Search Results

Search found 4834 results on 194 pages for 'zend route'.

Page 99/194 | < Previous Page | 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106  | Next Page >

• Weird routing issue

  - by Joel Coel

  I'm having some weird internet problems on campus. I know it's something simple, but it's a case where I need another set of eyes. I think I can explain the problem best by posting a tracert: Tracing route to google.com [74.125.45.147] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms 192.168.8.1 2 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms elissaemily-pc.york.edu [192.168.10.5] 3 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms rrcs-76-79-19-33.west.biz.rr.com [76.79.19.33] 4 31 ms 3 ms 2 ms ge-1-1-0.lnclne00-mx41.neb.rr.com [76.85.220.109] 5 20 ms 17 ms 17 ms ge-7-3-0.chcgill3-rtr1.kc.rr.com [76.85.220.137] 6 20 ms 20 ms 19 ms ae-5-0.cr0.chi30.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.112] 7 19 ms 19 ms 24 ms ae-1-0.pr0.chi10.tbone.rr.com [66.109.6.155] 8 26 ms 24 ms 24 ms 74.125.48.109 9 23 ms 24 ms 21 ms 216.239.46.246 10 39 ms 39 ms 55 ms 209.85.242.215 11 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms 209.85.254.243 12 39 ms 40 ms 96 ms 209.85.253.145 13 39 ms 39 ms 39 ms yx-in-f147.1e100.net [74.125.45.147] Trace complete. Note the second entry in there. Not only is the host name a student's computer, but the ip address doesn't exist. Dhcp shows that host as having a different address and you can't ping any 192.168.10.5. Yet somehow it's routing packets for us (and not very well, either — things are slow right now). The basic network routing table looks like this: Destination Subnet Mask Gateway --------------------------------------- Default Route -- 10.1.1.5 (our firewall) 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 -- 192.168.8.0 255.255.252.0 --

  Read the article

• Passing OpenVPN road-warrior traffic through tunnel pfsense

  - by Chris

  I have a local LAN (10.100.100.0/24) and OpenVPN road-warriors (10.99.99.0/24). pfSense is regulating all this as follows: LAN: 10.100.100.105 WAN: 10.100.99.1 (connected to DSL Router which connects to internet). OPT1: 10.99.99.0 (OpenVPN tun0). There is an IPSec connection between my office and another office where my LAN can work on a specific IP address (sql server to be exact) on 192.168.30.41. My problem is that I wish my OpenVPN road-warrior clients to be able to use the IPSec service on 192.168.30.41 as well (which at present they cannot despite the fact that I am pushing the route 192.168.30.0 255.255.255.0). The other site's administrator cannot add the extra route for my openvpn clients for a lot of reasons which I am not going to enter at this stage. Is there a possibility that I could NAT all of my openVPN road-warriors requests through a local LAN IP address (something like 10.100.100.250 which is not used by anything on my LAN). The problem is that I am a newbie with pfSense so as much step-by-step help as possible would be very much appreciated! Thank you. C.

  Read the article

• How to set up IP forwarding on Nexenta (Solaris)?

  - by Gleb

  I am trying to set up IP forwarding on my Nexenta box: root@hdd:~# uname -a SunOS hdd 5.11 NexentaOS_134f i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris The box has 2 network interfaces: root@hdd:~# ifconfig -a lo0: flags=2001000849<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv4,VIRTUAL> mtu 8232 index 1 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask ff000000 e1000g1: flags=1001100843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,ROUTER,IPv4,FIXEDMTU> mtu 1500 index 2 inet 192.168.12.2 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 192.168.12.255 ether 68:5:ca:9:51:b8 myri10ge0: flags=1100843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST,ROUTER,IPv4> mtu 9000 index 3 inet 10.10.10.10 netmask ffffff00 broadcast 10.10.10.255 ether 0:60:dd:47:87:2 lo0: flags=2002000849<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST,IPv6,VIRTUAL> mtu 8252 index 1 inet6 ::1/128 192.168.12.0 is my normal LAN with 192.168.12.1 being the firewall/gateway 10.10.10.0 is a separate LAN for iSCSI (with no internet access) I want to set up IP forwarding so that a computer on 10.10.10.0 will be able to access the internet by using 10.10.10.10 as a gateway (I don't need any port forwarding) I have turned on IP forwarding: root@hdd:~# routeadm Configuration Current Current Option Configuration System State --------------------------------------------------------------- IPv4 routing disabled disabled IPv6 routing disabled disabled IPv4 forwarding enabled enabled IPv6 forwarding disabled disabled Routing services "route:default ripng:default" Routing daemons: STATE FMRI disabled svc:/network/routing/rdisc:default disabled svc:/network/routing/route:default disabled svc:/network/routing/legacy-routing:ipv4 disabled svc:/network/routing/legacy-routing:ipv6 disabled svc:/network/routing/ripng:default online svc:/network/routing/ndp:default But when I dry to start ipnat, I get an error: root@hdd:~# ipnat -CF -f /etc/ipf/ipnat.conf ioctl(SIOCGNATS): I/O error Here is the config: root@hdd:~# cat /etc/ipf/ipnat.conf #!/sbin/ipnat -f - # map e1000g1 10.10.10.10/24 -> 192.168.12.2/32 So the question is how to fix this.. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• HTTP Upload Problems

