Search Results

Search found 3061 results on 123 pages for 'interfaces'.

Page 91/123 | < Previous Page | 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98  | Next Page >

  • RPC Server Unavailable on Hyper-V cluster when moving resources after the host adapter has failed

    - by Doug Luxem
    On a Windows 2008 R2 SP1 cluster running Hyper-V, a lost network connectivity on the primary host interface. The interface was rapidly flapping up and down, and this was later determined to be caused by a faulty switch port. As this was a clustered server, the host interface was not fault tolerant (seeing as how the whole server was fault tolerant), so connectivity to the host was going up and down. The Hyper-V guests were completely unaffected by the network outage as they used a dedicated trunk on the server separate from the host interface. Additionally, dedicated interfaces for the cluster and live migration networks were fine. In order to diagnose the server, I tried to move all resources (Hyper-V Guests) to other nodes through Failover Cluster Manager. These moves failed with an error RPC Server Unavailable. The only way to move resources was by shutting down the guests, stopping the cluster service on the Node A, allowing other nodes to take ownership of the resources, and restarting the guests. A few other notes: All nodes have Client for MS Networks and File & Printer Sharing enabled on the Cluster and LM networks. Node A was accessible over cluster and LM networks from other nodes (these are private, cluster-only networks); pingable, CIFs, etc. Accessing \\NODEA is done over the Host adapters, as you would expect in this case and is the reason for the RPC Server Unavailable error with that adapter being down. My questions here are - Is there a way to still use Live Migration in a failure scenario such as this to prevent shutting down the Hyper-V guests? How can the network be reconfigured in the future so that the cluster service attempts to use the cluster and/or live migration networks to issue the RPC requests?

    Read the article

  • To what extent is size a factor in SSD performance?

    - by artif
    To what extent is the size of an SSD a factor in its performance? In my mind, correct me if I'm wrong, a bigger SSD should be, everything else being equal, faster than a smaller one. A bigger SSD would have more erase blocks and thus more leeway for the FTL (flash translation layer) to do garbage collection optimization. Also there would be more time before TRIM became necessary. I see on Wikipedia that it remarks that "The performance of the SSD can scale with the number of parallel NAND flash chips used in the device" so it seems throughput also increases significantly. Also many SSDs contain internal caches of some sort and presumably those caches are larger for correspondingly large SSDs. But supposing this effect exists, I would like a quantitative analysis. Does throughput increase linearly? How much is garbage collection impacted, if at all? Does latency stay the same? And so on. Would the performance of a 8 GB SSD be significantly different from, for example, an 80 GB SSD assuming both used high quality chips, controllers, etc? Are there any resources (webpages, research papers, presentations, books, etc) that discuss correlations between SSD performance (4 KB random write speed, latency, maximum sequential throughput, etc) and size? I realize this does not really sound like a programming question but it is relevant for what I'm working on (using flash for caching hard drive data) which does involve programming. If there is a better place to ask this question, eg a more hardware oriented site, what would that be? Something like the equivalent of stack overflow (or perhaps a forum) for in-depth questions on hardware interfaces, internals, etc would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Vmware Workstation, Win7 host, Ubuntu guests with Nat + Host-only networks but they cannot connect to the Internet

    - by Ikon
    I have a Win7 host machine with Vmware Workstation. In the workstation I have 3 Ubuntu installed. All 3 Ubuntu guests have a Nat network - to access the internet without asking the router for a local address - and a Host-only network - to connect all Ubuntu quests and the host in a private network for internal communication, without touching the router. When I try to make any of the Ubuntu quests to get data from the internet - assuming that they would figure out that the Nat-ed interface can access the requested data - they fail and report that there is no route to my query. If I disconnect the 2nd interface on the Ubuntu guests with the Host-only network and restart networking, they start to know the route to the internet. Odd, during the installation of the guests they asked which of the 2 given interfaces - with Nat and Host-only config - should be used to get updates during installation and they oddly managed to get the updates. Not so after the installation has finished and rebooted. I have checked the Virtual Network Editor that the Nat interface should use my real network card to access the net, so there should be no problem. I wish not to use the router's dhcp service to give the Ubuntu quests an address, and also I don't want the guests to be accessable from the local network directly, but only by the host - that's the Host-only network is for. Any suggestions? Edit: 192.168.189.0 is the Nat interface and 192.168.7.0 is the Host-only. $ route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.7.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.189.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.189.2 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0

