Search Results

Search found 5769 results on 231 pages for 'wcf routing'.

Page 97/231 | < Previous Page | 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104  | Next Page >

  • Windows 2003 - RAS service - VPN client can only connect to server, not internal network

    - by Gk
    Here is my diagram http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/263/vpnt.png/ Server has two NIC: One connect to Internet, one connect to internal network. RAS service is configured with static IP pool on the same subnet of internal network (10.10.0.x). The problem is when a client connect to server, client can connect to server(10.10.0.10), but cannot connect to another host locate in internal network (10.10.0.11) even cannot ping to 10.10.0.50. RAS configured with IP routing enabled, client connect with options: Use default gateway on remote network. I'm messed up and can not figure out what wrong. Please help me T_T. TIA, giobuon

    Read the article

  • private subnet nat (openvpn / racoon)

    - by Jonas Schnelli
    I have a openvpn subnet 10.8.0.0/24 running one server and one client (laptop). openvpn works fine. Browsing the web over openvpn from the laptop works also fine. Now on the server there is a private subnet with 10.7.8.128/28. The subnet is set up with racoon (IPSEC s2s vpn). The s2s vpn allows me to access the subnet 10.3.5.0/24 at the other s2s vpn end. Works all fine when I'm connected with ssh to my server. From my laptop i can ping 10.7.8.129 (the servers ipsec local ip) but i cannot reach the net 10.3.5.0/24. I tried to add a static route on my laptop 10.3.5.0/24 over gw 10.7.8.129 with no success. Any ideas how i do setup the nat / routing? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Inbound connections using Internet Connection Sharing in Apple/Mac/Leopard

    - by tlianza
    I have a Mac mini which I'm using to give some other devices wireless access, by sharing it's Airport connection with the local ethernet, and that is plugged into a switch. All devices can get online no problem. (See how: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20041112101646643 and http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20071223001432304 ) The issue is that I need to be able to connect in to these machines as well (at least, for the Slingbox to work). All the devices have 192.168.2.* addresses, and the rest of my local network is on 192.168.1.*. I tried setting a static route so that the 192.168.2.* addresses would use a gateway of 192.168.1.50 (my mac mini's address) but that didn't seem to help. Does anyone know if what I'm trying to do is possible? I admit I'm not certain what Internet Connection sharing is really doing under the hood... perhaps it just does basic nat, and doesn't do the type of routing I'm looking for. If so, anyone know if this is possible?

    Read the article

  • Rails 3 + Nginx + Passenger -- Routing index

    - by Bijan
    I have no index.html file in my public folder. My rails routes file routes this, and it works fine when I run 'rails server' on my machine. I'm trying to deploy the app. I have passenger and nginx running When I run rails server on my local machine, it works fine. But it's just trying to access static file when I try to access it on the production server. Here's my nginx conf: worker_processes 1; #pid logs/nginx.pid; events { worker_connections 1024; } http { passenger_root /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1/gems/passenger-3.0.2; passenger_ruby /usr/bin/ruby; include mime.types; default_type application/octet-stream; sendfile on; keepalive_timeout 65; server { listen 80; server_name mmjconsult.com; root /www/mmjs/public; access_log logs/host.access.log; passenger_enabled on; } } Thank you for any help. I really appreciate it.

    Read the article

  • Routing and authenticating all access through squid

    - by Knight Samar
    Hi, I want to route all Internet access in my network through a Squid proxy server and authenticate and log all users. I want this to be a client-independent setting so that no one needs to do anything on their browsers or machines. I have set my network gateway as the proxy server so that all traffic will be sent to it. I have done this using options in DHCP server. Now I tried using squid as a transparent proxy, but then it won't authenticate in that mode. I tried using iptables to route all traffic to port 3128 but it won't popup the authentication dialog box from SQUID. I tried telling DHCP to give WPAD to all clients by placing a WPAD file on a webserver containing the following for automatic proxy configuration on clients: Changes in dhcpd.conf option wpad code 252 =test; option wpad "\n\000"; option wpad "http://192.168.1.5/wpad.dat\n"; The WPAD file: function FindProxyForURL(url,host) { return "PROXY squid-server-ip-address:3128 ; DIRECT "; } But the browsers (different versions of Firefox and IE) seem to ignore it. :( What should I do ?

