Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 6/55 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • NAT for static private addresses

    - by biggdman
    Could someone please help me out with the following scenario: I have a machine that hosts 3 lxc containers, and acts like a router for them. The LXC containers have private ip addresses set on the interfaces that are connected to the host. I want to provide Internet access to the containers and I want to configure the host system so it translates only the addresses that are configured static on the lxc containers interfaces. Should I try to configure the host so it translates each of the 3 private addresses to the public address of the host's interface that is connected to the Internet?

    Read the article

  • basic help for Nat configuration needed

    - by Klaes S.
    I have a server with a IP 1.0.0.5/24. This is the main IP address of the server, and now I have two other IP addresses for the server, they are 1.0.2.30/24 and 1.0.2.31/24. I want to make a VirtualBox running another OS accessible through the Internet, and only allow the specified IP to reach the virtual box. I'm new to iptables and therefore I need some basic help and getting started information about this. The hosting provider does not allow more than on MAC address per switch port, which means that I'm not able to make bridge as far as I know. Futhermore I want the host, to reject the extra IPs so its only the VirtualBox / virtual machine that accepts the request's on the extra IPS.

    Read the article

  • Setup VPN issue on Ubuntu Server 12.04

    - by Yozone W.
    I have a problem with setup VPN server on my Ubuntu VPS, here is my server environments: Ubuntu Server 12.04 x86_64 xl2tpd 1.3.1+dfsg-1 pppd 2.4.5-5ubuntu1 openswan 1:2.6.38-1~precise1 After install software and configuration: ipsec verify Checking your system to see if IPsec got installed and started correctly: Version check and ipsec on-path [OK] Linux Openswan U2.6.38/K3.2.0-24-virtual (netkey) Checking for IPsec support in kernel [OK] SAref kernel support [N/A] NETKEY: Testing XFRM related proc values [OK] [OK] [OK] Checking that pluto is running [OK] Pluto listening for IKE on udp 500 [OK] Pluto listening for NAT-T on udp 4500 [OK] Checking for 'ip' command [OK] Checking /bin/sh is not /bin/dash [WARNING] Checking for 'iptables' command [OK] Opportunistic Encryption Support [DISABLED] /var/log/auth.log message: Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [RFC 3947] method set to=115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike] meth=114, but already using method 115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-08] meth=113, but already using method 115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-07] meth=112, but already using method 115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-06] meth=111, but already using method 115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-05] meth=110, but already using method 115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-04] meth=109, but already using method 115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03] meth=108, but already using method 115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02] meth=107, but already using method 115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02_n] meth=106, but already using method 115 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: ignoring Vendor ID payload [FRAGMENTATION 80000000] Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2251: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection] Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[5] [My IP Address] #5: responding to Main Mode from unknown peer [My IP Address] Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[5] [My IP Address] #5: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R0 to state STATE_MAIN_R1 Oct 16 06:50:54 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[5] [My IP Address] #5: STATE_MAIN_R1: sent MR1, expecting MI2 Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[5] [My IP Address] #5: NAT-Traversal: Result using draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike (MacOS X): peer is NATed Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[5] [My IP Address] #5: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R1 to state STATE_MAIN_R2 Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[5] [My IP Address] #5: STATE_MAIN_R2: sent MR2, expecting MI3 Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[5] [My IP Address] #5: ignoring informational payload, type IPSEC_INITIAL_CONTACT msgid=00000000 Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[5] [My IP Address] #5: Main mode peer ID is ID_IPV4_ADDR: '192.168.12.52' Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[5] [My IP Address] #5: switched from "L2TP-PSK-NAT" to "L2TP-PSK-NAT" Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: deleting connection "L2TP-PSK-NAT" instance with peer [My IP Address] {isakmp=#0/ipsec=#0} Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R2 to state STATE_MAIN_R3 Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: new NAT mapping for #5, was [My IP Address]:2251, now [My IP Address]:2847 Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: STATE_MAIN_R3: sent MR3, ISAKMP SA established {auth=OAKLEY_PRESHARED_KEY cipher=aes_256 prf=oakley_sha group=modp1024} Oct 16 06:50:55 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: Dead Peer Detection (RFC 3706): enabled Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: the peer proposed: [My Server IP Address]/32:17/1701 -> 192.168.12.52/32:17/0 Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: NAT-Traversal: received 2 NAT-OA. using first, ignoring others Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #6: responding to Quick Mode proposal {msgid:8579b1fb} Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #6: us: [My Server IP Address]<[My Server IP Address]>:17/1701 Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #6: them: [My IP Address][192.168.12.52]:17/65280===192.168.12.52/32 Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #6: transition from state STATE_QUICK_R0 to state STATE_QUICK_R1 Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #6: STATE_QUICK_R1: sent QR1, inbound IPsec SA installed, expecting QI2 Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #6: Dead Peer Detection (RFC 3706): enabled Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #6: transition from state STATE_QUICK_R1 to state STATE_QUICK_R2 Oct 16 06:50:56 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #6: STATE_QUICK_R2: IPsec SA established transport mode {ESP=>0x08bda158 <0x4920a374 xfrm=AES_256-HMAC_SHA1 NATOA=192.168.12.52 NATD=[My IP Address]:2847 DPD=enabled} Oct 16 06:51:16 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: received Delete SA(0x08bda158) payload: deleting IPSEC State #6 Oct 16 06:51:16 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: ERROR: netlink XFRM_MSG_DELPOLICY response for flow eroute_connection delete included errno 2: No such file or directory Oct 16 06:51:16 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: received and ignored informational message Oct 16 06:51:16 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address] #5: received Delete SA payload: deleting ISAKMP State #5 Oct 16 06:51:16 vpn pluto[3963]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[6] [My IP Address]: deleting connection "L2TP-PSK-NAT" instance with peer [My IP Address] {isakmp=#0/ipsec=#0} Oct 16 06:51:16 vpn pluto[3963]: packet from [My IP Address]:2847: received and ignored informational message xl2tpd -D message: xl2tpd[4289]: Enabling IPsec SAref processing for L2TP transport mode SAs xl2tpd[4289]: IPsec SAref does not work with L2TP kernel mode yet, enabling forceuserspace=yes xl2tpd[4289]: setsockopt recvref[30]: Protocol not available xl2tpd[4289]: This binary does not support kernel L2TP. xl2tpd[4289]: xl2tpd version xl2tpd-1.3.1 started on vpn.netools.me PID:4289 xl2tpd[4289]: Written by Mark Spencer, Copyright (C) 1998, Adtran, Inc. xl2tpd[4289]: Forked by Scott Balmos and David Stipp, (C) 2001 xl2tpd[4289]: Inherited by Jeff McAdams, (C) 2002 xl2tpd[4289]: Forked again by Xelerance (www.xelerance.com) (C) 2006 xl2tpd[4289]: Listening on IP address [My Server IP Address], port 1701 Then it just stopped here, and have no any response. I can't connect VPN on my mac client, the /var/log/system.log message: Oct 16 15:17:36 azone-iMac.local configd[17]: SCNC: start, triggered by SystemUIServer, type L2TP, status 0 Oct 16 15:17:36 azone-iMac.local pppd[3799]: pppd 2.4.2 (Apple version 596.13) started by azone, uid 501 Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local pppd[3799]: L2TP connecting to server 'vpn.netools.me' ([My Server IP Address])... Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local pppd[3799]: IPSec connection started Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: Connecting. Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IPSec Phase1 started (Initiated by me). Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 1). Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 2). Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 3). Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 4). Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 5). Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKEv1 Phase1 AUTH: success. (Initiator, Main-Mode Message 6). Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 6). Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKEv1 Phase1 Initiator: success. (Initiator, Main-Mode). Oct 16 15:17:38 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IPSec Phase1 established (Initiated by me). Oct 16 15:17:39 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IPSec Phase2 started (Initiated by me). Oct 16 15:17:39 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode message 1). Oct 16 15:17:39 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode message 2). Oct 16 15:17:39 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode message 3). Oct 16 15:17:39 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKEv1 Phase2 Initiator: success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode). Oct 16 15:17:39 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IPSec Phase2 established (Initiated by me). Oct 16 15:17:39 azone-iMac.local pppd[3799]: IPSec connection established Oct 16 15:17:59 azone-iMac.local pppd[3799]: L2TP cannot connect to the server Oct 16 15:17:59 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IPSec disconnecting from server [My Server IP Address] Oct 16 15:17:59 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Information message). Oct 16 15:17:59 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKEv1 Information-Notice: transmit success. (Delete IPSEC-SA). Oct 16 15:17:59 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Information message). Oct 16 15:17:59 azone-iMac.local racoon[359]: IKEv1 Information-Notice: transmit success. (Delete ISAKMP-SA). Anyone help? Thanks a million!