  - by jfoster

  We are running a marketplace on ColdFusion8 and IIS with a widely geographically distributed user base and have been receiving complaints of issues with some HTTP uploads. Most of the complaints are coming from geographically distant locations from our main datacenter on the US east coast. I've attempted to upload the same 70MB file from a US West coast test server to both our main site and a backup running the same code on a different network route and I saw the same issues fairly consistently in both places, so I've ruled out the code, route, and internal network errors. I've also tested uploads using both the native cf upload tag and a third party tool called SaFileUp. I saw the same issues with both upload tools, so I also don't think this is necessarily a ColdFusion problem. I don't have any problems uploading the test file from the East coast to other east coast servers, so I'm beginning to think that the distance between our users and our equipment is a factor. I've also found that smaller files are more likely to succeed than large ones (< 10MB) I tried the test upload with both IE and FF and did notice a difference in the way that the browsers seemed to handle packet errors. IE seemed to have a tough time continuing an upload after dropped / bad packets, whereas FF seemed to have the ability to gracefully resume an upload after experiencing packet problems. Has anyone experienced similar issues? Is there anything we can do on our side to make uploads more forgiving to packet loss or resumable after an error? A different upload tool etc… Do we need upload servers in more than one location to shorten the network routes between clients and servers? Does anyone think that switching uploads to SSL will help (no layer7 packet sniffing may lead to a smoother upload). Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to repair a damage transaction log file for Exchange 2003

  - by Markus Larsson

  Hi! Yesterday we had a power failure and the UPS did not work (it has worked perfect before). Everything seem to be ok when I started all the servers again except of the mail, when I try to mount the store I get the following message: “The database files in this store are corrupted” Server: Exchange 2003 running on a Small Business Server Latest full backup: one week old Backup program: Backup Exec 9.0 This is what I have done: 1. Copy every file in the MDBDATA folder (edb, stm, log) 2. Run Eseutil /d for priv1.edb 3. Run Eseutil /p for priv1.edb (took seven hours) 4. Run Isintig –fix –test alltests, now it breaks down. Isintig fails with the following error: Isinteg cannot initiate verification process. Please review the log file for more information. The problem is that there is no log file created. 5. Giving up on this route I decide to do a restore from the backup, it fails with the following error: Unable to read the header of logfile E00.log. Error -501, and the error: Information Store (5976) Callback function call ErrESECBRestoreComplete ended with error 0xC80001F5 The log file is damaged. My conclusion is that E00.log is damage, so how can I repair it so that I can restore the database? Or should I give up and try some other route?

  Read the article

• RRAS NAT not working on a certain computer

  - by legenden

  This is driving me crazy. I have a virtualized W2K8 server running RRAS. Every other computer or server on the network can access the internet through the NAT except one. On one server, it just won't work. I can ping the ip address of the NAT gateway just fine, and everything else works. (SMB, etc) DNS, which is hosted by the same server, also works just fine. I have even reinstalled the OS on the problem server and it still doesn't work. Recap of the steps I tried: There are 3 network cards in the server, I tried every one and different switch ports. Not a hardware problem. Reinstalled W2K8 R2 on server with the problem, didn't help. Tried the IP of the internet gateway directly - this did work (!). But I need NAT to work. All firewalls are disabled. Removed computer from domain, deleted computer membership in Active Directory Users and Computers and added it back. Disabled all other network adapters and set a static ip and specified the gateway ip manually. When I tracert a public IP, the first hop (or any other hop) comes up as: C:\>tracert www.google.com Tracing route to www.l.google.com [209.85.225.106] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 * * * Request timed out. 2 * * * Request timed out. From a different computer, on which NAT works, the first hop comes up as: tracert www.google.com Tracing route to www.l.google.com [209.85.225.105] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 <1 ms * <1 ms xxxx [10.5.1.1] This is the most bizarre problem I ever came across, and I realize that it's a long shot asking it here given all the details, but I'm pulling my hair out. Maybe someone has an idea...