    Read the article

  • Unable to access internet if wireless enabled

    - by balki
    The following is my route output. eth0 is my wired network and eth1 is my wireless network. Only wired one has access to internet. If I enable wireless, I am not able to access internet, it tries to access via eth1 and I get 404 page of the wireless router. Why does eth1 have higher preference though default is eth0 (link)? [balakrishnan@mylap ~]$ route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface default 10.26.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 10.26.0.0 * 255.255.192.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 9 0 0 eth1

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN + iptables / NAT routing

    - by Mikeage
    Hi, I'm trying to set up an OpenVPN VPN, which will carry some (but not all) traffic from the clients to the internet via the OpenVPN server. My OpenVPN server has a public IP on eth0, and is using tap0 to create a local network, 192.168.2.x. I have a client which connects from local IP 192.168.1.101 and gets VPN IP 192.168.2.3. On the server, I ran: iptables -A INPUT -i tap+ -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i tap+ -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.2.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE On the client, the default remains to route via 192.168.1.1. In order to point it to 192.168.2.1 for HTTP, I ran ip rule add fwmark 0x50 table 200 ip route add table 200 default via 192.168.2.1 iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK -p tcp --dport 80 --set-mark 80 Now, if I try accessing a website on the client (say, wget google.com), it just hangs there. On the server, I can see $ sudo tcpdump -n -i tap0 tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on tap0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes 05:39:07.928358 IP 192.168.1.101.34941 > 74.125.67.100.80: S 4254520618:4254520618(0) win 5840 <mss 1334,sackOK,timestamp 558838 0,nop,wscale 5> 05:39:10.751921 IP 192.168.1.101.34941 > 74.125.67.100.80: S 4254520618:4254520618(0) win 5840 <mss 1334,sackOK,timestamp 559588 0,nop,wscale 5> Where 74.125.67.100 is the IP it gets for google.com . Why isn't the MASQUERADE working? More precisely, I see that the source showing up as 192.168.1.101 -- shouldn't there be something to indicate that it came from the VPN? Edit: Some routes [from the client] $ ip route show table main 192.168.2.0/24 dev tap0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.4 192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.101 metric 2 169.254.0.0/16 dev wlan0 scope link metric 1000 default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 proto static $ ip route show table 200 default via 192.168.2.1 dev tap0

    Read the article

  • VPN IPsec site 2 site and static routing

    - by Giacomo
    Hello everybody experts! My question is pretty simple, but I can't figure it out because I'm pretty noob with these network stuffs. I have a vpn IPsec site2site between 2 lan with different ip classes, LAN A is class C and LAN B is class A. The vpn presents the LAN A to LAN B with the 10.178.51.64/27 segment. The problem is that when I start the vpn connection I cant Ping any 10.174.0.0/24 address(LAN B remote segment) from my LAN A; I think I need some kind of static route. Could u help me out pls? Thx Regards

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN + iptables / NAT routing

    - by Mikeage
    I'm trying to set up an OpenVPN VPN, which will carry some (but not all) traffic from the clients to the internet via the OpenVPN server. My OpenVPN server has a public IP on eth0, and is using tap0 to create a local network, 192.168.2.x. I have a client which connects from local IP 192.168.1.101 and gets VPN IP 192.168.2.3. On the server, I ran: iptables -A INPUT -i tap+ -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i tap+ -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.2.0/24 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE On the client, the default remains to route via 192.168.1.1. In order to point it to 192.168.2.1 for HTTP, I ran ip rule add fwmark 0x50 table 200 ip route add table 200 default via 192.168.2.1 iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK -p tcp --dport 80 --set-mark 80 Now, if I try accessing a website on the client (say, wget google.com), it just hangs there. On the server, I can see $ sudo tcpdump -n -i tap0 tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on tap0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes 05:39:07.928358 IP 192.168.1.101.34941 > 74.125.67.100.80: S 4254520618:4254520618(0) win 5840 <mss 1334,sackOK,timestamp 558838 0,nop,wscale 5> 05:39:10.751921 IP 192.168.1.101.34941 > 74.125.67.100.80: S 4254520618:4254520618(0) win 5840 <mss 1334,sackOK,timestamp 559588 0,nop,wscale 5> Where 74.125.67.100 is the IP it gets for google.com . Why isn't the MASQUERADE working? More precisely, I see that the source showing up as 192.168.1.101 -- shouldn't there be something to indicate that it came from the VPN? Edit: Some routes [from the client] $ ip route show table main 192.168.2.0/24 dev tap0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.4 192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.101 metric 2 169.254.0.0/16 dev wlan0 scope link metric 1000 default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 proto static $ ip route show table 200 default via 192.168.2.1 dev tap0

    Read the article

  • Access Configuration Page of Modem (in bridge mode) through router

    - by Ujjwal Singh
    Given the Network Configuration: Internet (121.243.x.y/27) | (121.243.x.z) Static : Public Global IP Modem Bridge Mode | WiMAX (192.168.1.1/24) +169.254.1.1/24 : Modem Configuration Page | (192.168.1.2) Router DLink DIR 615 | Ethernet + WiFi (192.168.0.1/24) | Local network (192.168.0.2) Workstation Ethernet | no WiFi Is there any way, maybe using Routing Tables, to access the Modem configuration page at 169.254.1.1 from my local network, using a Windows 7 PC? Note that the modem is currently able to display its configuration page at 169.254.1.1, i.e. even while it is in bridge mode.

    Read the article

  • Routing traffic to a specific NIC in Windows

    - by Stoicpoet
    I added a 10GB NIC to a SQL server which is connected over to a backend storage using ISCSI. I would like to force traffic going to a certain IP address/host to use the 10gb NIC, while all other traffic should continue to use the 1GB NIC. The 10gb nic is configured using a private network. So far I have added a entry in the host file to the host I want to go over the private network and when I ping the host, it does return the private IP, but I'm still finding traffic going to the 1gb pipe. How can I force all traffic to this host to use the 10gb interface? Would the best approach be a static route? 160.205.2.3 is the IP to the 1gb host, I actually want to the traffic to route over an interface assigned 172.31.3.2, which is also defined as Interface 22. That said, would this work? route add 160.205.2.3 mask 255.255.255.255 172.31.3.2 if 22

    Read the article

  • routing problems

    - by user174050
    I have an windows 7 laptop and I have installed openvpn 2.2x as client. The laptop has 2 ethernet cards, one of them is wireless. The wireless lan is 192.168.1.0/24 The Fix lan is 192.168.2.0/24 If I connect to the openvpn server useing the Fix lan the I can connect properly and for testing I ping to my openvpn server 10.0.0.1 that answers correctly. But if I connect to the openvpn server useing the wireless lan, I can establish the connection but pinging to the server isn´t possible. The packets goes allways lost. Why can this happen? In an other laptop where windows xp is installed and with the same lan configuratio everything works propperly. In both cases the firewall is configured to access the vnc server and the server directories useing samba. With the XP I have no problems. I will thank you for all help Ignacio

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Two routers network routing settings

    - by xiamx
    I have two routers, Router A is connected to the internet, and Router B is connected to the LAN port of Router A. Router A: 192.168.1.1 Subnet 255.255.255.0 Router B: IP leased from router A: 192.168.1.2 gateway 192.168.0.1 subnet 255.255.255.0 I have a machine C plugged to router A with ip 192.168.1.3 also a machine D plugged to router B with ip 192.168.0.199 I want to access machine D from a machine C. What settings do I need to change to do that?

    Read the article

  • Checkpoint - Routing into the tunnel

    - by Fake4d
    I have a simple question for my checkpoint infrastructure. Do i have to route a net which i wanna access over a configured firewall VPN Tunnel. Explanation: I have two firewalls connected over a VPN which have several nets behind them. I need to access a new net at the other firewall and put them in their encryption Domain. Now here is the question: Do i have to route it in the operating system (SecurePlat)? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Apache routing vhosts to /var/www

    - by FHannes
    One user at my site has reported that he reaches the content at /var/www when browsing to any of the vhosts at my server. As far as I’m aware, my Apache server does not contain a document root that references this folder. On top of that, this user seems to be the only one experiencing the issue. According to his ISP, the issue isn’t caused by them, yet, on his mobile connection, he can access the site. When browsing to my server’s IP, he also receives the correct content from the default vhost. What could be the possible causes of this issue and how can I get it to stop? I’ve explored pretty much every option I could think of.