    Read the article

  • Why is it a bad idea to use multiple NAT layers or is it?

    - by iamrohitbanga
    The computer network of an organization has a NAT with 192.168/16 IP address range. There is a department with a server that has an IP address 192.168.x.y and this server handles hosts of this department with another NAT with the IP address range 172.16/16. Thus there are 2 layers of NAT. Why don't they have subnetting instead. This would allow easy routing. I feel multiple layers of NAT can cause performance losses. Could you please help me compare the two design strategies.

    Read the article

  • Isn't NAT a MUST when a LAN uses rfc 1918 private IPs?

    - by aks
    Isn't NAT a MUST when a LAN uses rfc 1918 private IPs? Can an organization assign its hosts with private IPs and still communicate with the external world without NAT? how can an internal host with a private IP (say 10.1.1.1) communicate with external world without NAT? I mean, how can the reply/response packet from the external world reach the original source as the packet with Dest IP = 10.1.1.1 will get lost as it can not be routed as many organizations can use the same IP. Why doesn't rfc 1918 (Address Allocation for Private Internets) make any mention of NAT?

    Read the article

  • Is this iptables NAT exploitable from the external side?

    - by Karma Fusebox
    Could you please have a short look on this simple iptables/NAT-Setup, I believe it has a fairly serious security issue (due to being too simple). On this network there is one internet-connected machine (running Debian Squeeze/2.6.32-5 with iptables 1.4.8) acting as NAT/Gateway for the handful of clients in 192.168/24. The machine has two NICs: eth0: internet-faced eth1: LAN-faced, 192.168.0.1, the default GW for 192.168/24 Routing table is two-NICs-default without manual changes: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 (externalNet) 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 (externalGW) 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 The NAT is then enabled only and merely by these actions, there are no more iptables rules: echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward /sbin/iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # (all iptables policies are ACCEPT) This does the job, but I miss several things here which I believe could be a security issue: there is no restriction about allowed source interfaces or source networks at all there is no firewalling part such as: (set policies to DROP) /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT /sbin/iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT And thus, the questions of my sleepless nights are: Is this NAT-service available to anyone in the world who sets this machine as his default gateway? I'd say yes it is, because there is nothing indicating that an incoming external connection (via eth0) should be handled any different than an incoming internal connection (via eth1) as long as the output-interface is eth0 - and routing-wise that holds true for both external und internal clients that want to access the internet. So if I am right, anyone could use this machine as open proxy by having his packets NATted here. So please tell me if that's right or why it is not. As a "hotfix" I have added a "-s 192.168.0.0/24" option to the NAT-starting command. I would like to know if not using this option was indeed a security issue or just irrelevant thanks to some mechanism I am not aware of. As the policies are all ACCEPT, there is currently no restriction on forwarding eth1 to eth0 (internal to external). But what are the effective implications of currently NOT having the restriction that only RELATED and ESTABLISHED states are forwarded from eth0 to eth1 (external to internal)? In other words, should I rather change the policies to DROP and apply the two "firewalling" rules I mentioned above or is the lack of them not affecting security? Thanks for clarification!

