Search Results

Search found 11425 results on 457 pages for 'ip messenger'.

Page 72/457 | < Previous Page | 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79  | Next Page >

  • Accessing Application Server directly by public IP in citrix Farm

    - by EmilioG
    I have an citrix application server in SiteB and I have a Farm in SiteA. We want to add this server into that Farm in SiteB, and access it from the internet via web interface. SiteA and SiteB are connected via VPN. But we would like to do that in a way the ICA traffic goes directly to the application server public IP (behind NAT) in siteB without using siteA and the VPN to route this traffic. Do you know if this is posible? Maybe there is a way to change the host in the ica file for this server in the webinterface (without editing manually each time)? We are using Citrix 4.5. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Iptables to lock down compromised server to a single ip

    - by ollybee
    I have a Linux server which is compromised, I can see nasty looking perl scripts executing with root privileges. I want to get some data off it before I wipe it. How can I block all inbound and outbound traffic except for my ip? It's a Centos server I assume i can do this with iptables? I'm aware a the server is rooted there is a possibility that attackers could have made changes on the server that would prevent this from working. Ill be testing to make sure and only have the server online for a couple of hours before it is nuked.

    Read the article

  • What's the difference between using ProtocolType.IP and ProtocolType.Tcp

    - by Sekhat
    I've just answered problem with sockets in c# where in my example code I initializing my socket using ProtocolType.IP as this is what I've always used in my own code, and it has never caused me problems. But I see many examples specifying ProtocolType.Tcp. I guess, what I'm asking is, by using ProtocolType.IP instead of ProtocolType.Tcp is anything being performed differently under the hood that I should be aware of?

    Read the article

  • Which handsets work with IP DECT base?

    - by waldrumpus
    My workplace uses an Ascom IP DECT base station (IPBS1), and Ascom handsets as well. We're looking to replace some broken handsets; the ones by Ascom, however, are rather expensive, and we're not altogether satisfied with their quality. I've been looking at handsets from other manufacturers, which are much less expensive - however, since I don't know anything about DECT, VOIP, etc, I don't know if they will work with the base. I've perused the base's manual, but found nothing on handset compatibility. How can I find out what kind of handset works with our base?

    Read the article

  • Converting an int to an IP address

    - by User1
    Is there an easy way to convert an int to an IP address in PostgreSQL? I was able to go from IP to int using this code: SELECT inet '1.2.3.4'-'0.0.0.0' This doesn't work: SELECT 16909060::inet I didn't see anything in the documentation. Does anyone know how to do this?

    Read the article

  • IP packet proxy solutions? Riverbed alternative

    - by Ruvan
    I have stumbled upon Riverbed.com's products which basically has the capability to hash chunks of IP data and subsequently store them to disk. I'm looking for an open source / cheaper alternative. WANProxy is the exact equivalent except that it only keeps data in-memory and can't store the data to disk which is a requirement for our solution. I'm basically looking for a proxy which not only looks at the files (filenames) but the data itself being transmitted at the packet level. Anyone? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Point IP to site for testing before delegation?

    - by cosmicbdog
    I'm migrating to a new server and would like to test before redelegating the domain over. I have some familiarity with setting up apache virtual hosts, but limited knowledge. How can I go about setting this up? My server already has a domain delegated to the server, and the IP by default has been setup to point to that. I've been told I can just add an entry to /etc/hosts/ which I haven't been able to understand what I can add in there to make this work. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • Too Many ESTABLISHED connection from a single IP address in Apache

    - by ananthan
    netstat -ntp |grep 80 shows too many ESTABLISHED connection from single IP address. Around 300 of them and it is not an attack and user is using a 2G connection to access Apache. This is the case with other 2G connections also. As a result of this Apache is running out of children. Earlier it was showing too many close_wait and after enabling tcp_tw_reuse and tcp_tw-recycle there is not much close_wait but the number of ESTABLISHED connections increased. We are using Ubuntu 11.04 having 48 GB ram keepalive On keepalive timeout 10 max clients 800 max-request-perchild 4000 timeout 300 I have set syn_ack to 1 and syn_retries to 2. On wifi there is no such issue. Connections are closing properly, but with 2G connections Apache is running out of children and too many ESTABLISHED connection. also i have tried setting timeout from default 300 to 30,but since our project is image hosting for mobile phones,clients couldn't upload images properly as they are getting frequent time out.Also there were a lot of 408 messages so changed it to the default 300

