 17.6Gbps. First off, what does that REALLY mean? Where do I start when trying to figure out if my office (with 70 employees) will be well setup with this switch? How to calculate through-put based on a user average load of X MB per day? 90% of the folks will only be sending email, access random websites, etc... the other 10% will be conducting heavier tasks like moving image files (10 MB) across network shares, constant external FTP streams through the switch to a server etc... Is this switch good enough?

  Read the article

• How do I stop someone from saturating my line & wasting CPU cycles

  - by JoshRibs

  My web host shows inbound & outbound traffic with mrtg. I have a steady 3.5mbps inbound traffic from Nigeria. Even assuming the source IPs & destination ports are blocked with Iptables & verifying nothing is listening on those ports, will the traffic still always pass through the switch & "get" to my server (where my server wastes CPU cycles "dropping" the packets)? Assuming I was setup with a hardware firewall, the traffic would still show in mrtg assuming the firewall is behind the switch? So is there any way to stop someone from saturating your 100mbps line, if they also have a 100mbps line? Other than filing an abuse complaint with the kind folks in Nigeria?

  Read the article

• High frequency, kernel bypass vs tuning kernels?

  - by Keith

  I often hear tales about High Frequency shops using network cards which do kernel bypass. However, I also often hear about them using operating systems where they "tune" the kernel. If they are bypassing the kernel, do they need to tune the kernel? Is it a case of they do both because whilst the network packets will bypass the kernel due to the card, there is still all the other stuff going on which tuning the kernel would help? So in other words, they use both approaches, one is just to speed up network activity and the other makes the OS generally more responsive/faster? I ask because a friend of mine who works within this industry once said they don't really bother with kernel tuning anymore-because they use kernel bypass network cards? This didn't make too much sense as I thought you would always want a faster kernel for all the CPU-offloaded calculations.

  Read the article

• internet speed and routers are controlled by whom

  - by Ozgun Sunal

  i need to learn two things. each is related to other a bit. The first one is, while our LAN speed is usually 100 Mbps or at gigabit levels(very big compared to WAN speeds), WAN speed for instance DSL connections are far less than this. However, we are able to download huge files at those Mb speeds. Isn't this weird? [my real concern is why WAN speed is lower than LAN speeds] Who controls those routers around the large Internet? (while we, as web clients are connected to Internet, packets travel through those routers to the destination network/s).But, are those routers all inside the ISP network and if not, who controls those large numbers of routers?

  Read the article

• Load balancing + NAT issue on BNT GBE 2-7 gear

  - by Clément Game

  Hi guys, I've got troubles configuring an Hardware load-Balancer with NAT functions. I have the following architecture: Internet === VIP (public) LB (private ip) ==== private addressed servers When a connection is initialised from the outside (internet) , the LB correctly forwards the SYN packet to one of the private servers. But when these servers want to reply with a SYN/ACK there is a problem. the initial SYN packet had as ip header : VIP = Private_server_Address But the private servers cannot reach VIP from their side (this is normal since it's nated), and then provide a correct reply. Have you guys any solution to correctly forward the packets to their correct destination ? Note: The load balancer, which is the default gw for the servers, also has a NAT rule for "masquerading" (actually more SNAT than real masquerading) Regards, Clément.

  Read the article

• How to configure something like "Reflexive ACL" on OpenBSD?

  - by Earlz

  My U-Verse modem has something called "Reflexive ACL" described as Reflexive ACL: When IPv6 is enabled, you can enable Reflexive Access Control Lists to deny inbound IPv6 traffic unless this traffic results from returning outgoing packets (except as configured through firewall rules). This seems like a pretty good way to keep from having to maintain a firewall on each computer behind my router that gets handed an IPv6 address. It sounds about like a NAT, which for my small home network is all I want right now. Now my modem sucks as a router though, so I'm in the process of configuring an OpenBSD router to do that. I've got IPv6 supported and all that and my OpenBSD router will hand out IPv6 addresses by rtadvd. Now I want to keep people from having instant access to my local network through IPv6. How would I best do something like Reflexive ACL with pf in OpenBSD 5.0?

  Read the article

• Rate of UDP packet loss over WLAN

  - by Martin

  While testing something with TFTP I noticed lots of timeouts (and slow speed as result) when I used my WLAN - and no problems when using a network cable. A quick test program sending/receiving UDP revealed that there are about 3-5% packets lost. While it's obvious that WLAN has to be less reliable than LAN, I have no knowledge what loss rates are considered 'normal' - and when there is a need to further investigate the network infrastructure. Are there 'typical' packet loss rates on WLAN (and other network technologies e.g. PowerLAN, WAN, ...? Thanks

  Read the article

• Process vsserv.exe attempts connection to unknown host (clients.your-server.de)

  - by pushpraj

  from past few day I notice a new connection is being made from my system, I discovered it within the outpost firewall, it is blocked by default with the reason Block Transit Packets in the image above you can see that the process vsserv.exe is attempting a connection to static.88-198-155-41.clients.your-server.de I tried to search on google but could not find any relevant info, however this link http://www.webmasterworld.com/search_engine_spiders/3963600.htm says that your-server.de hosts bad bots. I am bit concerned if something is not correct. Could you help me understand the same?

  Read the article

• Cannot connect to internet with Clearwire modem.