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu Server 12.04, NAT, Router, DNS. It just doesnt work

    - by Bjørnar Kibsgaard
    I recently inherited some server hardware from work and decided that it could be my main router at home (among other things). Ubuntu 12.04 server installation harware wise goes well and everything is found and working when I boot up. So I begin with setting up eth1 with DHCP. This works fine and it gets a public IP address from my modem and we have a working internet connection. Then I set up my other NIC (eth0) as static (192.168.0.1) and this also works fine. I can access it from other computers in the network. The problems are coming when I am trying to set up a DHCP server with isc-dhcp-server. It seems like it is working and giving the computers IP adresses but after one reboot it stops working. After the reboot eth1 will get a public ip from the modem but it doesnt have internet access. I have to manually run dhcpcd eth1 to get it to work again. As far as I know I havent made any changes to DNS. What am I doing wrong? I have never really had problems with this before. :)

    Read the article

  • Can I run a mix of static addressing and NAT?

    - by aroth
    Let's say that an ISP offers a plan with 5 static IP addresses, but I have more than 5 devices, many of which (such as a networked printer, for instance) I do not want or need to have a static IP address. So the topography I'm planning goes something like: ISP -> Router -> Switch -> Computer (static address) -> Computer (static address) -> Printer (DHCP/NAT) -> Tv (DHCP/NAT) -> (...) -> Wireless Devices (DHCP/NAT) Generally speaking, is it possible to run a network like that? If not, then what sort of setup do I need so that I can assign static addresses just to the things that need them, and use DHCP/NAT for everything else? Also, what internal networking devices will consume a static IP address? I'm pretty sure the router will, correct? Does the switch also?

    Read the article

  • IPSEC tunnel Fortinet Transparent Mode to inside Fortinet firewall in NAT Mode does not respond to i

    - by TrevJen
    I have 2 fortinet firewalls (fully patched); fw1 is providing an IPSEC tunnel in transparent mode. beneath this firewall is a fw2, a NAT firewall with a VIP address that has been confirmed to work. This configuration is required for my customers who want to connect to a public address space inside of the tunnel, in order to prevent cross over in IP space. This configuration works great for traffic going outbound to the remote side of the tunnel, but not inbound. While sniffing the traffic, I can see the inbound traffic going out of the fw1, but it is never seen at the fw2. Cust Net > 10.1.1.100 | | | FW1 >TRANSPARENT IPSEC | | | FW2 EXT >99.1.1.1.100-VIP | FW2 NAT >192.1.1.100-NAT

    Read the article

  • How can I port forward with an airport extreme and a NAT enabled modem?

    - by Jon
    I run an Actiontec HD701D modem with NAT to an Airport extreme base station to laptop etc. As you might expect I get double NAT issues. I tried a lot of different things to forward a port, but no luck. Currently the airport is in bridge mode letting the modem handle the NAT, but still can't forward the port. Also to note: firewall is off on the router, firewall is set to allow the application in OSX 10.6.3 and I did forward the port in the router. No luck.

    Read the article

  • Will disabling NAT on my wireless router cause a performance hit on my DSL router?

    - by user117313
    I have a Thomson TG508v2 router/modem and a brand new AirPort Extreme connected to it. At first, I set the AirPort Extreme to "share a public IP", which enables DHCP/NAT. Everything works great but I was having the Double NAT error. So I set the AirPort Extreme as bridge mode, which disables DHCP/NAT and let my crappy modem handle my internal network IPs. Will this cause any performance hit in my network? I'm worried because I'll outsource this job from AirPort Extreme (premium hardware) to the crappy modem. Before you suggest, I tried setting my modem as a bridge and configuring PPPoE on the AirPort Extreme, however it wouldn't connect to the internet, so I just dismissed leaving the modem as bridge.

