Search Results

Search found 270 results on 11 pages for 'tcpdump'.

Page 9/11 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >

  • ping/ssh networking problem with server from 1 particular windows xp laptop

    - by user47650
    I am experiencing an odd problem with one specific server at my data centre connecting from my laptop. Basically the server is accessible from other machines in my house, but not from 1 particular laptop which is running windows XP. I have setup tcpdump on the server and wireshark on the laptop, and I can see ping echo request and reply packets that actually make it back to the wireshark on the laptop, but nothing shows in the ping console output like so; $ ping xxx.55.32.255 Pinging xxx.55.32.255 with 32 bytes of data: Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Request timed out. Ping statistics for xxx.55.32.255: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss), But I can see from the wireshark on my local laptop that the ping reply gets back... No. Time Source Destination Protocol Info 46 3.964474 192.168.1.64 xxx.55.32.255 ICMP Echo (ping) request Frame 46 (74 bytes on wire, 74 bytes captured) Ethernet II, Src: Intel_31:d3:01 (00:19:d2:42:c3:01), Dst: ThomsonT_01:b8:2c (00:14:7f:02:b9:3c) Internet Protocol, Src: 192.168.1.64 (192.168.1.64), Dst: xxx.55.32.255 (xxx.55.32.255) Internet Control Message Protocol No. Time Source Destination Protocol Info 48 4.119060 xxx.55.32.255 192.168.1.64 ICMP Echo (ping) reply Frame 48 (74 bytes on wire, 74 bytes captured) Ethernet II, Src: ThomsonT_01:b8:2c (00:14:7f:01:b8:2c), Dst: Intel_21:c3:01 (10:20:d2:31:c3:01) Internet Protocol, Src: xxx.55.32.255 (xxx.55.32.255), Dst: 192.168.1.64 (192.168.1.64) Internet Control Message Protocol obviously I have disabled the windows firewall and there is nothing in the windows event log. There is nothing else obviously strange about the server as it is the same build as other servers that I can connect to fine.

    Read the article

  • Gnome 3 gdm fails to start after preupgrade from fedora 14 to 15

    - by digital illusion
    I'm not able to boot fedora 15 in runlevel 5. After all services start, when the login screen should appear, gdm just show a mouse waiting cursor and keeps restarting itself. From /var/log/gdm/\:0-greeter.log Gtk-Message: Failed to load module "pk-gtk-module" /usr/bin/gnome-session: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/gtk-3.0/modules/libatk-bridge.so: undefined symbol: atk_plug_get_type /usr/libexec/gnome-setting-daemon: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/gtk-3.0modules/libatk-bridge.so: undefined symbol: atk_plug_get_type Where should atk_plug_get_type be defined? Edit: Here a better description of the error (system-config-network-gui:2643): Gnome-WARNING **: Accessibility: failed to find module 'libgail-gnome' which is needed to make this application accessible /usr/bin/python: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/modules/libatk-bridge.so: undefined symbol: atk_plug_get_type Why there are still references to gtk2? Did preupgrade fail? Attaching upgrade log... it seems gdm was not added, but it is present in the users and groups list. May 26 11:25:52 sysimage sendmail[1076]: alias database /etc/aliases rebuilt by root May 26 11:25:52 sysimage sendmail[1076]: /etc/aliases: 77 aliases, longest 23 bytes, 795 bytes total May 26 11:46:09 sysimage useradd[1793]: failed adding user 'dbus', data deleted May 26 11:53:37 sysimage systemd-machine-id-setup[2443]: Initializing machine ID from D-Bus machine ID. May 26 11:55:28 sysimage useradd[2835]: failed adding user 'apache', data deleted May 26 11:55:38 sysimage useradd[2842]: failed adding user 'haldaemon', data deleted May 26 11:55:43 sysimage useradd[2848]: failed adding user 'smolt', data deleted May 26 11:57:32 sysimage sendmail[3032]: alias database /etc/aliases rebuilt by root May 26 11:57:32 sysimage sendmail[3032]: /etc/aliases: 77 aliases, longest 23 bytes, 795 bytes total May 26 11:57:46 sysimage groupadd[3066]: group added to /etc/group: name=cgred, GID=482 May 26 11:57:47 sysimage groupadd[3066]: group added to /etc/gshadow: name=cgred May 26 11:57:47 sysimage groupadd[3066]: new group: name=cgred, GID=482 May 26 11:58:42 sysimage useradd[3086]: failed adding user 'ntp', data deleted May 26 12:00:13 sysimage dbus: avc: received policyload notice (seqno=2) May 26 12:15:08 sysimage useradd[4950]: failed adding user 'gdm', data deleted May 26 12:24:39 sysimage dbus: avc: received policyload notice (seqno=3) May 26 12:25:24 sysimage useradd[5522]: failed adding user 'mysql', data deleted May 26 12:25:37 sysimage useradd[5533]: failed adding user 'rpcuser', data deleted May 26 12:26:31 sysimage useradd[5592]: failed adding user 'tcpdump', data deleted Any suggestions before I revert installation to F14?