  Read the article

• 2 nics. 2 Defaults Gateways

  - by andre.dias

  Here is my scenario: i have this server with 2 nics, each one with different IPs, connected to differents routers. Almost everything is configured whe way i need. Traffic coming from eth0 exits using eth0, traffic coming from eth1 exits using eth1. And there is a default gateway configured. $route: default IP 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 With this configuration, the traffic generated in the server is going out using eth0 (lynx www.google.com for example). The problem is: the Internet link from eth0 went down today. The traffic coming from eth1 was ok...no problem. But the traffic generated in the server was a problem...the default gateway was out...no access do the Internet anymore (no more lynx www.google.com) So i added a new default gateway configuration, pointing to eth1. For 30 minutes i kept that way...2 default gateways, but just one was "working"...and everything was working just fine. But then i removed de eth0 gateway entry because, well, 2 default gateways is kind of weird. My question: is there any problem on keeping these 2 default gateways, one for each? So i don´t need to do nothing when one link go down again? $route: default IP1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 default IP2 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1

  Read the article

• Cannot access host from a virtualbox guest using bridged adapter

  - by David Dai

  I have a windows 7 host with firewall turned off. And I have a windowsXP guest running on Virtualbox 4.2.4r81684. In my windowsXP guest I tried to connect to the FTP server on my host machine(which used to work well) but it didn't work. I tried to ping my host machine, but it didn't work either. Then I tried to ping my guest from host, it worked well. my guest ip is :192.168.1.95 my host ip is : 192.168.1.9 route table on guest machine is this: C:\Documents and Settings\wenlong>route PRINT =========================================================================== Interface List 0x1 ........................... MS TCP Loopback interface 0x2 ...08 00 27 66 54 6c ...... AMD PCNET Family PCI Ethernet Adapter #2 - Packe t Scheduler Miniport =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.95 20 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 1 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.95 192.168.1.95 20 192.168.1.95 255.255.255.255 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 20 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.95 192.168.1.95 20 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 192.168.1.95 192.168.1.95 20 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 192.168.1.95 192.168.1.95 1 Default Gateway: 192.168.1.1 =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: None arp cache is this: C:\Documents and Settings\wenlong>arp -a Interface: 192.168.1.95 --- 0x2 Internet Address Physical Address Type 192.168.1.1 00-26-f2-60-3c-04 dynamic 192.168.1.9 90-e6-ba-c2-90-2f dynamic It's strange because there was no problem days before and I didn't make any changes to the setting. could anybody help? PS. the guest can communicate with other machines in the LAN(for example 192.168.1.114) ok. it just cannot connect to the host machine.

  Read the article

• BGP Multipath & return routes

  - by Dennis van der Stelt

  I'm probably a complete n00b concerning serverfault related questions, but our IT department makes a bold statement I wish to verify. I've searched the internet, but can find nothing related to my question, so I come here. We have Threat Management Gateway 2010 and we used to just route the request to IIS and it contained the ip address so we could see where it was coming from. But now they turned on "Requests apear to come the TMG server" so ip addresses aren't forwarded anymore. Every request has the ip of the TMG server. Now the idea behind this is that because of multipath bgp routes, the incoming request goes over RouteA, but the acknowledgement messages could return over RouteB. The claim is that because the request doesn't come from the first known source, our proxy, but instead from IIS, some smart routers at the visitor of our websites don't recognize the acknowledgement message and filter it out. In other words, the response never arrives. Again, this is the claim. But I cannot find ANY resources on the internet that support this claim. I do read about bgp multipath, but more in the case that there are alternative routes when the fastest route fails for some reason. So is the claim completely bogus or is there (some) truth to it? Can someone explain or point me to resources? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Mirror a Dropbox repository in Sharepoint and restrict access