    Read the article

  • Static NAT in AWS's Virtual Private Cloud (VPC)

    - by user1050797
    Currently in a VPC with a public and a private subnet, all internet bound traffic from the private subnet could be routed via an NAT instance. The NAT instance will port address translate the packet's source IP to use the NAT instance's elastic IP, so the public server can reply to this public address. This is a PAT mechanism. My question is there a way for me to do a static NAT on my NAT instance -- Using the same NAT instance to static NAT an unassociated but reserved elastic IP to a private subnet host. This NAT instance will behave like a physical firewall doing static nat'ing for a bunch of private ip's.

    Read the article

  • Opinions on .gr (Greek) registrars?

    - by Marc Bollinger
    None of the previous questions tackle some of the one-off (or further) countries' registries, beyond .co.uk, .it, et al. or else I'd have found an answer myself. I'm just looking for information for a vanity domain, so obviously I'm alright without an answer, but it's an unasked question (or at least, unanswered), and I'm not exactly in a hurry to give my credit card information over country lines, sight unseen.

    Read the article

  • Cisco Pix how to add an additional block of static ip addresses for nat?

    - by Scott Szretter
    I have a pix 501 with 5 static ip addresses. My isp just gave me 5 more. I am trying to figure out how to add the new block and then how to nat/open at least one of them to an inside machine. So far, I named a new interface "intf2", ip range is 71.11.11.58 - 62 (gateway should 71.11.11.57) imgsvr is the machine I want to nat to one of the (71.11.11.59) new ip addresses. mail (.123) is an example of a machine that is mapped to the current existing 5 ip block (96.11.11.121 gate / 96.11.11.122-127) and working fine. Building configuration... : Saved : PIX Version 6.3(4) interface ethernet0 auto interface ethernet0 vlan1 logical interface ethernet1 auto nameif ethernet0 outside security0 nameif ethernet1 inside security100 nameif vlan1 intf2 security1 enable password xxxxxxxxx encrypted passwd xxxxxxxxx encrypted hostname xxxxxxxPIX domain-name xxxxxxxxxxx no fixup protocol dns fixup protocol ftp 21 fixup protocol h323 h225 1720 fixup protocol h323 ras 1718-1719 fixup protocol http 80 fixup protocol rsh 514 fixup protocol rtsp 554 fixup protocol sip 5060 fixup protocol sip udp 5060 fixup protocol skinny 2000 no fixup protocol smtp 25 fixup protocol sqlnet 1521 fixup protocol tftp 69 names ...snip... name 192.168.10.13 mail name 192.168.10.29 imgsvr object-group network vpn1 network-object mail 255.255.255.255 access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.124 eq www access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.124 eq https access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.124 eq 3389 access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.123 eq https access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.123 eq www access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.125 eq smtp access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.125 eq https access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.125 eq 10443 access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.126 eq smtp access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.126 eq https access-list outside_access_in permit tcp any host 96.11.11.126 eq 10443 access-list outside_access_in deny ip any any access-list inside_nat0_outbound permit ip 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 IPPool2 255.255.255.0 access-list inside_nat0_outbound permit ip 172.17.0.0 255.255.0.0 IPPool2 255.255.255.0 access-list inside_nat0_outbound permit ip 172.16.0.0 255.255.0.0 IPPool2 255.255.255.0 ...snip... access-list inside_access_in deny tcp any any eq smtp access-list inside_access_in permit ip any any pager lines 24 logging on logging buffered notifications mtu outside 1500 mtu inside 1500 ip address outside 96.11.11.122 255.255.255.248 ip address inside 192.168.10.15 255.255.255.0 ip address intf2 71.11.11.58 255.255.255.248 ip audit info action alarm ip audit attack action alarm pdm location exchange 255.255.255.255 inside pdm location mail 255.255.255.255 inside pdm location IPPool2 255.255.255.0 outside pdm location 96.11.11.122 255.255.255.255 inside pdm location 192.168.10.1 255.255.255.255 inside pdm location 192.168.10.6 255.255.255.255 inside pdm location mail-gate1 255.255.255.255 inside pdm location mail-gate2 255.255.255.255 inside pdm location imgsvr 255.255.255.255 inside pdm location 71.11.11.59 255.255.255.255 intf2 pdm logging informational 100 pdm history enable arp timeout 14400 global (outside) 1 interface global (outside) 2 96.11.11.123 global (intf2) 3 interface global (intf2) 4 71.11.11.59 nat (inside) 0 access-list inside_nat0_outbound nat (inside) 2 mail 255.255.255.255 0 0 nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 0 static (inside,outside) tcp 96.11.11.123 smtp mail smtp netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0 static (inside,outside) tcp 96.11.11.123 https mail https netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0 static (inside,outside) tcp 96.11.11.123 www mail www netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0 static (inside,outside) 96.11.11.124 ts netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0 static (inside,outside) 96.11.11.126 mail-gate2 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0 static (inside,outside) 96.11.11.125 mail-gate1 netmask 255.255.255.255 0 0 access-group outside_access_in in interface outside access-group inside_access_in in interface inside route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 96.11.11.121 1 route intf2 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 71.11.11.57 2 timeout xlate 0:05:00 timeout conn 1:00:00 half-closed 0:10:00 udp 0:02:00 rpc 0:10:00 h225 1:00:00 timeout h323 0:05:00 mgcp 0:05:00 sip 0:30:00 sip_media 0:02:00 timeout uauth 0:05:00 absolute floodguard enable ...snip... : end [OK] Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Any hardware/software routers that support Full Cone NAT?