    Read the article

  • Redirect local, not internal, requests using SuSEfirewall2 or an iptables rule

    - by James
    I have a server that is running a web application deployed on Tomcat and is sitting in a test network. We're running SuSE 11 sp1 and have some redirection rules for incoming requests. For example we don't bind port 80 in Tomcat's server.xml file, instead we listen on port 9600 and have a configuration line in SuSEfirewall2 to redirect port 80 to 9640. This is because Tomcat doesn't run as root and can't open up port 80. My web application needs to be able to make requests to port 80 since that is the port it will be using when deployed. What rule can I add so that local requests get redirected by iptables? I tried looking at this question: How do I redirect one port to another on a local computer using iptables? but suggestions there didn't seem to help me. I tried running tcpdump on eth0 and then connecting to my local IP address (not 127.0.0.1, but the actual address) but I didn't see any activity. I did see activity if I connected from an external machine. Then I ran tcmpdump on lo, again tried to connect and this time I saw activity. So this leads me to believe that any requests made to my own IP address locally aren't getting handled by iptables. Just for reference he's what my NAT table looks like now: Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:http redir ports 9640 REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:xfer redir ports 9640 REDIRECT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https redir ports 8443 Chain POSTROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination

    Read the article

  • Cisco Catalyst 3550 + Alteon 184 Load-Balancing Issues...

    - by upkels
    I have just deployed a couple Cisco Catalyst 3550 switches, and a couple Alteon 184 Web Switches for load-balancing. I can ping all RIPs and VIPs to/from the Alteon. Topology Before: (server) <- (Alteon) <- (Internet) Topology Now: (server) <- (3550) <- Alteon <- (Internet) Cisco Port Configuration (Alteon Uplink Port): description LB_1_PORT_9_PRIMARY switchport access vlan 10 switchport mode access switchport nonegotiate speed 100 duplex full Alteon Port 9 Configuration (VLAN 10 WAN): >> Main# /c/port 9/cur Current Port 9 configuration: enabled pref fast, backup gig, PVID 10, BW Contract 1024 name UPLINK >> Main# /c/port 9/fast/cur Current Port 9 Fast link configuration: speed 100, mode full duplex, fctl none, auto off Cisco Configuration (Load-Balanced Servers Port): description LB_1_PORT_1_PRIMARY switchport access vlan 30 switchport mode access switchport nonegotiate speed 100 duplex full Alteon Port 1 Configuration (VLAN 30 LOAD-BALANCED LAN): >> Main# /c/port 1/cur Current Port 1 configuration: enabled pref fast, backup gig, PVID 30, BW Contract 1024 name LB_PORT_1 >> Main# /c/port 1/fast/cur Current Port 1 Fast link configuration: speed 100, mode full duplex, fctl both, auto on Each of my servers are on vlan 10 and 30, properly communicating. I have tried to turn on VLAN tagging on the Alteon, however it seems to cause all communications to stop working. When I tcpdump -i vlan30 on any of the webservers, I see normal ARP communications, and some STP communications, which may or may not be part of the problem: ... 15:00:51.035882 STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 801e.00:11:5c:62:fe:80.8041, length 42 15:00:51.493154 IP 10.1.1.254.33923 > 10.1.1.1.http: Flags [S], seq 707324510, win 8760, options [mss 1460], length 0 15:00:51.493336 IP 10.1.1.1.http > 10.1.1.254.33923: Flags [S.], seq 3981707623, ack 707324511, win 65535, options [mss 1460], len gth 0 15:00:51.493778 ARP, Request who-has 10.1.3.1 tell 10.1.3.254, length 46 etc... I'm not sure if I've provided enough information, so please let me know if any more is necessary. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Natting trafic from a tunnel to internet

    - by mezgani
    I'm trying to set up a GRE tunnel between a linux box and a router (LAN), and I'm having a few problems which seem to depend to my iptables configuration. Watching with tcpdump on linux box, I can see packets coming with flags GREv0, all i need right know is forwarding this data to internet, found here some trace : iptables -F iptables -X iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -t nat -F iptables -t nat -X iptables -t nat -P PREROUTING ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P POSTROUTING ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -t mangle -F iptables -t mangle -X iptables -t mangle -P PREROUTING ACCEPT iptables -t mangle -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p 47 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i ppp0 -o cloud -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i cloud -o ppp0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE echo "1" /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward cloud Link encap:UNSPEC HWaddr C4-CE-7A-2E-F2-BF-DD-C0-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 inet adr:10.3.3.3 P-t-P:10.3.3.3 Masque:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:1476 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:124 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 lg file transmission:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:10416 (10.1 KiB) Table de routage IP du noyau Destination Passerelle Genmask Indic MSS Fenêtre irtt Iface 196.206.120.1 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.3.3.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 cloud 0.0.0.0 196.206.120.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 root@aldebaran:~# ip route 196.206.120.1 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 196.206.122.46 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.18 10.3.3.0/24 dev cloud scope link default via 196.206.120.1 dev ppp0