    Read the article

  • How to set a static route for an external IP address

    - by HorusKol
    Further to my earlier question about bridging different subnets - I now need to route requests for one particular IP address differently to all other traffic. I have the following routing in my iptables on our router: # Allow established connections, and those !not! coming from the public interface # eth0 = public interface # eth1 = private interface #1 (10.1.1.0/24) # eth2 = private interface #2 (129.2.2.0/25) iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -m state --state NEW ! -i eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT # Allow outgoing connections from the private interfaces iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT # Allow the two private connections to talk to each other iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth2 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth2 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT # Masquerade (NAT) iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE # Don't forward any other traffic from the public to the private iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth2 -j REJECT This configuration means that users will be forwarded through a modem/router with a public address - this is all well and good for most purposes, and in the main it doesn't matter that all computers are hidden behind the one public IP. However, some users need to be able to access a proxy at 192.111.222.111:8080 - and the proxy needs to identify this traffic as coming through a gateway at 129.2.2.126 - it won't respond otherwise. I tried adding a static route on our local gateway with: route add -host 192.111.222.111 gw 129.2.2.126 dev eth2 I can successfully ping 192.111.222.111 from the router. When I trace the route, it lists the 129.2.2.126 gateway, but I just get * on each of the following hops (I think this makes sense since this is just a web-proxy and requires authentication). When I try to ping this address from a host on the 129.2.2.0/25 network it fails. Should I do this in the iptables chain instead? How would I configure this routing?

    Read the article

  • ssh works fine when using public interface, but slow when using private interface

    - by Kevin M
    My Linux(UbuntuEEE) to Linux(CentOS) ssh takes a long time to log in(~15 seconds) when using the private interface, but not when using the public one. I have a Linux box acting as my router. As such, it has multiple interfaces(75.xxx.xxx.xxx, 192.168.1.1). I can ssh in from the internal interface(192.168.1.65 to .1), but it will take a while. I can ssh into the public address, and it goes quickly(~1 second). I have another box that I can ssh into the inside interface from and it goes quickly. iptables is set to accept packets coming into the interface immediately. sshd's UseDNS is normally on; I get the same problem if I turn it off and restart sshd. I normally use public-key authentication; I have done a mv ~/.ssh/ ~/ssh/ and it will ask me for a password after going slowly. After logging in(using either interface), speed is quick. ssh client version(via ssh -v):OpenSSH_4.7p1 Debian-8ubuntu1.2, OpenSSL 0.9.8g 19 Oct 2007 ssh server version(via rpm -qv openssh_server):openssh-server-4.3p2-29.el5

    Read the article

  • openVPN as a way to connect to a LAN by another client, different from server

    - by Einar
    Setup: one LAN handled by a router without a publicly available IP address but without any outbound connection restrictions ("target LAN"); a separate server publicly reachable from the Internet ("gateway"). I am trying to set up openVPN so that a third client can connect to the "gateway" and access the "target LAN". As the router of "target LAN" is not reachable from the Internet directly, it connects to the gateway itself via openVPN as well. The problem is how to handle routing. The LAN router has two network interfaces (for the outside network and the LAN itself). In openVPN (the server on the gateway) I set client-to-client and push "route 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0" but I assume this would be horribly wrong (it actually messed up the routing on the LAN router until I killed openVPN). openVPN is not using bridging, is configured via tun. Other config details from the server server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0 client-config-dir ccd route 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 And the client file in ccd is iroute 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0 What can be adjusted to ensure that a third client can connect through openVPN and access the LAN mentioned earlier?