    Read the article

  • Masquerade traffic from certain source IP to VPN connection

    - by Shuo Ran
    Network Setup: 10.0.0.1 Router: to internet 10.0.0.70 Server: Ubuntu based server,default gateway is 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.51 PC I created a PPTP connection(interface: ppp0) on Server to a machine on the internet, what I want to do is route all the traffic from certain IP address(10.0.0.51) through the PPTP connection and then to the internet. What I did are: Set the gateway on PC(10.0.0.51) as 10.0.0.70 Enabled ipv4 forward on 10,0,0,70 Add the masquerade rule to iptable: iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -s 10.0.0.51 -j MASQUERADE After that, it seems none of the traffic from 10.0.0.51 be redirected to ppp0, instead these traffic are still going through 10.0.0.1 directly. Any thoughts on it?

    Read the article

  • Two IP ranges on eth1 configuration for centos 6.2

    - by Trickzzz
    i have a dedicated server, with "Virtuozzo" on it running VPS's. I have: eth0 - which is configured to the internal network, that one is fine. Now I have: eth1 - which has two ranges routed through this device. x.x.134.x (which has 12 IP's sequentially) x.x.132.x (which has 5) eth1: DEVICE="eth1" HWADDR="00:25:90:37:65:67" NM_CONTROLLED="yes" ONBOOT="yes" IPADDR="x.x.134.x" NETMASK="255.255.255.240" GATEWAY="x.x.134.x" I tried using this with another file as well named "ifcfg-eth1:1" in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ any ideas why the containers on eth1:1 would not link up to the network? Virtuozzo also thinks that eth1:1 is the primary network now, which isn't right?

    Read the article

  • IIS 7.5 Site being redirected from hostname to IP

    - by TuxOtaku
    So here's the problem. I have a site in IIS that is being redirected from the site's hostname to its IP address. The problem is, I haven't even set up redirects at all for the site; and yet when I analyze the headers that come through as the page loads, I see clear as day, "302 Temporary Redirect". What could be causing this? I thought perhaps it was something in my application's DB (it's a PHP/MySQL application), but I have ruled that out. I also thought that it might be a rewrite rule somewhere, so I deleted all my rewrite rules as well.

    Read the article

  • Testing a broken IP.

    - by wreing
    I'm trying to test an application and I need to make an valid IP not respond from a one of my test servers but not the others. I could do this for an fqdn using /etc/hosts but I'd like to do it for an IP. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • htaccess turn on php flags if certain IP address

    - by fire
    In my .htaccess file I need to turn on the following: php_flag display_errors On php_value error_reporting 2147483647 However I only want to do this if my IP is visiting the site. Any ideas? Something like... if (ip == "x.x.x.x") { php_flag display_errors On php_value error_reporting 2147483647 } Need to do this in .htaccess NOT in the PHP thanks!

    Read the article

  • cant access my local web server with the external IP

    - by TommyG
    I havent been able to find a solution to my particular problem. I have a MAC which I set up as a web server and configured my router to forward to the local IP. When trying to access my site from outside, it does say "It works!", however, when I call a simple Hello World PHP script that I have, I am getting an error that the page could not be opened. I did enable PHP on my machine so thats not the problem. I really have no idea how can I access - I followed so many tutorials and did everything correctly. My router is a Linksys WRT160N if it matters at all. In the port forwarding section, I selected to forward