    Read the article

  • Tcpreplaying using VMware

    - by Methos
    This is more like a testbed setup question. I want to use VMware to debug some networking code in the linux kernel in the VM. My VM has two network interfaces. What I want to do is replay the capture file in the host and receive the packets in the VM. My problem is I do not see replayed packets in the VM. I am running VMware and tcpreplay on the host as sudo. Hence I think there should not be any problem access devices files. I am running VMware workstation 7.0 a. I first began with Custom networking as that provides option of creating your own virtual network name. I wrote /dev/vmnet3 and /dev/vmnet4 for the two interfaces respectively. However, after booting the guest, I did not see any of these interfaces or devices files (in /dev) created on the host. b. Then I tried 'Host Only', but that does not show what bridge/device file is associated with the interface. c. Finally I tried bridged networking mode. I see vmnet1, vmnet8 and vboxnet0 on the host. I have tcpreplayed the capture file on each of these interfaces, for all the above three cases. I tried to capture packets in the VM using "tcpdump -i any". However, I do not see any packets. Any ideas/pointers?

    Read the article

  • Using public interfaces on a server connected through a GRE tunnel

    - by Evan
    I'm pretty new to networking so please forgive any terminology mistakes. I have 2 servers connected with a GRE tunnel. Server1 (10.0.0.1) ---- Server2 (10.0.0.2) I want to be able to bind to the public IPs on Server2 using Server1. To do this, I setup virtual interfaces with Server2's public IPs on Server1 and then used routing rules on Server1 to route the packets through the GRE tunnel. On Server1: ip rule add from [Server2's first public IP] table gre ip rule add from [Server2's second public IP] table gre ip route add default via 10.0.0.2 dev gre1 table gre This works great and I can see the packets arriving via GRE on Server2. I can see the packet exiting the tunnel on Server2's gre1 device as shown: From Server1: ping -I [Server2's public ip] google.com tcpdump from Server2's GRE tunnel device: 12:07:17.029160 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 0, offset 0, flags [DF], proto ICMP (1), length 84) [Server2's public ip] > 74.125.225.38: ICMP echo request, id 6378, seq 50, length 64 This is exactly the packet I want. However, I'm not seeing it go out at all on eth0:0 (where Server2's public IP is bound to). I've tried to use routing rules to get packets coming from Server2's public IP (which would be coming out of dev gre1) to go through dev eth0 on the public default gateway and that doesn't work either. I'm at a loss, thank you to anyone who can help.

    Read the article

  • postfix and iRedMail- Relaying Denied

    - by Lock
    I am trying to setup iRedMail and am way over my head here. I have installed it, and can send emails internally, but not externally. When I send an email from outside, I get the following return email: The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.7.1 <[email protected]>... Relaying denied (state 13). Now I have no idea where to start looking! Any ideas? I have really only just installed iRedMail so I am unsure what else I need to do to get it working. I've pointed my MX records to that server, so that shouldnt be the problem. Also- if i stop postfix (so nothing is listening on port 25) and send a test email, I get the same reply back. Why would I get the same reply back even if postfix is stopped? I have run tcpdump over 25 and can see the packets coming in/out, so its definitely a configuration issue! I suppose my question is not really "what is my problem", but more "What configuration needs to be completed on postfix and iRedMail?"

    Read the article

  • Running docker in VPC and accessing container from another VPC machine

    - by Bogdan Gaza
    I'm having issues while running docker in AWS VPC. Here is my setup: I've got two machines running in VPC: 10.0.100.150 10.0.100.151 both having an elastic IPs assigned to them, both running in the same internet enabled subnet. Let's say I'm running a web server that serves static files in a container on the 10.0.100.150 machine the container: IP: 172.17.0.2 port 8111 is forwarded on the 8111 port on the machine. I'm trying to access the static files from my local machine (or another non-VPC machine also tried an EC2 instance not running in the VPC) and it work flawlessly. If I try to access the files from the other machine (10.0.100.151) it hangs. I'm using wget to pull the files. Tried to debug it with tcpdump and ngrep and that I have seen is that the request reaches the container. If I ngrep on the host machine I see the requests going in but no response going back. If I ngrep on the container I see the requests going in and the response going back. I've tried multiple iptables setups (with postrouting enabled, with manually forwarding ports etc) but no success. Help in any way - even debugging directions would be much appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Forward mDns from one subnet to another?