  - by ide

  I'm currently using a Motorola WiMAX modem (CPEi 25725) and cannot connect to the internet. I can connect to the modem at 192.168.15.1 and check its status. It says that it has good/excellent connectivity to the internet and shows all five signal bars. Additionally it has sent and received some WiMAX packets so I believe it is connected to a tower. I'm at a loss for what the problem is. Unplugging the modem, restarting it from software, and restarting my computer (Windows 7) have not helped. Windows still reports that it is not connected to the internet. Alternatively, could this be an ISP issue? I have heard that Clearwire is a not-so-reputable ISP that blocks VoIP, and I was using Skype recently.

  Read the article

• Is there a suitable chain for iptables when eth is in Promisc mode?

  - by user1495181

  I have a fron-end machine. Machine have2 eth cards. I want to use netfilter queue to do some checks on the packets. I set eth like this: ifconfig eth0 0.0.0.0 promisc up ifconfig eth1 0.0.0.0 promisc up I want to have an iptable rule like this(only example): iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -j LOG --log-prefix " eth0 packet " but the packet is no passed through the iptables ,because it dosnt target to this MAC. Promisc mode didnt help. I saw that there is a way to add iptables chain for PROMISC, but need compilation... Is there any simplier way to have iptables rule when packet is not target to this eth. Currently i bypass this by creating a bridge between 2 eth and put rule on the FORWARD, but i done want to create bridge.

  Read the article

• Dns works, can ping, but cannot load web pages in browser

  - by user1224595

  Yesterday I changed routers, and my desktop computer started acting up. I could ping websites, and nslookup was able to resolve names to addresses, but neither chrome, firefox, nor ie could load any webpages. None of my other computers connected to the same wireless router have any problems. I connect my desktop to the router through a cheap wifi dongle. I did a wireshark capture of the browser request, and I have uploaded the pcap here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7AsPdhWc-SwbTV0bUJLQXo4UUE/edit?usp=sharing One strange thing I noticed was the spamming of ssdp packets. I am not super familiar with networking, but it seems that it is not a problem with the router, as dns works, and so does dhcp (the desktop is assigned an address correctly). Any help would be appreciated.

  Read the article

• routing problems

  - by user174050

  I have an windows 7 laptop and I have installed openvpn 2.2x as client. The laptop has 2 ethernet cards, one of them is wireless. The wireless lan is 192.168.1.0/24 The Fix lan is 192.168.2.0/24 If I connect to the openvpn server useing the Fix lan the I can connect properly and for testing I ping to my openvpn server 10.0.0.1 that answers correctly. But if I connect to the openvpn server useing the wireless lan, I can establish the connection but pinging to the server isn´t possible. The packets goes allways lost. Why can this happen? In an other laptop where windows xp is installed and with the same lan configuratio everything works propperly. In both cases the firewall is configured to access the vnc server and the server directories useing samba. With the XP I have no problems. I will thank you for all help Ignacio

  Read the article

• Mitigating the 'firesheep' attack at the network layer?

  - by pobk

  What are the sysadmin's thoughts on mitigating the 'firesheep' attack for servers they manage? Firesheep is a new firefox extension that allows anyone who installs it to sidejack session it can discover. It does it's discovery by sniffing packets on the network and looking for session cookies from known sites. It is relatively easy to write plugins for the extension to listen for cookies from additional sites. From a systems/network perspective, we've discussed the possibility of encrypting the whole site, but this introduces additional load on servers and screws with site-indexing, assets and general performance. One option we've investigated is to use our firewalls to do SSL Offload, but as I mentioned earlier, this would require all of the site to be encrypted. What's the general thoughts on protecting against this attack vector? I've asked a similar question on StackOverflow, however, it would be interesting to see what the systems engineers thought.

  Read the article

• Windows 7 with two network cards doesn't route traffic

  - by Tomek

  I have simple task to do: I have wni7 with two nics.I want to connect another comp(osx) to win7 through second nic to connect it to internet. I already changed the registry. Win7 interface with 192.168.2.1 has no gateway set (no point to do that) OSX interface with 192.168.2.2 has gateway set to 192.168.2.1 I do not add any routes on win7, every thing seems to be already there network on second nic is detected as "undefined network" (probably effect of no gateway) i can achieve any connectivity to internet from OSX only by enabling network connection sharing on nic with 192.168.2.1, but it enables NAT and I'm interested only in pure routing without nat(it's a setup for some research). firewall is off. It seems to me that win7 refuses to forward packets for some reason. Perhaps "undefined network" and NLA service is to blame, although i couldn't find any info about that. Below ascii schematics of my setup: internet<--router(192.168.1.1)<--(192.168.1.1) WIN7 (192.168.2.1)<--(192.168.2.2)OSX Thanks

  Read the article

• Restricting output to only allow localhost using iptables

  - by Dave Forgac

  I would like to restrict outbound traffic to only localhost using iptables. I already have a default DROP policy on OUTPUT and a rule REJECTing all traffic. I need to add a rule above that in the OUTPUT chain. I have seen a couple different examples for this type of rule, the most common being: -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT and -A OUTPUT -o lo -s 127.0.0.1 -d 127.0.0.1 -j ACCEPT Is there any reason to use the latter rather than the former? Can packets on lo have an address other than 127.0.0.1?

  Read the article

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