  - by Dan Robson

  I'm looking for an elegant way to solve the following problem: My development team uses Dropbox for sharing documents amongst our immediate group. We'd like to put some of those documents into a SharePoint repository for the larger group to be able to access, as granting Dropbox access to the group at large is not ideal. However, we'd like to continue to be able to propagate changes to the SharePoint site simply by updating the files in Dropbox on our local client machines, and also vice versa - users granted access on SharePoint that update files in that workspace should be able to save their files and the changes should appear automatically on our client PC's. I've already done the organization of the folders so that in Dropbox, there exists a SharePoint folder that looks something like this: SharePoint ----Team --------Restricted Access Folders ----Organization --------Open Access Folders The Dropbox master account and the SharePoint master account are both set up on my file server. Unfortunately, Dropbox doesn't seem to allow syncing of folders anywhere above the \Dropbox\ part of the file system's hierarchy - or all I would have to do is find where the Sharepoint repository is maintained locally, and I'd be golden. So it seems I have to do some sort of 2-way synchronization between the Dropbox folder on the file server and the SharePoint folder on the file server. I messed around with Microsoft SyncToy, but it seems to be lacking in the area of real-time updating - and as much as I love rsync, I've had nothing but bad luck with it on Windows, and again, it has to be kicked off manually or through Task Scheduler - and I just have a feeling if I go down that route, it's only a matter of time before I get conflicts all over the place in either Dropbox, SharePoint, or both. I really want something that's going to watch both folders, and when one item changes, the other automatically updates in "real-time". It's quite possible I'm going down the entirely wrong route, which is why I'm asking the question. For simplicity's sake, I'll restate the goal: To be able to update Dropbox and have it viewable on the SharePoint site, or to update the SharePoint site and have it viewable in Dropbox. And since I'm a SharePoint noob, I'll also need help hiding the "Team" subfolder from everyone not in a specific group in AD.

  Read the article

• JBoss7 load balancing with mod_proxy_balancer - session not working

  - by Phil P.

  I am trying to set up mod_proxy_balancer for routing requests to 2 jboss7-servers. For the time being I am testing this setup on my local machine, using following config in httpd.conf: ProxyRequests Off <Proxy \*> Order deny,allow Deny from all </Proxy> ProxyPass / balancer://mycluster/ stickysession=JSESSIONID|jsessionid scolonpathdelim=On <Proxy balancer://mycluster> BalancerMember http://localhost:8080 route=node1 BalancerMember http://localhost:8081 route=node2 Order allow,deny Allow from all </Proxy> and in the standalone.xml file of each jboss I have defined the jvmRoute system property: <system-properties> <property name="jvmRoute" value="node1"/> </system-properties> At http:// localhost/myapp the application is accessible but the java-session is not build up correctly. Consequently the authentication is not working. The funny thing is, that everything is working if I turn off one JBoss-instance. As I have tried a couple of settings already, I am thankful for any further suggestions.

  Read the article

• Debian/OVH: How to configure multiple Failover IP on the same Xen (Debian) Virtual Machine?

  - by D.S.

  I have a problem on a Xen virtual machine (running latest Debian), when I try to configure a second failover IP address. OVH reports that my IP is misconfigured and they complaint they receive a massive quantity of ARP packets from this IPs, so they are going to block my IP unless I fix this issue. I suspect there's a routing issue, but I don't know (and can't find any useful info on the provider's website, and their support doesn't provide me a valid solution, just bounce me to their online - useless - guides). My /etc/network/interfaces look like this: # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address AAA.AAA.AAA.AAA netmask 255.255.255.255 broadcast AAA.AAA.AAA.AAA post-up route add 000.000.000.254 dev eth0 post-up route add default default gw 000.000.000.254 dev eth0 # Secondary NIC auto eth0:0 iface eth0:0 inet static address BBB.BBB.BBB.BBB netmask 255.255.255.255 broadcast BBB.BBB.BBB.BBB And the routing table is: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 000.000.000.254 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 000.000.000.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 In these examples (true IP addresses are replaced by fake ones, guess why :)), 000.000.000.000 is my main server's IP address (dom0), 000.000.000.254 is the default gateway OVH recommends, AAA.AAA.AAA.AAA is the first IP Failover and BBB.BBB.BBB.BBB is the second one. I need both AAA.AAA.AAA.AAA and BBB.BBB.BBB.BBB to be publicly reachable from Internet and point to my domU, and to be able to access Internet from inside the virtual machine (domU). I am using eth0 and eth0:0 because due to OVH support, I have to assign both IPs to the same MAC address and then create a virtual eth0:0 interface for the second IP. Any suggestion? What am I doing wrong? How can I stop OVH complaining about ARP flood? Many thanks in advance, DS