    Read the article

  • Trouble with site-to-site OpenVPN & pfSense not passing traffic

    - by JohnCC
    I'm trying to get an OpenVPN tunnel going on pfSense 1.2.3-RELEASE running on embedded routers. I have a local LAN 10.34.43.0/254. The remote LAN is 10.200.1.0/24. The local pfSense is configured as the client, and the remote is configured as the server. My OpenVPN tunnel is using the IP range 10.99.89.0/24 internally. There are also some additional LANs on the remote side routed through the tunnel, but the issue is not with those since my connectivity fails before that point in the chain. The tunnel comes up fine and the logs look healthy. What I find is this:- I can ping and telnet to the remote LAN and the additional remote LANs from the local pfSense box's shell. I cannot ping or telnet to any remote LANs from the local network. I cannot ping or telnet to the local network from the remote LAN or the remote pfSense box's shell. If I tcpdump the tun interfaces on both sides and ping from the local LAN, I see the packets hit the tunnel locally, but they do not appear on the remote side (nor do they appear on the remote LAN interface if I tcpdump that). If I tcpdump the tun interfaces on both sides and ping from the local pfSense shell, I see the packets hit the tunnel locally, and exit the remote side. I can also tcpdump the remote LAN interface and see them pass there too. If I tcpdump the tun interfaces on both sides and ping from the remote pfSense shell, I see the packets hit the remote tun but they do not emerge from the local one. Here is the config file the remote side is using:- #user nobody #group nobody daemon keepalive 10 60 ping-timer-rem persist-tun persist-key dev tun proto udp cipher BF-CBC up /etc/rc.filter_configure down /etc/rc.filter_configure server 10.99.89.0 255.255.255.0 client-config-dir /var/etc/openvpn_csc push "route 10.200.1.0 255.255.255.0" lport <port> route 10.34.43.0 255.255.255.0 ca /var/etc/openvpn_server0.ca cert /var/etc/openvpn_server0.cert key /var/etc/openvpn_server0.key dh /var/etc/openvpn_server0.dh comp-lzo push "route 205.217.5.128 255.255.255.224" push "route 205.217.5.64 255.255.255.224" push "route 165.193.147.128 255.255.255.224" push "route 165.193.147.32 255.255.255.240" push "route 192.168.1.16 255.255.255.240" push "route 192.168.2.16 255.255.255.240" Here is the local config:- writepid /var/run/openvpn_client0.pid #user nobody #group nobody daemon keepalive 10 60 ping-timer-rem persist-tun persist-key dev tun proto udp cipher BF-CBC up /etc/rc.filter_configure down /etc/rc.filter_configure remote <host> <port> client lport 1194 ifconfig 10.99.89.2 10.99.89.1 ca /var/etc/openvpn_client0.ca cert /var/etc/openvpn_client0.cert key /var/etc/openvpn_client0.key comp-lzo You can see the relevant parts of the routing tables extracted from pfSense here http://pastie.org/5365800 The local firewall permits all ICMP from the LAN, and my PC is allowed everything to anywhere. The remote firewall treats its LAN as trusted and permits all traffic on that interface. Can anyone suggest why this is not working, and what I could try next?

    Read the article

  • What networking hardware do I need in this situation (Fairpoint [ISP] "E-DIA" connection)?

    - by Tegeril
    Right away you'd probably want to say, "Well just ask Fairpoint." I've done that, a number of times in as many different ways I can phrase it and just keep hitting a brick wall where they will not commit to giving any useful information and instead recommend contracting an outside firm and spending a pile of money. Anyway... I'm trying to help a family member out with an office connection that is being setup. I've managed to scrape tiny details here and there from our discussions with the ISP (Fairpoint in Maine) about what is going to be done and what is going to be needed. This is the connection that is being setup: http://www.fairpoint.com/enterprise/vantagepoint/e-dia/index.jsp Information I have been given: Via this connection I can get IPs across different C blocks if that were necessary (it is not) Fairpoint is bringing hardware with them that they claim simply does the conversion from whatever line is coming in the building to ethernet, they have referred to this as the "Fairpoint Netvanta" which I know suggests a line of products that I have looked up, but some (most? all?) of those seems to handle all the routing that I saw. Fairpoint says that I need to bring my own router to sit behind their device. They have literally declined to even suggest products that have worked for other clients in the past and fall back on "any business router works, not a home router." That alone makes my head spin. Detail and clarity hit a brick wall from there. At one moment I got them to cough up that the router I provide needs to be able to do VPN tunneling but they typically fall back to "not a home router" and I was even given "just a business router, Cisco or something, it'll be $500-$1000". Now I know that VPN tunneling routers exist well below that price point and since this connection is going to one machine, possibly two only via ethernet, my desire to purchase networking hardware that over-delivers what I need is not very high. They are literally setting all this up, have provided no configuration details for after they finish, and expect me to just plunk a $500+ router behind it and cross my fingers or contract out to a third party company. If there were other options available for the location, I would have dropped them in a second, but there aren't. The device that is connected requires a static IP and I'm honestly a bit hazy on the necessity of an additional router behind their device and generally a bit over my head. I presume that the router needs to be able to serve external static IPs to its clients, but I really don't know what is going to show up when they come to do the install. This was originally going to be run via an ADSL bridge modem with a range of static IPs (which is easy and is currently setup properly) but the location is too far from the telco to get speeds that we really want for upload and this is also a connection that needs high availability. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated (I see a number of options in the Cisco Small Business line and other competitors that aren't going to break the bank…), especially if you've worked with Fairpoint before! Thanks for reading my wall of text.

    Read the article

  • IP Tables won't save the rule.

    - by ArchUser
    Hello, I'm using ArchLinux and I have an IP tables rule that I know works (from my other server), and it's in /etc/iptables/iptables.rules, it's the only rule set in that directory. I run, /etc/rc.d/iptables save, then /etc/rc.d/iptables/restart, but when I do "iptables --list", I get ACCEPTs on INPUT,FORWARD & OUTPUT. # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.8 on Sat Jan 8 18:42:50 2011 *filter :INPUT DROP [0:0] :FORWARD DROP [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [216:14865] :BRUTEGUARD - [0:0] :interfaces - [0:0] :open - [0:0] -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 18 -j DROP -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 17 -j DROP -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 10 -j DROP -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 9 -j DROP -A INPUT -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 5 -j DROP -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -j interfaces -A INPUT -j open -A INPUT -p tcp -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset -A INPUT -p udp -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp ! --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,ACK SYN -m state --state NEW -j DROP -A INPUT -f -j DROP -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG -j DROP -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,PSH,ACK,URG NONE -j DROP -A INPUT -i eth+ -p icmp -m icmp --icmp-type 8 -j DROP -A BRUTEGUARD -m recent --set --name BF --rsource -A BRUTEGUARD -m recent --update --seconds 600 --hitcount 20 --name BF --rsource -j LOG --log-prefix "[BRUTEFORCE ATTEMPT] " --log-level 6 -A BRUTEGUARD -m recent --update --seconds 600 --hitcount 20 --name BF --rsource -j DROP -A interfaces -i lo -j ACCEPT -A open -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -j ACCEPT -A open -p tcp -m tcp --dport 10011 -j ACCEPT -A open -p udp -m udp --dport 9987 -j ACCEPT -A open -p tcp -m tcp --dport 30033 -j ACCEPT -A open -p tcp -m tcp --dport 8000 -j ACCEPT -A open -p tcp -m tcp --dport 8001 -j ACCEPT -A open -s 76.119.125.61 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 21 -j ACCEPT -A open -s 76.119.125.61 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 3306 -j ACCEPT -A open -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -j BRUTEGUARD -A open -s 76.119.125.61 -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW,RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT COMMIT # Completed on Sat Jan 8 18:42:50 2011

    Read the article

  • Different routing rules for a particular user using firewall mark and ip rule

    - by Paul Crowley
    Running Ubuntu 12.10 on amd64. I'm trying to set up different routing rules for a particular user. I understand that the right way to do this is to create a firewall rule that marks the packets for that user, and add a routing rule for that mark. Just to get testing going, I've added a rule that discards all packets as unreachable: # ip rule 0: from all lookup local 32765: from all fwmark 0x1 unreachable 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default With this rule in place and all firewall chains in all tables empty and policy ACCEPT, I can still ping remote hosts just fine as any user. If I then add a rule to mark all packets and try to ping Google, it fails as expected # iptables -t mangle -F OUTPUT # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK --set-mark 0x01 # ping www.google.com ping: unknown host www.google.com If I restrict this rule to the VPN user, it seems to have no effect. # iptables -t mangle -F OUTPUT # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK --set-mark 0x01 -m owner --uid-owner vpn # sudo -u vpn ping www.google.com PING www.google.com (173.194.78.103) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from wg-in-f103.1e100.net (173.194.78.103): icmp_req=1 ttl=50 time=36.6 ms But it appears that the mark is being set, because if I add a rule to drop these packets in the firewall, it works: # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j DROP -m mark --mark 0x01 # sudo -u vpn ping www.google.com ping: unknown host www.google.com What am I missing? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • client flips between internal and external IP addresses??

    - by jmiller-miramontes
    I have what seems like a not-particularly-complicated home network, all things considered: a DSL line comes in to a modem/router, which goes off to a switch, which supports a bunch of machines. My machines live in a 192.168.0.x address space; however, I'm running some public servers on the network, so I have a block of 8 (5, really) static IP addresses that are mapped to the servers by the router. The non-servers get 192.168.0.x addresses via NAT; some machines have static addresses and some get addresses from DHCP. Locally, I'm running a DNS server (named) to map between the domain names and the 192.168 address space. Somewhat messy, but everything basically works. Except: One of my local non-server clients occasionally switches from its internal address to its external address. That is, if I check the logs of a website I'm running internally, the hits coming from this client sometimes show up with the internal 192.168 address, and sometimes with the external (216.103...) address. It will flip back and forth for no apparent reason, without my doing anything. This can be a problem in terms of how the clients interact with the way I have some of the clients' SSH systems configured (e.g., allowing access from the internal network but not the external network), but it also Just Seems Wrong. I will confess that I'm kinda skating on the very edge of my networking competence here, but I can't for the life of me figure out what's going on. If it helps, the client in question is running Mac OS X / 10.6; its address is statically assigned, is not one of the five externally-accessible addresses, and gets its DNS from (first) the internal DNS server and (second) my ISP's DNS servers. I can't swear that none of the other NAT clients are also showing this problem; the one I'm dealing with is my everyday machine, so this is where I run into it. Does anybody out there have any advice? This is driving me crazy...

    Read the article

  • Amazon AWS Ec2 instance, Elastic IP, Domain name from external domainseller, and Google Apps for Email

    - by Sid
    We are hosting our site on an Ec2 instance. Our Elastic IP is w.x.y.z and Public DNS is: ec2-w-x-y-z.compute-1.amazonaws.com. We've bought a domain name domainname.com from a lesser known domain-name-seller. We added an A-record pointing domainname.com to w.x.y.z. Will this work or do we need a CNAME record to point to the same too? We wanted to use Google apps for emailing so adjusted the TXT/MX records according to the Google Apps instructions to be able to send/recv email using @domainname.com email addresses. Have we got it right, more important, we came across queries relating to email sent from ec2-w-x-y-z.compute-1.amazonaws.com (our users can send email from their onsite accounts) going to spam (rDNS not pointing to domainname.com but to ec2-w-x-y-z.compute-1.amazonaws.com). How can we fix this? We came across SPF records, do they provide a complete solution? We aren't sure as to how to use them. Can you help pls? Thank you, Sid

    Read the article

  • Can't Connect To Local Mysql Using IP Address, but CAN connect from remote server

    - by user1782041
    Here's an interesting one that does not seem to fall into any of the mysql connection issues I've read about or searched for: On an Ubuntu 12.04 box I had some system updates waiting to install, and I took care of that this evening. After the install, I started seeing some errors in my syslog complaining about a particular php script that could no longer connect to the mysql instance on the box. Here is the specific error: PHP Warning: mysql_connect(): Can't connect to MySQL server on '192.168.0.40' (4) Now, the server's IP address is 192.168.0.40, and I've checked to make sure that I have mysql listening on 0.0.0.0 so that I can connect using either "localhost" or "192.168.0.40". Here's where things get odd: From the local machine, if I try the following: mysql -uroot -p -h192.168.0.40 I get this error: ERROR 2003 (HY000): Can't connect to MySQL server on '192.168.0.40' (110) I've checked, and error 110 indicates an OS timeout, and error 2003 is the mysql generic "can't connect" error. This indicates that it is not permissions with the user. However, if I do the same thing from a remote machine (say, from 192.168.0.30), I log right in with no problems. Futher, other scripts on the local machine that connect to mysql using "localhost" for the host rather than "192.168.0.40" connect with no problems. Also, I can connect via the mysql socket with no problems both from the command line and php scripts. So, this feels like a networking issue of some kind on the local box, but there are no iptables rules on this box (it is firewalled externally) and I can't figure out what else may be causing this. This problematic script worked perfectly prior to the latest system update. For now, I'll simply change the script to connect via localhost, but I'd really like to know why it broke for 2 reasons: There may be other scripts that connect using 192.168.0.40 that don't run very often which are now broken. Auditing them all will take more time than I feel like devoting at the moment. I'm curious, and want to know why it broke so I can fix it correctly. Any help?