    Read the article

  • xen + debian network after upgrade squeeze to wheeze

    - by rush
    I've got a Debian + Xen server. After a system upgrade to the stable version the network doesn't come up after boot. Every time after reboot I need to bring it up manually. The network configuration was not changed during upgrade. Here is /etc/network/interfaces: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 11.22.33.44 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 11.22.33.1 nameserver 8.8.8.8 After boot ip r shows no route and eth0 has no ip address. Manually ip and route setup goes fine and network starts working. Messages from dmesg about network I've found (looks like nothing interesting) [ 3.894401] ACPI: Fan [FAN3] (off) [ 3.894444] ACPI: Fan [FAN4] (off) [ 4.178348] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: eth0: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x1) 00:1e:67:14:66:c9 [ 4.178351] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: eth0: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection [ 4.178392] e1000e 0000:00:19.0: eth0: MAC: 10, PHY: 11, PBA No: 0100FF-0FF [ 4.178413] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: Disabling ASPM L0s L1 [ 4.178432] xen: registering gsi 16 triggering 0 polarity 1 -- [ 4.223667] ata5: DUMMY [ 4.223668] ata6: DUMMY [ 4.289153] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: eth1: (PCI Express:2.5GT/s:Width x1) 00:1e:67:14:66:c8 [ 4.289155] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: eth1: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection [ 4.289245] e1000e 0000:02:00.0: eth1: MAC: 3, PHY: 8, PBA No: 1000FF-0FF [ 4.506908] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci_hcd [ 4.542920] ata2: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123 SControl 300) -- [ 10.362999] EXT4-fs (dm-23): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) [ 10.419103] EXT4-fs (dm-3): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) [ 10.988255] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): eth1: link is not ready [ 13.175533] Event-channel device installed. [ 13.287555] XENBUS: Unable to read cpu state -- [ 13.288670] XENBUS: Unable to read cpu state [ 13.965939] Bridge firewalling registered [ 14.134048] e1000e: eth1 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx [ 14.283862] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_UP): peth0: link is not ready [ 14.284543] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): eth1: link becomes ready [ 17.800627] e1000e: peth0 NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx [ 17.801377] ADDRCONF(NETDEV_CHANGE): peth0: link becomes ready [ 18.307278] device peth0 entered promiscuous mode [ 24.538899] eth1: no IPv6 routers present [ 28.570902] peth0: no IPv6 routers present I've upgraded two servers and I've such behaviour on two of them. How to fix this and get network starts automatically on boot?

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN bridge network from routed clients

    - by gphilip
    I have the following setup: subnet 1 - 10.0.1.0/24 with a machine used as NAT and also running an OpenVPN client subnet 2 - 192.168.1/24 with an OpenVPN server (the server in subnet 1 connect here) subnet 3 - 10.0.2.0/24 that uses the NAT machine (subnet 1) to access the internet, so all non-local traffic is routed there to the eth0 interface The OpenVPN client creates the tun0 interface and appropriate routing so that I can access machines from 192.168.1/24 [root@ip-10-0-1-208 ~]# telnet 192.168.1.186 8081 Trying 192.168.1.186... Connected to 192.168.1.186. Escape character is '^]'. [root@ip-10-0-1-208 ~]# route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 10.0.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 10.0.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.8.0.1 10.8.0.5 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 tun0 10.8.0.5 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 tun0 169.254.169.254 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.0.0 10.8.0.5 255.255.0.0 UG 0 0 0 tun0 However, when I try the same from subnet 3, it can't reach that machine. [root@ip-10-0-2-61 ~]# telnet 192.168.1.186 8081 Trying 192.168.1.186... I suspect that it's because subnet 3 is routed to eth0 on the NAT machine in subnet 1 and it cannot jump to tun0. What's the easiest way to resolve it? I don't want to use iptables. I can't change the routing from machines in subnet 1 because it's done in AWS and so it works only with specific interfaces. Also, the NAT machine gets its IP with DHCP and so bridging is a bit complicated. IP forwarding is set on the NAT machine [root@ip-10-0-1-208 ~]# cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward 1 Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Assign individual NIC to KVM guest

    - by Bin S
    I have a server with 6 NICs installed and is running Ubuntu 12.04LTS. I want to setup 4 guest VMs using kvm. Now I want to assign 2 NICs for the host(1 Public IP and 1 private IP), and 1 NIC each to 4 guest VM(all private IP). How do I do this? /etc/network/interfaces I am having trouble with my configuration file shown below: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.1.109 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.1.5 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.1.117 netmask 255.255.255.0 auto eth2 iface eth2 inet manual auto br0 iface br0 inet static address 192.168.1.118 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth2 bridge_fd 9 bridge_hello 2 bridge_maxage 12 bridge_stp off auto eth3 iface eth3 inet manual auto br1 iface br1 inet static address 192.168.1.119 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth3 bridge_fd 9 bridge_hello 2 bridge_maxage 12 bridge_stp off auto eth4 iface eth4 inet manual auto br2 iface br2 inet static address 192.168.1.123 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth4 bridge_fd 9 bridge_hello 2 bridge_maxage 12 bridge_stp off auto eth5 iface eth5 inet manual auto br3 iface br3 inet static address 192.168.1.124 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth5 bridge_fd 9 bridge_hello 2 bridge_maxage 12 bridge_stp off

    Read the article

  • Network topology for both direct and routed traffic between two nodes

    - by IndigoFire
    Despite it's small size, this is the most difficult network design problem I've faced. There are three nodes in this network: PC running Windows XP with an internal WiFi adapter.Base station with both WiFi and a Wireless Modem (WiModem)Mobile device with both WiFi and WiModem The modem is a low-bandwidth but high-reliability connection. We'd like to use WiFi for high-bandwidth stuff like file transfers when the mobile is nearby, and the modem for control information. Here's the tricky part: we'd like the wifi traffic to go directly from the mobile to the PC, as rebroadcasting packets on the same WiFi channel takes up double the bandwidth. We can do that with a manual configuration by giving the both the PC and the base station two IP addresses for their WiFi interfaces: one on a subnet shared with the mobile, and one on their own subnet. The routes on the PC are set up so that any traffic going to the mobile via WiModem goes through the secondary IP address so that return traffic from the mobile also goes through the WiModem. Here's what that looks like: PC WiFi 1: 192.168.2.10/24 WiFi 2: 192.168.3.10/24 Default route: 192.168.2.1 Base Station WiFi 1: 192.168.2.1/24 WiFi 2: 192.168.3.1/24 WiModem: 192.168.4.1/24 Mobile WiFi: 192.168.3.20/24 WiModem: 192.168.4.20/24 We'd like to move to having the base station automatically configure the mobile and PC, as the manual setup is problematic when you start having multiple mobiles and PCs. This means that the PC can only have 1 IP address and needs to be treated as being pretty simple. Is it possible to have a setup driven by DHCP on the base station that is efficient with bandwidth?

    Read the article

  • Hyper-v and sql server connections for web apps

    - by Rick Ratayczak
    I have a physical machine running win8, and two VMs in hyper-v client: 1 web server, 1 sql server. The web server works fantastic. The sql is the one that is giving me the problem. I can connect to it with server explorer in visual studio or management studio just fine, and it's blazing fast. The problem happens when I use the same connection string I am using in visual studio server explorer in the web.config for an app. data source=VMSQL1;initial catalog=OtherShell;persist security info=True;user id=OtherShell;password=****;network library=dbmssocn;MultipleActiveResultSets=True;App=EntityFramework I made sure it was also using tcp-ip, but it doesn't connect with or without the network library part of the connection string. A network-related or instance-specific error occurred while establishing a connection to SQL Server. The server was not found or was not accessible. Verify that the instance name is correct and that SQL Server is configured to allow remote connections. (provider: SQL Network Interfaces, error: 26 - Error Locating Server/Instance Specified) This is driving my batty for the last two days, any ideas? It fails from the web vm too, but works in management studio with the same connection string.

    Read the article

  • Packet flooding while configuring a Debian L2TP/IPSec client?

    - by Joseph B.
    I'm currently at my wits end trying to configure an L2TP over IPSec VPN connection on my Debian using openswan and xl2tp box connecting to a server of unknown configuration. I've managed to successfully establish the connection and everything appears to be working well until I attempt to set the VPN connection as my default route, at which point I see a massive flood of packets simultaneously being transmitted (on the tune of ~1.5 GB in about 2min) until the server drops my connection. Prior to this network traffic on all my interfaces is minimal. According to iftop the majority of this traffic appears to be coming out of port 12, although I can't seem to figure out how to finger a specific process. If I instead just route traffic destined for 74.0.0.0/8 through it I'm able to access Google's servers through the VPN without issue. My xl2tp.conf file is: [lac vpn-nl] lns = example.vpn.com name = myusername pppoptfile = /etc/ppp/options.l2tpd.client My options.l2tpd.client file is: ipcp-accept-local ipcp-accept-remote refuse-eap require-mschap-v2 noccp noauth idle 1800 mtu 1410 mru 1410 usepeerdns lock name myusername password mypassword connect-delay 5000 And my routing table looks like: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 10.5.2.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 10.0.50.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.50.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 10.0.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo default * 0.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 ppp0 I'm seeing absolutely nothing in auth.log and syslog during this time and can't seem to find any other log files it might be writing to. Any suggestions would be appreciated!

    Read the article

  • How do I tell Windows to use 802.11 in preference to 3G?

    - by Jon Skeet
    I have a Samsung NC-10 netbook which I take to work every day. Most of the time I use it just on the train/bus, but I also use it at work and home. It has a built-in 3G card which I want to use when travelling, but I'd prefer to use wifi when I'm at work or home, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, if the 3G connection is up, Windows appears to use that in preference to wifi. Starting up and shutting down the 3G modem is a bit of a pain - it's not hard as such, just a bit inconvenient. Ideally I'd like it to always be up, and even have the connection itself up all the time, but without routing traffic through it if there's a wifi connection up. This is what my Android phone does, for example. Is there somewhere in Windows which lets me express an ordering for network interfaces? I suspect the routing table may be relevant, but it's a bit of a pain to mess around with. I'd really expect there to be a simple GUI way of setting this up - after all, it would equally be useful when dealing with wired vs wifi connections. I'm currently using Windows XP Home, but Windows 7 answers would also be useful as I'll be migrating soon.

    Read the article

  • RESOLVED Why does IPtables's NAT stop working when I enable the firewall's third interface?

    - by Kronick
    On my firewall I've three interfaces : eth0 : public IP (46.X.X.X.) eth0:0 public IP (46.X.X.Y.) eth1 : public IP (88.X.X.X.) eth2 : private LAN (172.X.X.X) I've setup a basic NAT which works great until I turn on the eth1 interface, I basically loose the connectivity. When I turn off the interface (ifconfig eth1 down) then the NAT re-work. I've added some policy routing via iproute, which makes my three public IP's available. I don't understand why turning on eth1 on makes the LAN unavailable. PS : weirder ; when I turn on eth1 BUT remove the NAT, then the firewall is accessible by using the public IPS. So to me it's exclusively a NAT issue, since without the NAT the network works while with the NAT without the second public interface, the NAT does work. Regards EDIT : I've been able to make it work by using iproute2 rules. That was definitely a routing issue. Here is what I did : ip rule add prio 50 table main ip rule add prio 201 from ip1/netmask table 201 ip rule add prio 202 from ip2/netmask table 202 ip route add default via gateway1 dev interface1 src ip1 proto static table 201 ip route append prohibit default table 201 metric 1 proto static ip route add default via gateway2 dev interface2 src ip2 proto static table 202 ip route append prohibit default table 202 metric 1 proto static # mutipath ip rule add prio 221 table 221 ip route add default table 221 proto static \ nexthop via gateway1 dev interface1 weight 2\ nexthop via gateway2 dev interface2 weight 3

    Read the article

  • Linux as a router for public networks

    - by nixnotwin
    My ISP had given me a /30 network. Later, when I wanted more public ips, I requested for a /29 network. I was told to keep using my earlier /30 network on the interface which is facing ISP, and the newly given /29 network should be used on the other interface which connects to my NAT router and servers. This is what I got from the isp: WAN IP: 179.xxx.4.128/30 CUSTOMER IP : 179.xxx.4.130 ISP GATEWAY IP:179.xxx.4.129 SUBNET : 255.255.255.252 LAN IPS: 179.xxx.139.224/29 GATEWAY IP :179.xxx.139.225 SUBNET : 255.255.255.248 I have a Ubuntu pc which has two interfaces. So I am planning to do the following: eth0 will be given 179.xxx.4.130/30 gateway 179.xxx.4.129 eth1 will be given 179.xxx.139.225/29 And I will have the following in the /etc/sysctl.conf: net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 These will be iptables rules: iptables -A FORWARD -i eth0 -o eth1 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -o eth0 -j ACCEPT My clients which have the ips 179.xxx.139.226/29 and 179.xxx.139.227/29 will be made to use 179.xxx.139.225/29 as gateway. Will this configuration work for me? Any comments? If it works, what iptables rules can I use to have a bit of security? P.S. Both networks are non-private and there is no NATing.

    Read the article

  • Proxmox: VMs and different public IPs

    - by Raj
    I have a server which has two NICs and both are directly connected to internet. I have five different public IP addresses available for the VMs. The host machine (Proxmox) doesn't need to use any (it'll use a private IP and that's all) but will have internet connection. I've gone through the Proxmox documentation and I'm not able to understand the big picture to set up the right network configuration for my needs. In short, what I have is: One server (Proxmox, host machine) On that server, 5 VMs are created 5 public IP addresses available (one for each VM), let's say: 80.123.21.1, 80.123.21.2, 80.123.21.3, 80.123.21.4, 80.123.21.5 What I have now for the host is the following: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet manual auto eth1 iface eth1 inet manual auto vmbr0 iface vmbr0 inet static address 192.168.1.101 netmask 255.255.255.0 bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_fd 0 auto vmbr1 iface vmbr1 inet manual It can be reached from the internal network, so that's OK. It has internet connection, which is also OK. vmbr1 is going to be used by the VMs. Each VM will have its own IP on his network interfaces configuration file. For some reason, VMs will not have internet and they won't be able to have public IP address. If I use NAT, it will work correctly, but they will not use the public allocated IP addresses for them. Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • how to get ip address of a PPP(Point-to-Point Protocol) network interface?

    - by Xsmael
    I have a Linux machine with two network interfaces, and I'd like to get the IP address of the PPP interface w1g1 but it doesn't show up in ifconfig. There is a public IP on the PPP interface, but there is no internet connection, I'm trying to troubleshoot but I need to get the IP address of the interface and I can't. ifconfig : eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:30:48:8D:F0:2C inet addr:192.168.2.254 Bcast:192.168.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::230:48ff:fe8d:f02c/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:9970 errors:0 dropped:567 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:4338 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:1441024 (1.3 MiB) TX bytes:915814 (894.3 KiB) 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:675 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:675 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:50659 (49.4 KiB) TX bytes:50659 (49.4 KiB) w1g1 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MTU:240 Metric:1 RX packets:748994 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:748992 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:3 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:179758560 (171.4 MiB) TX bytes:179758080 (171.4 MiB) Interrupt:177 Memory:f881c400-f881e3ff w1g1 is connected to a modem by an RJ45<-Serial cable and the modem is connected to the phone line. The modem is a NOKIA DNT2Mi you can see it here Routing table : 192.168.2.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.254 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link default via 192.168.2.180 dev eth0

    Read the article

  • Why is this iptables rule that does port forwarding not working?

    - by videoguy
    I have a server bound to localhost:7060. It is using ipv6 socket instead of ipv4. Below is netstat outout. # netstat -an Proto Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address Foreign Address State tcp 0 0 10.200.32.98:1720 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:4122 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:4123 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:4123 127.0.0.1:43051 ESTABLISHED tcp 0 0 10.200.32.98:5555 10.200.32.44:53162 ESTABLISHED tcp6 0 0 :::5060 :::* LISTEN tcp6 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:7060 :::* LISTEN tcp6 0 0 :::23 :::* LISTEN tcp6 0 0 ::ffff:10.200.32.98:23 ::ffff:10.200.32.142:43505 ESTABLISHED tcp6 0 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:43051 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:4123 ESTABLISHED tcp6 0 0 ::ffff:10.200.32.98:23 ::ffff:10.200.32.44:53195 ESTABLISHED udp6 0 0 :::5060 :::* CLOSE # I want to setup a port forwarding rule that accepts connections on port 24 (on all interfaces loopback as well as eth0) and forward the data to localhost:7060. This is how I am setting up the iptables rule: iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 24 -j DNAT --to 127.0.0.1:7060** It is not working. When I telnet from different box, I see the following $telnet 10.200.32.98 24 Trying 10.200.32.98... If I change the server to bind to *:7060 and set the following rule, it seems to work fine. iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 24 -j REDIRECT --to-port 7060 But that will make my server available on WAN interface which I don't like. I feel it had something to do with ipv6 socket (tcp6 line in netstat output). This whole thing is done on an Android device with custom built Android platform image. How do I get this working?

    Read the article

  • Bridging networks problems

    - by Eric
    In my setup I have 3 computers and 2 (wireless d-link) routers. Computer1 has ethernet and wireless interfaces ethernet : 192.168.0.x (DHCP) wireless : 192.168.10.254 (static) Computer 2 has ethernet with two ips ethernet1 : 192.168.0.90 (static) ethernet2 : 192.168.10.110 (static) Computer 3 is a particular device with a hardcoded ip that I can't change wireless : 192.168.10.41 (static) Router1 manages internet and DHCP for network 192.168.0.0/24 Router2 is more complicated. I don't use DHCP. I use it to bridge between both networks. Its static ip is 192.168.10.1 Computer1 can ping Computer2. Computer1 can ping Computer3. Computer1 can ping Router1. Computer1 cannot ping Router2. Computer2 cannot ping Computer3. Computer2 can ping Router2. Router1 can ping Router1 Router2 can ping Computer2 Router2 cannot ping Computer1 Router2 cannot ping Computer3 This is very weird. Router2 manages the wireless connection, it should be able to ping its own computers right? My question is obviously : How can I make it so Computer2 can access everything else. This is a traditional case of "it was working before christmas and now it doesn't". The ethernet wiring is as follow : [ Computer1 ]----[ Router1 ]---[ Router2 ]---[ Computer3 ] I am using switch (lan) ports on Router1/2.