  Read the article

• Pinging an external server through OpenVPN tunnel doesn’t work

  - by qdii

  I have an OpenVPN server and a client, and I want to use this tunnel to access not only 10.0.8.0/24 but the whole internet. So far, pinging the server from the client through the tun0 interface works, and vice versa. However, pinging www.google.com from the client through tun0 doesn’t work (all packets are lost). I figured that I should configure the server so that any packet coming from tun0 in destination of the internet be forwarded, so I came up with this iptables config line: interface_connecting_to_the_internet='eth0' interface_openvpn='tun0' internet_ip_address=`ifconfig "$interface_connecting_to_the_internet" | sed -n s'/.*inet \([0-9.]*\).*/\1/p'` iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o "${interface_connecting_to_the_internet}" -j SNAT --to-source "${internet_ip_address}" echo '1' > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward Yet, this doesn’t work, the packets are still lost and I am wondering what could possibly be wrong with my setup. Some details: ip route gives on the server: default via 176.31.127.254 dev eth0 metric 3 10.8.0.0/24 via 10.8.0.2 dev tun0 10.8.0.2 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.1 127.0.0.0/8 via 127.0.0.1 dev lo 176.31.127.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 176.31.127.109 ip route gives on the client: default via 192.168.1.1 dev wlan0 proto static 10.8.0.1 via 10.8.0.5 dev tun0 10.8.0.5 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.6 127.0.0.0/8 via 127.0.0.1 dev lo scope link 192.168.1.0/24 dev wlan0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.109 client uses wifi adapter wlan0 and TUN adapter tun0. server uses ethernet adapter eth0 and TUN adapter tun0. the VPN spans on 10.0.8.0/24 both client and linux are using Linux 3.6.1.

  Read the article

• Can OpenVPN invoke DHCP Client?

  - by Ency

  I have got working VPN connection through openvpn, but I would like to use also my DHCP server and not openvpn's push feature. Currently everything works fine, but I have to manually start dhcp client, eg. dhclient tap0 and I get IP and other important stuff from my DHCP, is there any directive which start DHCP Client when connection is established? There is my client's config: remote there.is.server.com float dev tap tls-client #pull port 1194 proto tcp-client persist-tun dev tap0 #ifconfig 192.168.69.201 255.255.255.0 #route-up "dhclient tap0" #dhcp-renew ifconfig 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 ifconfig-noexec ifconfig-nowarn ca /etc/openvpn/ca.crt cert /etc/openvpn/encyNtb_openvpn_client.crt key /etc/openvpn/encyNtb_openvpn_client.key dh /etc/openvpn/dh-openvpn.dh ping 10 ping-restart 120 comp-lzo verb 5 log-append /var/log/openvpn.log Here comes server's config: mode server tls-server dev tap0 local servers.ip.here port 1194 proto tcp-server server-bridge # Allow comunication between clients client-to-client # Allowing duplicate users per one certificate duplicate-cn # CA Certificate, VPN Server Certificate, key, DH and Revocation list ca /etc/ssl/CA/certs/ca.crt cert /etc/ssl/CA/certs/openvpn_server.crt key /etc/ssl/CA/private/openvpn_server.key dh /etc/ssl/CA/dh/dh-openvpn.dh crl-verify /etc/ssl/CA/crl.pem # When no response is recieved within 120seconds, client is disconected keepalive 10 60 persist-tun persist-key user openvpn group openvpn # Log and Connected clients file log-append /var/log/openvpn verb 3 status /var/run/openvpn/vpn.status 10 # Compression comp-lzo #Push data to client push "route-gateway 192.168.69.1" push "redirect-gateway def1"

  Read the article

• PGB Multipath & return routes

  - by Dennis van der Stelt

  I'm probably a complete n00b concerning serverfault related questions, but our IT department makes a bold statement I wish to verify. I've searched the internet, but can find nothing related to my question, so I come here. We have Threat Management Gateway 2010 and we used to just route the request to IIS and it contained the ip address so we could see where it was coming from. But now they turned on "Requests apear to come the TMG server" so ip addresses aren't forwarded anymore. Every request has the ip of the TMG server. Now the idea behind this is that because of multipath bgp routes, the incoming request goes over RouteA, but the acknowledgement messages could return over RouteB. The claim is that because the request doesn't come from the first known source, our proxy, but instead from IIS, some smart routers at the visitor of our websites don't recognize the acknowledgement message and filter it out. In other words, the response never arrives. Again, this is the claim. But I cannot find ANY resources on the internet that support this claim. I do read about pgb multipath, but more in the case that there are alternative routes when the fastest route fails for some reason. So is the claim completely bogus or is there (some) truth to it? Can someone explain or point me to resources? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Public-to-Public IPSec tunnel: NAT confusion