    Read the article

  • WAN and LAN setup for IPv6

    - by neu242
    We just got a IPv6 /48 range (a gateway and an IP address) for our company, but I'm unsure about how to set it up. We use FreeBSD 8.4 (pfSense 2.1) as a router/firewall. Currently we have IPv4 setup with a WAN towards the internet, and a NAT-ed LAN behind it for office PCs. We want to keep the LAN network for security, and we want IPv6 addresses from the /48 for all office PCs (without NAT). The WAN is configured with the IPv6 gateway 1111:2222:3333::1/48 and interface address 1111:2222:3333::2/48. But when it's configured this way, I guess it's impossible to fit the LAN on a /64 within the /48? I believe I should configure the WAN subnet on 1111:2222:3333:1::/64 and the LAN on a subnet like 1111:2222:3333:2::/64. Is this something I can configure myself, or do I have to ask the ISP to configure that routing for me?

    Read the article

  • Routing DHCP traffic over the internet

    - by rmanna
    i'd like to know if it's possible for the internet to be between a DHCP server and the network it's "assigned" to? so basically, something like this: -------------- ------------- ------------- | DHCP Server | | DHCP | | Clients | | |-----Internet-----| Relay Agent |------| 192.168.0.* | | | | 192.168.0.1 | | | -------------- ------------- ------------- the behavior i'm seeing is that the DHCP server is offering 192.168.0.* IPs and sending them back to 192.168.0.1, which it can't reach. i tried masquerading the packets sent by the relay agent but that doesn't seem to work. from what i've been reading, this is normal behavior since the DHCP server uses the GIADDR as the destination address for its OFFERs, and not the actual source IP of the packets it receives from the relay agent. sooo, given that my DHCP server needs to be "on the other side of the internet" as depicted above, how can i get this working? are there settings for dhcpd to do this or is creating a VPN containing the DHCP server and the relay agent the only way? thanks!

    Read the article

  • Routing between two subnets. (Need Solution)

    - by rehanplus
    Need help according to scenario given: Client end PCs: 400 + Network : Server 1 (Linux) : 192.168.2.0/24 (For Application, Internet not working) GW: 192.168.2.1 Clients: 192.168.2.1 - 254 Server 2 (Linux) : 192.168.3.0/24 (For Internet users) GW: 192.168.3.1 Clients: 192.168.3.2 - 254 Server 2 is connected to DSL Broadband. Server 1 and Server 2 both are on same physical network i.e. Same switches. Current issue: i have to deploy a file and print server but this server will be accessed by both (192.168.2.x and 192.168.3.x) one same workgroup. as both subnets are on same switched network. Limitations: Currently there is no hardware routers and firewall. Need to complete this task with Linux / Windows / AD. Tested / Worked so far: Configured one PC with two NIC's With the IPS: NIC 1 : 192.168.3.2 GW: 192.168.3.1 Subnet: 255.255.255.0 NIC 2 : 192.168.2.2 GW: Empty Subnet: 255.255.255.0 Kindly provide any solution what should i do to get sharing enable on both Subnets. Thank you All

    Read the article

  • Cisco 1841 and routing /29 address

    - by Jonathan
    Could someone please explain in general terms how I'd configure a Cisco 1841 (2x ethernet ports) to route a public /29 address block (6 hosts) to my internal network. I wish to give the Cisco router one public IP and then several of my internal Windows servers will receive the other public IP addresses. Other hosts behind the router will access Internet via NAT. I'm a bit confused as I've only ever setup routers/firewalls that had a single public IP address with NAT and port forwarding to internal servers.

    Read the article

  • Corticon provides Business Rules Engines for Silverlight, WCF and .NET developers

    Now Corticon Business Rules Engines and Business Rules Management Systems users can enjoy support for the Windows 7 operating system, and for Silverlight and Windows Communication Foundation developers. The new Corticon 4.3 provides numerous performance, usability, and integration enhancements and provides the industry-first cloud deployment option for a business rules engine. span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • Mac OSX 10.8 Server DNS Domain Routing

    - by Oldek
    I just cant seem to figure out the logic in how to configure my Mac Server. So I have set up an DNS, which will take the domain and all subdomains and point towards an IP. File: db.mydomain.com (in /var/named/) mydomain.com. 10800 IN SOA mydomain.com. admin.mydomain.com. ( 2012110903 ; serial 3600 ; refresh (1 hour) 900 ; retry (15 minutes) 1209600 ; expire (2 weeks) 86400 ; minimum (1 day) ) 10800 IN NS mydomain.com. 10800 IN A 10.0.1.2 www.mydomain.com. 10800 IN A 10.0.1.2 So I want all of these requests to be requested to the 10.0.1.2 server, as I run 2 servers in my cluster. This one has always handled the requests, and now I want to add a server in between. So the server in between will get all the signals from my router which NAT the trafic coming from outside. So after setting this up and trying to point my port 80 towards my new server which will be the middle point, it doesn't work. Is it even possible to do it this way? First server: Mac Second server: Linux So what I try to achieve once more: 1. User goes to mydomain.com or www.mydomain.com 2. User request gets handled by my first server 3. First server refers to a local server, which is only available locally (it is configured to allow requests on port 80 and handle them) 4. Second server receives signal 5. Second server returns a request (either directly send to user or send through first server, whichever is most secure and configurable) I also want to be able to set up domains that lead to other servers in the future, and some that are only available within the VPN. (If that changes anything) I hope some kind soul could help me with this, it is really cumbersome for my mind to get the logic here. Do I have to configure my other server in any way? /Marcus

    Read the article

  • Apache not routing to tomcat on correct Virtual host

    - by ttheobald
    We are looking at moving from Websphere to Tomcat. I'm trying to send traffic to tomcat from apache web server based on the virtual host directives in apache web server. After some playing around I have it sort of working, but I'm noticing that if I have a JKMount directive in the first VirtualHost in apache, all virtualHosts will send to the application server. If I have the JKMount in Virtual hosts further down in the configs, then only that VirtualHost works with the request. For Example, with the configs below here are my symptoms mysite.com/Webapp1/ -- I resolve to the proper application mysite2.com/Webapp1/ -- I resolve to the proper application (bad!) mysite.com/MonitorApp/ -- I resolve to the proper application mysite2.com/MonitorApp/ -- I resolve to the proper application (bad!) mysite.com/Webapp2/ -- I DO NOT get to the app (good) mysite2.com/Webapp2/ -- I resolve to the proper application Here's what my web server virtualhosts look like. <VirtualHost 255.255.255.1:80> ServerName mysite.com ServerAlias aliasmysite.ca ##all our rewrite rules JkMount /Webapp1/* LoadBalanceWorker JKmount /MonitorApp/* LoadBalanceWorker </VirtualHost> <VirtualHost 255.255.255.2:80> ServerName mysite2.com ServerAlias aliasmysite2.ca ##all our rewrite rules JkMount /Webapp2/* LoadBalanceWorker </VirtualHost> we are running apache webserver 2.2.10 and tomcat 7.0.29 on Solaris10 I've posted an image of our architecture here. http://imgur.com/IFaA6Rh I HAVE not defined VirtualHosts on Tomcat. Based on what I've read, my understanding is that it's only needed if I'm accessing Tomcat directly. Any assistance is appreciated. Edit Here's my worker.properties. worker.list= LoadBalanceWorker,App1,App2 worker.intApp1.port=8009 worker.intApp1.host=10.15.8.8 worker.intApp1.type=ajp13 worker.intApp1.lbfactor=1 worker.intApp1.socket_timeout=30 worker.intApp1.socket_connect_timeout=5000 worker.intApp1.fail_on_status=302,500,503 worker.intApp1.recover_time=30 worker.intApp2.port=8009 worker.intApp2.host=10.15.8.9 worker.intApp2.type=ajp13 worker.intApp2.lbfactor=1 worker.intApp2.socket_timeout=30 worker.intApp2.socket_connect_timeout=5000 worker.intApp2.fail_on_status=302,500,503 worker.intApp2.recover_time=30 worker.LoadBalanceWorker.type=lb worker.LoadBalanceWorker.balanced_workers=intApp1,intApp2 worker.LoadBalanceWorker.sticky_session=1

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104  | Next Page >