    - by Ian Boyd
    i'm trying to get Teredo to function on my machine. Most routers, it seems, refuse to forward packets from any host other than the one i specifically connected to first. Teredo requires full Cone NAT in order to function. Does any router, hardware or software, allow full cone NAT? Is this an oversight by the designers of Teredo that nobody, in practice, can use it? i've tried m0n0wall pfsense D-Link Linksys SMC

    Read the article

  • setup L2TP on Ubuntu 10.10

    - by luca
    I'm following this guide to setup a VPS on my Ubuntu VPS: http://riobard.com/blog/2010-04-30-l2tp-over-ipsec-ubuntu/ My config files are setup as in that guide, openswan version is 2.6.26 I think.. It doesn't work, I can show you my auth.log (on the VPS): Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: received Vendor ID payload [RFC 3947] method set to=109 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike] method set to=110 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload [8f8d83826d246b6fc7a8a6a428c11de8] Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload [439b59f8ba676c4c7737ae22eab8f582] Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload [4d1e0e136deafa34c4f3ea9f02ec7285] Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload [80d0bb3def54565ee84645d4c85ce3ee] Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: ignoring unknown Vendor ID payload [9909b64eed937c6573de52ace952fa6b] Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-03] meth=108, but already using method 110 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02] meth=107, but already using method 110 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: received Vendor ID payload [draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike-02_n] meth=106, but already using method 110 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:500: received Vendor ID payload [Dead Peer Detection] Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[7] 93.36.127.12 #7: responding to Main Mode from unknown peer 93.36.127.12 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[7] 93.36.127.12 #7: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R0 to state STATE_MAIN_R1 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[7] 93.36.127.12 #7: STATE_MAIN_R1: sent MR1, expecting MI2 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[7] 93.36.127.12 #7: NAT-Traversal: Result using draft-ietf-ipsec-nat-t-ike (MacOS X): peer is NATed Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[7] 93.36.127.12 #7: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R1 to state STATE_MAIN_R2 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[7] 93.36.127.12 #7: STATE_MAIN_R2: sent MR2, expecting MI3 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[7] 93.36.127.12 #7: Main mode peer ID is ID_IPV4_ADDR: '10.0.1.8' Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[7] 93.36.127.12 #7: switched from "L2TP-PSK-NAT" to "L2TP-PSK-NAT" Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: deleting connection "L2TP-PSK-NAT" instance with peer 93.36.127.12 {isakmp=#0/ipsec=#0} Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: transition from state STATE_MAIN_R2 to state STATE_MAIN_R3 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: new NAT mapping for #7, was 93.36.127.12:500, now 93.36.127.12:36810 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: STATE_MAIN_R3: sent MR3, ISAKMP SA established {auth=OAKLEY_PRESHARED_KEY cipher=oakley_3des_cbc_192 prf=oakley_sha group=modp1024} Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: ignoring informational payload, type IPSEC_INITIAL_CONTACT msgid=00000000 Feb 18 06:11:07 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: received and ignored informational message Feb 18 06:11:08 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: the peer proposed: 69.147.233.173/32:17/1701 -> 10.0.1.8/32:17/0 Feb 18 06:11:08 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #8: responding to Quick Mode proposal {msgid:183463cf} Feb 18 06:11:08 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #8: us: 69.147.233.173<69.147.233.173>[+S=C]:17/1701 Feb 18 06:11:08 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #8: them: 93.36.127.12[10.0.1.8,+S=C]:17/64111===10.0.1.8/32 Feb 18 06:11:08 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #8: transition from state