  - by WuckaChucka

  I know this is possible -- and apparently fairly common with larger companies that don't/can't route private addresses for overlap reasons -- but I can't wrap my head around how to get this to work. I'm playing around with pfSense, Vyatta and a Cisco 5505 right now, hardware-wise. So here's my setup: WEST: Vyatta outside: 10.0.0.254/24 inside: 172.16.0.1/24 machine a: 172.16.0.200/24 EAST: Cisco 5505 outside: 10.0.0.210/24 inside: 192.168.10.1 machine b (webserver): 192.168.10.2 So what we're trying to do is this: route traffic across the tunnel from machine A to machine B without using private addresses. i.e. 172.16.0.200 makes a TCP request to 10.0.0.210:80, and as far as EAST is concerned, it sees a src IP of 10.0.0.254. On WEST, I have your typical many-to-one Source NAT to translate 172.16.0.0/24 to 10.0.0.254 and that's confirmed to be working. Also on WEST, I have the following IPSec config: Local IP: 10.0.0.254 Peer IP: 10.0.0.210 local subnet: 10.0.0.254/32 remote subnet: 10.0.0.210/32 I have the reversed configuration on EAST. What happens when I make a request from machine A to 10.0.0.210:80 is that the SNAT translates the private address of machine A to 10.0.0.254 and it's routed out (and discarded at the other end) without establishing the tunnel. What I'm assuming is happening is that the inside interface on WEST receives a packet from 172.16.0.200 and since this doesn't match the local subnet defined in the tunnel configuration, it's not processed by the IPSec engine and the tunnel is not established. How do you make this work? Seems like a chicken and egg thing with the NAT and IPSec and I just can't wrap my head around how this can be done: can I say, "if a packet is received on the inside interface with a destination of 10.0.0.210, translate it to 10.0.0.254 before the IPSec engine inspects it"?

  Read the article

• Centos 6.2 Fresh 'Basic Server' install networking issues

  - by RWC

  I've had a /29 provisioned on a network port for a server and am trying to at least configure the machine so I can ssh into it. It's Centos 6.2 x64 with the Basic Server install. Currently not able to ping gateway or any address for that matter. For reference: Default Interface: em2 Network ID: 66.*.*.0/29 Gateway: 66.*.*.1 Broadcast: 66.*.*.7 Please see my following configs: /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-em2 DEVICE=em2 NM_CONTROLLED=yes ONBOOT=yes HWADDR=Not Important TYPE=Ethernet BOOTPROTO=none IPADDR=66.*.*.2 PREFIX=29 DNS1=8.8.8.8 DNS2=8.8.4.4 DEFROUTE=yes IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=yes IPV6INIT=no NAME="System em2" NETMASK=255.255.255.248 USERCTL=no $: route -n Destination // Gateway // Genmask // Flags // Metric // Ref // Use // Iface 66.*.*.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 em2 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 1003 0 em2 0.0.0.0 66.*.*.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 em2 $: route Destination // Gateway // Genmask // Flags // Metric // Ref // Use // Iface 66.*.*.0 * 255.255.255.248 U 0 0 0 em2 link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 1003 0 em2 default 66.*.*.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 em2 $: cat /etc/sysconfig/network NETWORKING=yes HOSTNAME=excalibur.domain.com GATEWAY=66.*.*.1 Keep in mind that I cannot even currently ping the gateway which is quite confusing for me. My /etc/hosts are configured correctly with the *.2 address. I'm not concerned with getting all of the addresses on the /29 up and running yet, just one so I can at least ssh in. Thanks! Edit: Adding in ifconfig. $: ifconfig em2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX inet addr:66.*.*.2 Bcat:66.*.*.7 Mask:255.255.255.248 inet6 addr: UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:5536 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:10 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:2599469 (2.4 MiB) TX bytes: 748 (748.0 b) Interrupt:48 Memory:dc000000-dc012800 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:34 errors:0 etc etc

  Read the article

• virtualisation with kvm: export services from guest to the host

  - by ascobol

  Hello, I would like to export some services from the guest os to the host os, via kvm, and by the same way learn some things about networking. I have tried the following commands: In the host (kubuntu 10.4): $ sudo tunctl -u ascobol Set 'tap0' persistent and owned by uid 2401 $ sudo ifconfig tap0 192.168.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.2.255 The ifconfig command returns: $ /sbin/ifconfig tap0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 3e:4e:e3:cc:bc:92 inet addr:192.168.2.1 Bcast:192.168.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::3c4e:e3ff:fecc:bc92/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:17 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:500 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:0 (0.0 B) $ route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 tap0 Then I run the virtual machine (ubuntu server 10.4): $ sudo kvm -hda ubuntuserver104.qcow2 -net nic -net tap,name=tap0,script=no (I'm using sudo because without it fails with the following message:) warning: could not configure /dev/net/tun: no virtual network emulation With sudo the virtual machine boots, I just get this message: pci_add_option_rom: failed to find romfile "pxe-rtl8139.bin" In the virtual machine: $ ifconfig eth0 192.168.2.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.2.255 Now if I run: $ ssh 192.168.2.2 I just get a No route to host What is wrong with this setup ? Thanks !

  Read the article

• Architecture for highly available MySQL with automatic failover in physically diverse locations

  - by Warner

  I have been researching high availability (HA) solutions for MySQL between data centers. For servers located in the same physical environment, I have preferred dual master with heartbeat (floating VIP) using an active passive approach. The heartbeat is over both a serial connection as well as an ethernet connection. Ultimately, my goal is to maintain this same level of availability but between data centers. I want to dynamically failover between both data centers without manual intervention and still maintain data integrity. There would be BGP on top. Web clusters in both locations, which would have the potential to route to the databases between both sides. If the Internet connection went down on site 1, clients would route through site 2, to the Web cluster, and then to the database in site 1 if the link between both sites is still up. With this scenario, due to the lack of physical link (serial) there is a more likely chance of split brain. If the WAN went down between both sites, the VIP would end up on both sites, where a variety of unpleasant scenarios could introduce desync. Another potential issue I see is difficulty scaling this infrastructure to a third data center in the future. The network layer is not a focus. The architecture is flexible at this stage. Again, my focus is a solution for maintaining data integrity as well as automatic failover with the MySQL databases. I would likely design the rest around this. Can you recommend a proven solution for MySQL HA between two physically diverse sites? Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to reading your recommendations.

  Read the article

• PFSense VPN Routing

  - by SvrGuy

  We use PFSense firewalls at three installations with the following LAN networks: 1.) Datacenter #1: 10.0.0.0/16 2.) Datacenter #2: 10.1.0.0/16 3.) HQ: 10.2.0.0/16 All of these locations are linked via an IPSEC tunnel that works properly. Hosts in any of the above networks can communicate with hosts in any other of the above networks. Now, for our laptops etc. we established a road warrior network 10.3.0.0/16 and have implemented OpenVPN to link the laptops etc. to Datacenter #1. This works great too, so our laptops can connect and communicate with any host in Datacenter #1 (anything on 10.0.0.0/16) The problem is the laptops can't communicate with any hosts that Datacenter #1 can reach by its IPSEC tunnel to Datacenter #2 (and/or the HQ for that matter). Does anyone know what to do configuration wise on the PFSense box in Datacenter #1 to configure to route packets received on the OpenVPN tunnel to Datacenter #2 over the IPSEC tunnel? It could be a setting on the OpenVPN or some sort of static route or some such. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Force local IP traffic to an external interface

  - by calandoa

  I have a machine with several interfaces that I can configure as I want, for instance: eth1: 192.168.1.1 eth2: 192.168.2.2 I would like to forward all the traffic sent to one of these local addresses through the other interface. For instance, all requests to an iperf, ftp, http server at 192.168.1.1 should be not just routed internally, but forwarded through eth2 (and the external network will take care of re-routing the packet to eth1). I tried and looked at several commands, like iptables, ip route, etc... but nothing worked. The closest behavior I could get was done with: ip route change to 192.168.1.1/24 dev eth2 which send all 192.168.1.x on eth2, except for 192.168.1.1 which is still routed internally. May be I could then do NAT forwarding of all traffic directed to fake 192.168.1.2 on eth1, rerouted to 192.168.1.1 internally? I am actually struggling with iptables, but it is too tough for me. The goal of this setup is to do interface driver testing without using two PCs. I am using Linux, but if you know how to do that with Windows, I'll buy it!

  Read the article

• Add IPv6 support to DirectAdmin server

  - by George Boot

  I just set up an new DirectAdmin, and I want to prepare it for IPv6 use. My ISP have gave me an range of IPv6 addresses that I can use. Lets say that address is 2a01:7c8:**:1f::. My neworkadapter user DHCP to resolves its IP-addresses. When i type ifoncig eth0 I get the following result: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:**:**:**:ce:f3 inet addr:37.**.**.44 Bcast:37.**.**.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: 2a01:7c8:****:1f::/64 Scope:Global inet6 addr: fe80::5054:ff:fe87:cef3/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:38941 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:29439 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:3779534 (3.6 MiB) TX bytes:5089379 (4.8 MiB) As you can see, I have an IPv6 address set, but I can't ping6 an IPv6 host. I get the error: connect: Network is unreachable. I decided that I needed an gateway, so I tryed to add one: ip -6 route add default via 2a01:7c8:****::1 dev eth0 (2a01:7c8:**::1 is the gateway of my ISP). But it trows an error: RTNETLINK answers: No route to host. Does somebody know what to do, and how to solve this issue? Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• In spite of correct DNS, Exchange sending to wrong destination server for single outbound domain

  - by beporter

  My company uses an SBS 2003 server and makes use of Exchange to host our own email. We also have a linux server hosting domains for some of our clients. In order for us to send to those clients, we had internal DNS set up to shadow the client domains to provide "correct" MX records inside our network. For example, public DNS for a domain abc.com might point to 1.2.3.4, but internally we have MX records set up to route mail for abc.com to 172.16.0.4, which is the linux email server. This setup was entirely functional; this is just back story. We've recently moved one of our client domains from our internal linux server to an external email provider. When we did that, we naturally deleted our internal shadow DNS records so our Exchange server would fetch correct (public) DNS records and route mail out to the new external host. This has NOT had any effect on Exchange though. Even after rebooting the Exchange server and completely flushing the DNS cache (nslookups on the Exchange machine itself correctly resolve to the new external address) Exchange still attempts to deliver messages for the domain to our internal server! Exchange correctly routes to all other internal and external domains when sending email. Somehow Exchange is trying to deliver to a machine that by all accounts it has no business trying to use for just this one domain. Is there a DNS cache that Exchange uses internally? Is there a way to flush that internal cache? What else could I be missing?

  Read the article

• IPSec Tunnel to Amazon EC2 - Netkey, NAT, and routing problem

  - by Ernest Mueller

  Hey all, I'm working on getting an IPSec VPN working between Amazon EC2 and my on-premise. The goal is to be able to safely administer stuff, up/download data, etc. over that tunnel. I have gotten the tunnel up in openswan between a Fedora 12 instance with an elastic IP and a Cisco router that's also NATted. I think the ipsec part is OK, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to route traffic that way; there's no "ipsec0" virutal interface because on Amazon you have to use netkey and not KLIPS for the vpn. I hear iptables may be required and I'm an iptables noob. On the left (Amazon), I have a 10. network. Box 1 is privately 10.254.110.A, publically IP 184.73.168.B. Netkey tunnel is up. Box 2 is publically 130.164.26.C, privately 130.164.0.D And my .conf is: conn ni type= tunnel authby= secret left= 10.254.110.A leftid= 184.73.168.B leftnexthop= %defaultroute leftsubnet= 10.254.0.0/32 right= 130.164.26.C rightid= 130.164.0.D rightnexthop= %defaultroute rightsubnet= 130.164.0.0/18 keyexchange= ike pfs= no auto= start keyingtries= 3 disablearrivalcheck=no ikelifetime= 240m auth= esp compress= no keylife= 60m forceencaps= yes esp= 3des-md5 I added a route to box 1 (130.164.0.0/18 via 10.254.110.A dev eth0) but that doesn't do it for predictable reasons, when I traceroute the traffic's still going "around" and not through the vpn. Routing table: 10.254.110.0/23 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.254.110.A 130.164.0.0/18 via 10.254.110.178 dev eth0 src 10.254.110.A 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1002 Anyone know how to do the routing with a netkey ipsec tunnel where both sides are NATted? Thanks...

  Read the article

• How to subnet hosted VMs

  - by bwizzy

  I have a network of VMs each having a LAN IP address and a public IP address. They each have a 1:1 NAT map for public access via the public IP for HTTP, SSH etc. I'm trying to figure out a way to restrict the LAN IPs from talking to each other, but there are some cases where a group of LAN IPs will need to communicate. I'm using pfSense as a firewall / router on a 192.168.0.0/24 configuration. It seems like I could assign each VM it's own subnet and add a static route to the firewall for that VM to get back to the firewall for internet access / other fw rules. Is that right? I assigned 1 VM with: address 192.168.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.254 gateway 192.168.1.1 Then added a static route on the FW's LAN interface using 192.168.1.0/30 as the destination network and 192.168.1.1 as the gateway. Nothing appears to be working, anyone have any ideas? Please be aware I'm not that familiar with subnets. Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106  | Next Page >