    Read the article

  • Preventing endless forwarding with two routers

    - by jarmund
    The network in quesiton looks basically like this: /----Inet1 / H1---[111.0/24]---GW1---[99.0/24] \----GW2-----Inet2 Device explaination H1: Host with IP 192.168.111.47 GW1: Linux box with IPs 192.168.111.1 and 192.168.99.2, as well as its own route to the internet. GW2: Generic wireless router with IP 192.168.99.1 and its own route to the internet. Inet1 & Inet2: Two possible routes to the internet In short: H has more than one possible route to the internet. H is supposed to only access the internet via GW2 when that link is up, so GW1 has some policy based routing special just for H1: ip rule add from 192.168.111.47 table 991 ip route add default via 192.168.99.1 table 991 While this works as long as GW2 has a direct link to the internet, the problem occurs when that link is down. What then happens is that GW2 forwards the packet back to GW1, which again forwards back to GW2, creating an endless loop of TCP-pingpong. The preferred result would be that the packet was just dropped. Is there something that can be done with iptables on GW1 to prevent this? Basically, an iptables-friendly version of "If packet comes from GW2, but originated from H1, drop it" Note1: It is preferable not to change anything on GW2. Note2: H1 needs to be able to talk to both GW1 and GW2, and vice versa, but only GW2 should lead to the internet TLDR; H1 should only be allowed internet access via GW2, but still needs to be able to talk to both GW1 and GW2. EDIT: The interfaces for GW1 are br0.105 for the '99' network, and br0.111 for the '111' network. The sollution may or may not be obnoxiously simple, but i have not been able to produce the proper iptables syntax myself, so help would be most appreciated. PS: This is a follow-up question from this question

    Read the article

  • ASA access lists and Egress Filtering

    - by Nate
    Hello. I'm trying to learn how to use a cisco ASA firewall, and I don't really know what I'm doing. I'm trying to set up some egress filtering, with the goal of allowing only the minimal amount of traffic out of the network, even if it originated from within the inside interface. In other words, I'm trying to set up dmz_in and inside_in ACLs as if the inside interface is not too trustworthy. I haven't fully grasped all the concepts yet, so I have a few issues. Assume that we're working with three interfaces: inside, outside, and DMZ. Let's say I have a server (X.Y.Z.1) that has to respond to PING, HTTP, SSH, FTP, MySQL, and SMTP. My ACL looks something like this: access-list outside_in extended permit icmp any host X.Y.Z.1 echo-reply access-list outside_in extended permit tcp any host X.Y.Z.1 eq www access-list outside_in extended permit tcp any host X.Y.Z.1 eq ssh access-list outside_in extended permit tcp any host X.Y.Z.1 eq ftp access-list outside_in extended permit tcp any host X.Y.Z.1 eq ftp-data established access-list outside_in extended permit tcp any host X.Y.Z.1 eq 3306 access-list outside_in extended permit tcp any host X.Y.Z.1 eq smtp and I apply it like this: access-group outside_in in interface outside My question is, what can I do for egress filtering? I want to only allow the minimal amount of traffic out. Do I just "reverse" the rules (i.e. the smtp rule becomes access-list inside_out extended permit tcp host X.Y.Z.1 any eq smtp ) and call it a day, or can I further cull my options? What can I safely block? Furthermore, when doing egress filtering, is it enough to apply "inverted" rules to the outside interface, or should I also look into making dmz_in and inside_in acls? I've heard the term "egress filtering" thrown around a lot, but I don't really know what I'm doing. Any pointers towards good resources and reading would also be helpful, most of the ones I've found presume that I know a lot more than I do.

    Read the article

  • Problem with connecting two different networks

    - by tanascius
    I have two networks: 192.168.13.0/24 (blue) and 192.168.15.0/24 (green). Computer A is connected to the 13-net, only. Computer B has two interfaces, one in each network. There is third computer that acts like a router and connects the 13-net to the 15-net (only in this direction). Now, I'd like to ping 192.168.15.100 from computer A to B. Unfortunately there is never a reply. But when I use a hub instead of a switch it works. In my opinion the ping packet travels through the switch to the router (which is the default route/gateway for A). The router sends the packet back to the switch to B. Probably B receives it on its 15-net interface but answers with it's 15th interface? Is this possible? The problem is, that B may have only a gateway 192.168.13.50 - but I am not really sure of it (B is a embedded system with limited configuration possibilities). Can anyone explain what happens here? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • VirtualBox with Ubuntu Server guest can't ping outside

    - by Danidan
    Here's my situation: an Ubuntu 12.04 Host running VirtualBox; two guest VMs running Ubuntu Server 12.04 home network, so my Host pc has a wireless connection to the router of my ISP. My problem is in one of the virtual machines: it has 3 NICs, one in NAT mode and the others in Host Only mode. My purpose is to use eth0 (NAT) for Internet access and eth1, eth2 (Host Only) for management of internal virtual network (eth1 uses a VBoxNet with this IP 192.168.69.254). Whenever I try to $ping 8.8.8.8 I get Destination Host Unreachable. While if I $ping 192.168.69.10, that is the IP of the other VM, it works. I can't also ping my Host nor my router My /etc/network/interfaces file is: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.69.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 auto eth2 iface ifconfig $IFACE 0.0.0.0 up up ip link set $IFACE promisc on down ip link set $IFASE promisc off down ifconfig $IFACE down $route -n returns: Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 0.0.0.0 10.0.2.2 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth0 10.0.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.69.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.100.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 Forgetting for now what eth2 needs to do and its setup, why I can't go outside the Host box? What can I do to help you helping me? :-)

    Read the article

  • SNMP query - operation not permitted

    - by jperovic
    I am working on API that reads a lot of data via SNMP (routes, interfaces, QoS policies, etc...). Lately, I have experienced a random error stating: Operation not permitted Now, I use SNMP4J as core library and cannot really pinpoint the source of error. Some Stackoverflow questions have suggested OS being unable to open sufficient number of file handles but increasing that parameter did not help much. The strange thing is that error occurs only when iptables is up and running. Could it be that firewall is blocking some traffic? I have tried writing JUnit test that mimicked application's logic but no errors were fired... Any help would be appreciated! Thanks! IPTABLES *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [2:96] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [68:4218] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [68:4218] # route redirect za SNMP Trap i syslog -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p udp -m udp --dport 514 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 33514 -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p udp -m udp --dport 162 -j REDIRECT --to-ports 33162 COMMIT *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p icmp -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT ..... # SNMP -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 161 -j ACCEPT # SNMP trap -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 162 -j ACCEPT -A INPUT -p udp -m state --state NEW -m udp --dport 33162 -j ACCEPT ..... -A INPUT -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited -A FORWARD -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited COMMIT

    Read the article

  • Tuning Linux + HAProxy

    - by react
    I'm currently rolling out HAProxy on Centos 6 which will send requests to some Apache HTTPD servers and I'm having issues with performance. I've spent the last couple of days googling and still can't seem to get past 10k/sec connections consistently when benchmarking (sometimes I do get 30k/sec though). I've pinned the IRQ's of the TX/RX queues for both the internal and external NICS to separate CPU cores and made sure HAProxy is pinned to it's own core. I've also made the following adjustments to sysctl.conf: # Max open file descriptors fs.file-max = 331287 # TCP Tuning net.ipv4.tcp_tw_reuse = 1 net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 1024 65023 net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 10240 net.ipv4.tcp_max_tw_buckets = 400000 net.ipv4.tcp_max_orphans = 60000 net.ipv4.tcp_synack_retries = 3 net.core.somaxconn = 40000 net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 4096 8192 16384 net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 8192 16384 net.ipv4.tcp_mem = 65536 98304 131072 net.core.netdev_max_backlog = 40000 net.ipv4.tcp_tw_reuse = 1 If I use AB to hit the a webserver directly I easily get 30k/s connections. If I stop the webservers and use AB to hit HAProxy then I get 30k/s connections but obviously it's useless. I've also disabled iptables for now since I read that nf_conntrack can slow everything down, no change. I've also disabled the irqbalance service. The fact that I can hit each individual device with 30k/s makes me believe the tuning of the servers is OK and that it must be some HAProxy config? Here's the config which I've built from reading tuning articles, etc http://pastebin.com/zsCyAtgU The server is a dual Xeon CPU E5-2620 (6 cores) with 32GB of RAM. Running Centos 6.2 x64. The private and public interfaces are on separate NICS. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98  | Next Page >