STATE_QUICK_R0 to state STATE_QUICK_R1 Feb 18 06:11:08 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #8: STATE_QUICK_R1: sent QR1, inbound IPsec SA installed, expecting QI2 Feb 18 06:11:08 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #8: transition from state STATE_QUICK_R1 to state STATE_QUICK_R2 Feb 18 06:11:08 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #8: STATE_QUICK_R2: IPsec SA established transport mode {ESP=>0x0b1cf725 <0x0b719671 xfrm=AES_128-HMAC_SHA1 NATOA=none NATD=93.36.127.12:36810 DPD=none} Feb 18 06:11:28 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: received Delete SA(0x0b1cf725) payload: deleting IPSEC State #8 Feb 18 06:11:28 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: netlink recvfrom() of response to our XFRM_MSG_DELPOLICY message for policy eroute_connection delete was too long: 100 > 36 Feb 18 06:11:28 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: netlink recvfrom() of response to our XFRM_MSG_DELPOLICY message for policy [email protected] was too long: 168 > 36 Feb 18 06:11:28 maverick pluto[6909]: | raw_eroute result=0 Feb 18 06:11:28 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: received and ignored informational message Feb 18 06:11:28 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12 #7: received Delete SA payload: deleting ISAKMP State #7 Feb 18 06:11:28 maverick pluto[6909]: "L2TP-PSK-NAT"[8] 93.36.127.12: deleting connection "L2TP-PSK-NAT" instance with peer 93.36.127.12 {isakmp=#0/ipsec=#0} Feb 18 06:11:28 maverick pluto[6909]: packet from 93.36.127.12:36810: received and ignored informational message and my system log on OSX (from where I'm connecting): Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro pppd[68656]: pppd 2.4.2 (Apple version 412.3) started by luca, uid 501 Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro pppd[68656]: L2TP connecting to server '69.147.233.173' (69.147.233.173)... Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro pppd[68656]: IPSec connection started Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: Connecting. Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 1). Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 2). Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 3). Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 4). Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 5). Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKEv1 Phase1 AUTH: success. (Initiator, Main-Mode Message 6). Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Main-Mode message 6). Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKEv1 Phase1 Initiator: success. (Initiator, Main-Mode). Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Information message). Feb 18 13:11:09 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKEv1 Information-Notice: transmit success. (ISAKMP-SA). Feb 18 13:11:10 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode message 1). Feb 18 13:11:10 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: receive success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode message 2). Feb 18 13:11:10 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode message 3). Feb 18 13:11:10 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKEv1 Phase2 Initiator: success. (Initiator, Quick-Mode). Feb 18 13:11:10 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: Connected. Feb 18 13:11:10 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro pppd[68656]: IPSec connection established Feb 18 13:11:30 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro pppd[68656]: L2TP cannot connect to the server Feb 18 13:11:30 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro configd[20]: SCNCController: Disconnecting. (Connection tried to negotiate for, 22 seconds). Feb 18 13:11:30 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Information message). Feb 18 13:11:30 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKEv1 Information-Notice: transmit success. (Delete IPSEC-SA). Feb 18 13:11:30 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKE Packet: transmit success. (Information message). Feb 18 13:11:30 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: IKEv1 Information-Notice: transmit success. (Delete ISAKMP-SA). Feb 18 13:11:31 luca-ciorias-MacBook-Pro racoon[68453]: Disconnecting. (Connection was up for, 20.157953 seconds).