    Read the article

  • Make dhcp assign same IP and hostname for different interfaces at one machine

    - by Egeshi
    I have a feeling that question itself looks stupid but it is not. Please let me clarify. I have dynamic DNS with BIND and NIS configured at my LAN and have laptop which I am using in both wireless and wired mode. I mean that sometimes I have to use wired interface to achieve higher throughput but most of time I don't need it and using wireless mode. Everything works great. Issue is that I want both interfaces get same IP from DHCP. Just for convenient firewall setup. If I add both hosts to dhcp in this manner # bt wireless host bt { hardware ethernet 00:1f:1f:62:60:28; fixed-address 172.16.77.110; } # bt wired host bt { hardware ethernet 00:14:22:b7:5a:de; fixed-address 172.16.77.110; } DHCP says logs following message dhcpd: Dynamic and static leases present for 172.16.77.110 dhcpd: Remove host declaration bt-wired or remove 172.16.77.110 dhcpd: from the dynamic address pool for 172.16/16 Host records are added outside of any subnet, but it makes no difference if I put them there, effect is still the same. This is not critical but either is not my whim because even if DHCP seems to work fine for that "bt" host, I cannot make connection TO it from remote machine anymore with this definitely incorrect DHCP config. I'd be thankful if one spares a minute for advice about how to configure DHCPD correctly. UPDATE. I realize that there's a soulution to assign different hostname in DHCP config but would like to use benefits of short host names.

    Read the article

  • Requiring SSH-key Login From Specific IP Ranges

    - by Sean M
    I need to be able to access my server (Ubuntu 8.04 LTS) from remote sites, but I'd like to worry a bit less about password complexity. Thus, I'd like to require that SSH keys be used for login instead of name/password. However, I still have a lot to learn about security, and having already badly broken a test box when I was trying to set this up, I'm acutely aware of the chance of screwing myself while trying to accomplish this. So I have a second goal: I'd like to require that certain IP ranges (e.g. 10.0.0.0/8) may log in with name/password, but everyone else must use an SSH key to log in. How can I satisfy both of these goals? There already exists a very similar question here, but I can't quite figure out how to get to what I want from that information. Current tactic: reading through the PAM documentation (pam_access looks promising) and looking at /etc/ssh/sshd_config. Edit: Alternatively, is there a way to specify that certain users must authenticate with SSH keys, and others may authenticate with name/password? Solution that's currently working: # Globally deny logon via password, only allow SSH-key login. PasswordAuthentication no # But allow connections from the LAN to use passwords. Match Address 192.168.*.* PasswordAuthentication yes The Match Address block can also usefully be a Match User block, answering my secondary question. For now I'm just chalking the failure to parse CIDR addresses up to a quirk of my install, and resolving to try again when I go to Ubuntu 10.04 not too long from now. PAM turns out not to be necessary.

    Read the article

  • how to grep ip from ifconfig output

    - by Registered User
    Following is my ifconfig output eth0 Link encap:Ethernet UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) Interrupt:28 Base address:0x2000 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet inet addr:192.168.1.2 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:36497 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:14515 TX packets:44884 errors:1352 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:20781745 (20.7 MB) TX bytes:17776225 (17.7 MB) Interrupt:17 Base address:0xc000 lo Link encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:12 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:12 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:720 (720.0 B) TX bytes:720 (720.0 B) virbr0 Link encap:Ethernet inet addr:192.168.122.1 Bcast:192.168.122.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:24 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:4416 (4.4 KB) vmnet1 Link encap:Ethernet inet addr:192.168.185.1 Bcast:192.168.185.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:24 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) vmnet8 Link encap:Ethernet inet addr:192.168.207.1 Bcast:192.168.207.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:25 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) I want to do some thing grep that I see the IP corresponding to each LAN card? Is that possible? How can it be achieved?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79  | Next Page >