    - by user37278
    Is there an ipfw rule that can easily forward mDns packets from one subnet to another? I have a Snow Leopard Server machine serving as the gateway between the two subnets and would like for machines in each subnet to see the services available in the other subnet. The gateway machine is already confirmed as configured correctly such that packets route correctly between the two subnets (ping works, traceroute shows the subnet hop, etc). My problem in designing a ipfw rule is that I don't know how to instruct that I would like multicast packets addressed to 224.0.0.251:5353 on en0 to be addressed to the same ip/port but on fw0 (the other interface). I attempted a rule such as fwd 192.168.10.1 log udp from 192.168.1.0/24 to 224.0.0.251 recv en1 to force the packet to hop over to the other interface (from en1 to fw0), but no dice. The ipfw log shows that the rule is being triggered by packets, but tcpdump isn't showing any packets on the other interface. Also, the only other firewall rules in place are the divert port 8668 and rule #65535 "allow any to any". Any suggestions? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • SNMP Access on Ubuntu

    - by javano
    I am trying to use SNMP to monitor a machine locally on its self and remotely. This is the snmpd.conf (Ubuntu 8.04.1): # sec.name source comunity com2sec readonly 1.2.3.4 nicenandtight com2sec readonly 5.6.7.8 reallysafe group MyROGroup v1 readonly group MyROGroup v2c readonly group MyROGroup usm readonly view all included .1 view system included .iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2.system access MyROGroup "" any noauth exact all none none syslocation my house syscontact me <[email protected]> exec .1.3.6.1.4.1.2021.7890.1 distro /usr/bin/distro smuxpeer .1.3.6.1.4.1.674.10892.1 includeAllDisks 95% 1.2.3.4 is the local machines IP and everything is working locally. 5.6.7.8 is the remote machine and initially I am just trying to touch SNMPD with snmpwalk from the remote machine; snmpwalk -v 2c -c reallysafe 1.2.3.4 Timeout: No Response from 1.2.3.4 I have added to iptables as the very first rule; -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 161 -j ACCEPT With such a loose iptables rule I can't see why I can't even touch the SNMPD on that Uubuntu Machine. There are more specific rules further down the table but as I couldn't connect I added the above. TCPDump shows the UDP packets coming in. What could be going wrong here?

    Read the article

  • OpenSWAN KLIPS not working

    - by bonzi
    I am trying to setup IPSec between 2 VM launched by OpenNebula. I'm using OpenSWAN for that. This is the ipsec.conf file config setup oe=off interfaces=%defaultroute protostack=klips conn host-to-host left=10.141.0.135 # Local IP address connaddrfamily=ipv4 leftrsasigkey=key right=10.141.0.132 # Remote IP address rightrsasigkey=key ike=aes128 # IKE algorithms (AES cipher) esp=aes128 # ESP algorithns (AES cipher) auto=add pfs=yes forceencaps=yes type=tunnel I'm able to establish the connection with netkey but klips doesnt work. ipsec barf shows #71: ERROR: asynchronous network error report on eth0 (sport=500) for message to 10.141.0.132 port 500, complainant 10.141.0.135: No route to host [errno 113, origin ICMP type 3 code 1 (not authenticated)] Tcpdump shows 22:50:20.592685 IP 10.141.0.132.isakmp > 10.141.0.135.isakmp: isakmp: phase 1 I ident 22:50:25.602182 ARP, Request who-has 10.141.0.135 tell 10.141.0.132, length 46 22:50:26.602082 ARP, Request who-has 10.141.0.135 tell 10.141.0.132, length 46 22:50:27.601985 ARP, Request who-has 10.141.0.135 tell 10.141.0.132, length 46 ipsec eroute shows 0 10.141.0.135/32 -> 10.141.0.132/32 => %trap What could be the problem?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu 12.04 open port 80 inside WLAN

    - by Eduard
    I have an nginx server running on ubuntu 12.04 that serves http through port 80 and https through port 443. Everything works fine if I access it from the same computer via localhost, 127.0.0.1 or the local IP 192.168.0.11. If I try to access the server from another computer in the same VLAN it does not work for http; it works for https. I have changed my nginx configuration to also listen to port 8000 for http; I can then access http from the other computer in the same VLAN via "http://192.168.0.11:8000". I also have a web server running on port 80 on a windows machine and can access it from another device in the same VLAN, therefore the router is not blocking incoming http traffic. The nginx process is run by root. I have used tcpdump and I see that packets are arriving to Ubuntu: 192.168.0.16.49735 192.168.0.11.80 and that some response is being given 192.168.0.11.80 192.168.0.16.49735 (I do not know what the response is though). There is no request arriving at the nginx web server (I have checked the access log). I have iptables empty. I have unsuccessfully tried to find a solution for a long time to this, it has now become a matter of happiness or bitterness :).

    Read the article

  • Packets being dropped by iptables

    - by Shadyabhi
    I am trying to create a Software Access Point in linux. I followed the blog here. Steps I performed: Started dhcp server on wlan0. Properly configured hostapd.conf Enabled packet forwarding & masquerading. Two commands executed regarding iptables: iptables --table nat --append POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables --append FORWARD --in-interface wlan0 -j ACCEPT I enabled logging on iptables & I get this in everything.log Jun 29 19:42:03 MBP-archlinux kernel: [10480.180356] IN=eth0 OUT=wlan0 MAC=c8:bc:c8:9b:c4:3c:00:13:80:40:cd:80:08:00 SRC=195.143.92.150 DST=10.0.0.3 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=52 ID=38025 PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=53570 WINDOW=46185 RES=0x00 ACK URGP=0 Jun 29 19:42:03 MBP-archlinux kernel: [10480.389102] IN=eth0 OUT=wlan0 MAC=c8:bc:c8:9b:c4:3c:00:13:80:40:cd:80:08:00 SRC=195.143.92.150 DST=10.0.0.3 LEN=308 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=52 ID=14732 PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=53570 WINDOW=46185 RES=0x00 ACK PSH URGP=0 Jun 29 19:42:03 MBP-archlinux kernel: [10480.389710] IN=eth0 OUT=wlan0 MAC=c8:bc:c8:9b:c4:3c:00:13:80:40:cd:80:08:00 SRC=195.143.92.150 DST=10.0.0.3 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=52 ID=14988 PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=53570 WINDOW=46185 RES=0x00 ACK FIN URGP=0 Jun 29 19:42:03 MBP-archlinux kernel: [10480.621118] IN=eth0 OUT=wlan0 MAC=c8:bc:c8:9b:c4:3c:00:13:80:40:cd:80:08:00 SRC=195.143.92.150 DST=10.0.0.3 LEN=44 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=52 ID=63378 PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=53570 WINDOW=46185 RES=0x00 ACK FIN URGP=0 I have almost no knowledge of iptables, all I did was through googling. So, can anyone help me in making me understand what wrong is happening here? I have tried running tcpdump on wlan0 & http packets are being sent from wlan0.

    Read the article

  • Linux port-based routing using iptables/ip route

    - by user42055
    I have the following setup: 192.168.0.4 192.168.0.6 192.168.0.1 +-----------+ +---------+ +----------+ |WORKSTATION|------| LINUX |------| GATEWAY | +-----------+ +---------+ +----------+ 192.168.150.10 | 192.168.150.9 +---------+ | VPN | +---------+ 192.168.150.1 WORKSTATION has a default route of 192.168.0.6 LINUX has a default route of 192.168.0.1 I am trying to use the gateway as the default route, but route port 80 traffic via the VPN. Based on what I read at http://www.linuxhorizon.ro/iproute2.html I have tried this: echo "1 VPN" >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables sysctl net.ipv4.conf.eth0.rp_filter = 0 sysctl net.ipv4.conf.tun0.rp_filter = 0 sysctl net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter = 0 iptables -A PREROUTING -t mangle -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j MARK --set-mark 0x1 ip route add default via 192.168.150.9 dev tun0 table VPN ip rule add from all fwmark 0x1 table VPN When I run "tcpdump -i eth0 port 80" on LINUX, and open a webpage on WORKSTATION, I don't see the traffic go through LINUX at all. When I run a ping from WORKSTATION, I get this back from some packets: 92 bytes from 192.168.0.6: Redirect Host(New addr: 192.168.0.1) Vr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst 4 5 00 0054 de91 0 0000 3f 01 4ed3 192.168.0.4 139.134.2.18 Is this why my routing is not working ? Do I need to put GATEWAY and LINUX on different subnets to prevent WORKSTATION being redirected to GATEWAY ? Do I need to use NAT at all, or can I do this with routing alone (which is what I want) ?

    Read the article

  • Cisco Catalyst 3550 + Alteon 184 Load-Balancing Issues

    - by upkels
    I have just deployed a couple Cisco Catalyst 3550 switches, and a couple Alteon 184 Web Switches for load-balancing. I can ping all RIPs and VIPs to/from the Alteon. Topology Before: (server) <- (Alteon) <- (Internet) Topology Now: (server) <- (3550) <- Alteon <- (Internet) Cisco Port Configuration (Alteon Uplink Port): description LB_1_PORT_9_PRIMARY switchport access vlan 10 switchport mode access switchport nonegotiate speed 100 duplex full Alteon Port 9 Configuration (VLAN 10 WAN): >> Main# /c/port 9/cur Current Port 9 configuration: enabled pref fast, backup gig, PVID 10, BW Contract 1024 name UPLINK >> Main# /c/port 9/fast/cur Current Port 9 Fast link configuration: speed 100, mode full duplex, fctl none, auto off Cisco Configuration (Load-Balanced Servers Port): description LB_1_PORT_1_PRIMARY switchport access vlan 30 switchport mode access switchport nonegotiate speed 100 duplex full Alteon Port 1 Configuration (VLAN 30 LOAD-BALANCED LAN): >> Main# /c/port 1/cur Current Port 1 configuration: enabled pref fast, backup gig, PVID 30, BW Contract 1024 name LB_PORT_1 >> Main# /c/port 1/fast/cur Current Port 1 Fast link configuration: speed 100, mode full duplex, fctl both, auto on Each of my servers are on vlan 10 and 30, properly communicating. I have tried to turn on VLAN tagging on the Alteon, however it seems to cause all communications to stop working. When I tcpdump -i vlan30 on any of the webservers, I see normal ARP communications, and some STP communications, which may or may not be part of the problem: ... 15:00:51.035882 STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 801e.00:11:5c:62:fe:80.8041, length 42 15:00:51.493154 IP 10.1.1.254.33923 > 10.1.1.1.http: Flags [S], seq 707324510, win 8760, options [mss 1460], length 0 15:00:51.493336 IP 10.1.1.1.http > 10.1.1.254.33923: Flags [S.], seq 3981707623, ack 707324511, win 65535, options [mss 1460], len gth 0 15:00:51.493778 ARP, Request who-has 10.1.3.1 tell 10.1.3.254, length 46 etc... I'm not sure if I've provided enough information, so please let me know if any more is necessary. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Random and Selective ARP blindness in VMWare ESXi 4.1

    - by Peter Grace
    We have multiple VMWare ESX servers spread out amongst our company, doing various tasks. One particular ESXi host is exhibiting very peculiar behavior. We detect it when our monitoring system (Orion) notifies us that it can no longer ping the box. Upon jumping on the local console of the guest in question, we see that it cannot ping any new addresses that aren't already in its ARP table. At first we thought that the problem was just related to one of our guests, as the problem seemed to always happen to another guest, DevRedis. However, this afternoon the problem swapped and started happening on ApacheBox rather than DevRedis. When I have been fortunate to catch the problem, I have run tcpdump on both sides of the connection (one side being vmware, the other side being a physical webserver) and have noticed the following course of events: Guest ApacheBox sends an ARP request for the physical address of server WindowsBeast WindowsBeast tenders an ARP is-at back to the network indicating its physical mac address. ApacheBox never sees the ARP is-at response. The ESX host in question is running VMware ESXi, 4.1.0, 348481 The two guests (DevRedis and ApacheBox) are both running CentOS 6.3, however they are running two separate kernel versions ( 2.6.32-279.9.1.el6.x86_64 and 2.6.32-279.el6.x86_64 ) so I'm not entirely sure it's a CentOS problem. Does anyone have any thoughts on what might cause this? Has anyone run into it before?

    Read the article

  • How can I setup OpenVPN with IPv4 and IPv6 using a tap device?

    - by Lekensteyn
    I've managed to setup OpenVPN for full IPv4 connectivity using tap0. Now I want to do the same for IPv6. Addresses and network setup (note that my real prefix is replaced by 2001:db8): 2001:db8::100:0:0/96 my assigned IPv6 range 2001:db8::100:abc:0/112 OpenVPN IPv6 range 2001:db8::100:abc:1 tap0 (on server) (set as gateway on client) 2001:db8::100:abc:2 tap0 (on client) 2001:db8::1:2:3:4 gateway for server Home laptop (tap0: 2001:db8::100:abc:2/112 gateway 2001:db8::100:abc:1/112) | | | (running Kubuntu 10.10; OpenVPN 2.1.0-3ubuntu1) | wifi | | router | | OpenVPN INTERNET | eth0 | /tap0 VPS (eth0:2001:db8::1:2:3:4/64 gateway 2001:db8::1) (tap0: 2001:db8::100:abc:1/112) (running Debian 6; OpenVPN 2.1.3-2) The server has both native IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, the client has only IPv4. I can ping6 to and from my server over OpenVPN, but not to other machines (for example, ipv6.google.com). net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding is set to 1, I've tried disabling net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra as well, without luck. Using tcpdump on both the server and client, I can see that packets are actually transferred over tap0 to eth0. The router (2001:db8::1) send a neighbor solicitation for the client (2001:db8::100:abc:2) to eth0 after it receives the ICMP6 echo-request. The server does not respond to that solicitation, which causes the ICMP6 echo-request not be routed to the destination. How can I make this IPv6 connection work?

    Read the article

  • How can I make IPv6 on OpenVPN work using a tap device?

    - by Lekensteyn
    I've managed to setup OpenVPN for full IPv4 connectivity using tap0. Now I want to do the same for IPv6. Addresses and network setup (note that my real prefix is replaced by 2001:db8): 2001:db8::100:0:0/96 my assigned IPv6 range 2001:db8::100:abc:0/112 OpenVPN IPv6 range 2001:db8::100:abc:1 tap0 server side (set as gateway on client) 2001:db8::100:abc:2 tap0 client side 2001:db8::1:2:3:4 gateway for server Home laptop (tap0: 2001:db8::100:abc:2/112 gateway 2001:db8::100:abc:1/112) | | | (running Kubuntu 10.10; OpenVPN 2.1.0-3ubuntu1) | wifi | | router | | OpenVPN INTERNET | eth0 | /tap0 VPS (eth0:2001:db8::1:2:3:4/64 gateway 2001:db8::1) (tap0: 2001:db8::100:abc:1/112) (running Debian 6; OpenVPN 2.1.3-2) The server has both native IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, the client has only IPv4. I can ping6 to and from my server over OpenVPN, but not to other machines (for example, ipv6.google.com). Using tcpdump on both the server and client, I can see that packets are actually transferred over tap0 to eth0. The router (2001:db8::1) send a neighbor solicitation for the client (2001:db8::100:abc:2) to eth0 after it receives the ICMP6 echo-request. The server does not respond to that solicitation, which causes the ICMP6 echo-request not be routed to the destination. How can I make this IPv6 connection work?

    Read the article

  • Advertise a subnet route with radvd

    - by Thomas Berger
    we have set up a small IPv6 Testing network. The setup looks like this: ::/0 +----------+ | Firewall | Router to the public net +----------+ | 2001:...::/106 | +----------+ +-------| SIT GW | sit Tunnel gatway to the some test users | +----------+ | +----------+ | Test Sys | Testsystem +----------+ The idea is to advertise the default route from the firewall and the route for the SIT subnets from the sit gateway. The configurations for radvd are: # Firewall interface eth0 { AdvSendAdvert on; route ::/0 { }; }; # SIT Gatway interface eth0 { AdvSendAdvert on; route 2001:...::/106 { }; }; We have captured the adv. packages with tcpdump and the packages looks good. We see a default route from the fw, and the subnet route from the SIT gatway. But if we look on the testsystem there are two default routes over both gateways. There is no subnet route. The routing does not work of course. Here the routes we get: 2001:.....::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 fe80::/64 dev eth0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 default via fe80::baac:6fff:fe8e:XXXX dev eth0 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 0sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 64 default via fe80::e415:aeff:fe12:XXXX dev eth0 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 0sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 64 Any Idea?

    Read the article

  • Remote access to phpmyadmin from computer belongs to same LAN

    - by Charles
    OK... I solved it. It is because I have not configured the httpd.conf to allow the centos listen port 80 and 8080. Listen 80 Listen 8080 I have setup the myphpadmin on my CentOS 6.4 recently. I can access and login to the myphpadmin on my localhost. However, when I type http://[hostipaddr]/phpmyadmin on my other computer in the same LAN with the CentOS, the browser simply cannot access the page. Below are some of the current configuration. Anyone can help please......? config.inc.php $i++; /* Authentication type */ $cfg['Servers'][$i]['auth_type'] = 'http'; /* Server parameters */ $cfg['Servers'][$i]['host'] = 'localhost'; $cfg['Servers'][$i]['connect_type'] = 'tcp'; $cfg['Servers'][$i]['compress'] = false; /* Select mysql if your server does not have mysqli */ $cfg['Servers'][$i]['extension'] = 'mysql'; $cfg['Servers'][$i]['AllowNoPassword'] = false; phpmyadmin.conf <Directory /var/www/html/phpmyadmin/> order allow,deny allow from all </Directory> Furthermore, I can access the webpage that stored in the CentOS from my other computer without problems. After using wireshark and tcpdump, I found that the server (the Cent OS) keep resetting the connection. (192.168.1.106 is my other computer, 192.168.1.101 is my CentOS) 23:29:42.281473 IP 192.168.1.106.55999 > 192.168.1.101.webcache: Flags [S], seq 2559409090, win 65535, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 8,nop,nop,sackOK], length 0 23:29:42.281504 IP 192.168.1.101.webcache > 192.168.1.106.55999: Flags [R.], seq 0, ack 2559409091, win 0, length 0 I have disabled the iptables service on the CentOS already.

    Read the article

  • Adding Multiple Interfaces to EC2 Ubuntu 12.04

    - by nocode
    I have a m1.medium Ubuntu 12.04 instance with two ENI's. I have a VPC setup with a private and public subnet. Private: 10.50.1.0/24 Public: 10.50.101.0/24 I initiated the instance on the private subnet. I configured a NAT instance and route all servers in the private subnet internet access. The route tables on the private subnet point towards the NAT instance and the route table on the public subnet point to the internet gateway. I am trying to add a public interface on the machine so that I can put it behind a ELB. When I added the second ENI and configured a static IP in /etc/network/interfaces and restarted the network services, I can no longer access from the Public subnet to the Private Subnet. Works Private private Private public Does not work Public private From Public Private, I ran a TCPDUMp on the private machine and can see the request coming in. My guess is it's trying to route over the new Public interface instead of the Private. Here's my route: default 10.50.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.50.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.50.101.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 My networking knowledge is limited and I believe I have to add some routes but unsure of what command/syntax needs to be.

    Read the article

  • Strange IP address showing up with OS X ssh

    - by user50799
    I was futzing around with DTrace on Mac OS X and found the following script that prints out information about connections being established: $ cat script.d syscall::connect:entry { printf("execname: %s\n", execname); printf("pid: %d\n", pid); printf("sockfd: %d\n",arg0); socks = (struct sockaddr*)copyin(arg1, arg2); hport = (uint_t)socks->sa_data[0]; lport = (uint_t)socks->sa_data[1]; hport <<= 8; port = hport + lport; printf("Port number: %d\n", port); printf("IP address: %d.%d.%d.%d\n", socks->sa_data[2], socks->sa_data[3], socks->sa_data[4], socks->sa_data[5]); printf("======\n"); } I run it in one window: $ sudo dtrace -s ./script.d Then I ssh to another machine from another window. I get this output from my dtrace window: CPU ID FUNCTION:NAME 0 18696 connect:entry execname: ssh pid: 5446 sockfd: 3 Port number: 22 IP address: 192.168.0.207 ====== 0 18696 connect:entry execname: ssh pid: 5446 sockfd: 5 Port number: 12148 IP address: 109.112.47.108 ====== ^C The first IP address I can explain (192.168.0.207), that's the machine I'm connecting to. But what's with the 109.112.47.108 machine? It doesn't show up in tcpdump nor netstat -an Is there something with my dtrace code or my understanding of how the connect system call works?

    Read the article

  • KVM virtual machine unable to access internet

    - by peachykeen
    I have KVM set up to run a virtual machine (Windows Home Server 2011 acting as a build agent) on a dedicated server (CentOS 6.3). Recently, I ran updates on the host, and the virtual machine is now unable to connect to the internet. The virtual network is running through NAT, the host has an interface (eth0:0) set up with a static IP (virt-manager shows the network and its IP correctly), and all connections to that IP should be sent to the guest. The host and guest can ping one another, but the guest cannot ping anything above the host, nor can I ping the guest from anywhere else (I can ping the host). Results from the guest to another server under my control and from an external system to the guest both return "Destination port unreachable". Running tcpdump on the host and destination shows the host replying to the ping, but the destination never sees it (it doesn't even look like the host is bothering to send it on at all, which leads me to suspect iptables). The ping output matches that, listing replies from 192.168.100.1. The guest can resolve DNS, however, which I find rather odd. The guest's network settings (connection TCP/IPv4 properties) are set up with a static local IP (192.168.100.128), mask of 255.255.255.0, and gateway and DNS at 192.168.100.1. When originally setting up the vm/net, I had set up some iptables rules to enable bridging, but after my hosting company complained about the bridge, I set up a new virtual net using NAT and believe I removed all the rules. The VM's network was working perfectly fine for the last few months, until yesterday. I haven't heard anything from the hosting company, didn't change anything on the guest, so as far as I know, nothing else has changed (unfortunately the list of packages updated has since fallen off scrollback and I didn't note it down).

    Read the article

  • Trying to communicate between virtual servers on the same host through ipv6

    - by Daniele Testa
    I am running KVM on a host with 2 virtual servers. Each virtual server has a own bridge interface on the host VPS1 has br1 VPS2 has br2 Each virtual server has a own ipv4 and a ipv6. The virtual servers has no problem communicating with internet or with eachother through ipv4. However, with ipv6, they can only communicate with internet and NOT with eachother. The host can ping the 2 virtual servers without any problems, but they cannot ping eachother. iptables has been set to ACCEPT on all chains, so it is not the problem. VPS1 has ipv6 = 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::10 VPS2 has ipv6 = 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::5 the host has the following routes set: ip route add 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::10 dev br1 ip route add 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::5 dev br2 When I do a ping from VPS2 to VPS1, I see the following on the host: tcpdump -i br1 15:32:27.704404 IP6 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::10 > ff02::1:ff00:5: ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, who has 2a01:4f8:xxx:xxx::5, length 32 So it seems like the host is seeing the request coming from VPS1 on br1. But for some reason, it does not forward it to br2. Instead it is asking where the destination IP is through ipv6 multicast. Anyone has a clue what is going on? I find this very strange, as it is working fine with ipv4 with the exact same settings and routes.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  | Next Page >