    Read the article

  • Web Application Nat Traversal

    - by pbreault
    We are deploying web applications in java using tomcat on client machines across the country. Once they are installed, we want to allow a remote access to these web applications through a central server, but we do not want our clients to have to open ports on their routers. Is there a way to tunnel the http traffic in a way that the central server can access the web application that is behind the firewall ? The central server has a static ip address and we have full control over it. We don't need to access the filesystem, we only want to access the web application itself through a browser.

    Read the article

  • How to implement bridging/NAT on linux? [closed]

    - by mikepurvis
    What I have is a network topology which looks like this: ------ PC --- IP Camera The PC has two ethernet interfaces, and is hosting a small webserver providing some auxiliary data. The issue is that the server on the PC runs on port 80, and the IP Camera is also running on port 80. Currently, we are bridging them, so that the PC's server is accessible at 192.168.0.2 and the camera at 192.168.0.3. However, what I'm trying to explore is the feasibility of using the PC to expose them both on the PC's IP, ideally both on port 80. Can this be done with regular sockets, or will it be necessary to use raw sockets?

    Read the article

  • How can I port forward over a VPN NAT?

    - by Charlie
    I have a multi-site VPN currently running with pfSense boxes and currently using OpenVPN. However I can change the OS and VPN type if need be. The main router has a 10.13.0.0/16 subnet and a series of public IPs For example, a branch has a 10.12.1.0/24 subnet How can I port forward NAT traffic on a public IP of the main router to a server behind the NAT of the second? So for instance port 95 on a public IP assigned to the main router forwards to 10.12.1.102 on the other router. Is this even possible? Currently my setup works great but only for intertnal traffic

    Read the article

  • If I suspend and resume my vmware host vista box, I have to restart the VMware NAT service or my gue

    - by user3944
    If I suspend and resume my VMware host (Workstation 6.5) Vista box, I have to manually restart the VMware NAT service or my guest Linux (Ubuntu) DNS requests won't resolve. I can ping boxes on the network by ip address, but just not resolve DNS. (My problem is related to the issue described here: http://communities.vmware.com/thread/185756) Any suggestions for why this is an issue? It is an annoyance!

    Read the article

  • Problems with NAT Adapater since upgrade to Ubuntu 12.10

    - by jjesse
    I was running Ubuntu 12.04 w/ VirtualBox installed. I was using the NAT interface to connect to everything. Basically running VBOX for testing some things and a Windows VM for Netflix.. Was back to working in my VMs today and noticed that I was unable to connect to the internet. In the VM settings I'm using the NAT adapter, however I noticed there is no NAT adapter in the Network Settings under Preferences in VBOX. Not quite sure what happened but wonder what is going on? I noticed there are some posts about changes DNSMASQ and configuring a bridge mode, but this worked out of the box under 12.04 and since the upgrade this no longers work. Need some help please

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >