Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

If you control both routers and the channel between them, then yes, you can. If (as you say you do) you control both routers, but the channel between them includes anything outwith your control, like the public internet, you will need to protect the packets in flight with some kind of encapsulation. A VPN would be the most normal way to do this, IPSec ...


0

If the server has 2 NICs and eth0 is the 'pubic' one and eth1 the 'local' one, then you don't need to do anything special. You simply configure eth0 with your public IP and a default gateway and eth1 with 192.168.0.254 IP (or whichever else you want from your local subnet) and every device on that same LAN will be able to reach your server without any ...


0

It is also possible to route this through switches and the network infrastructure but this depends on the actual hardware implementation in place.


2

Why do you think zeroconf is responsible for this in the first place? The only route zeroconf should install would be one to 169.254.0.0/16. See RFC 3927. Your issue is not due to zeroconf. It's not due to avahi, either. Avahi is a multicast DNS implementation. It's used with zeroconf because a network lacking any intentional addressing will lack also lack ...


0

You don't give enough detail about what you're trying to achieve or your network setup for me to be able to give a detailed answer. If you want to bridge two networks your OpenVPN instance needs to create a tap interface, not a tun. You can then use the standard linux brctl utility to bridge eth0 and tap0 (or whatever interface name you choose). You ...


0

(1) RIP works well for small-medium LAN's, as the protocol only supports a maximum hop-count (TTL) of 15. RIPv2 is superior to v1 in that it supports VLSM (variable length subnet masking). This is preferred in the case of a more complicated IP address plan (resulting in a discontigous network etc.). For larger and more robust networks, a more powerful ...


0

Those additional rules are creating separate routing tables to allow the multiple IP addresses on eth1 to respond when they receive traffic directly. Adding additional IP addresses in linux is fairly simple, the additional routing tables are there to allow them to function as though they were completely separate interfaces.


1

Your OpenVPN instance is working on Point to Point mode so your default gateway is not 10.8.0.1. Looking at your client routing table, it seems the OpenVPN client have correctly set up routes, so that the VPN server is your default gateway now (this is instructed by redirect-gateway def1 in server config): Destination Gateway Genmask ...


0

You may try this: route add -net 172.26.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 gw 10.0.8.5


0

you could set up two ELBs, one for each app, and both associated to same instance. 2 rails servers each using one IP address. They would accept incoming requests on their own separate ip addresses, and outbound requests would also come from those unique addresses. make each rails app listen on diff port (same ip, diff port, only need one ip). one elb ...


0

Hmm... I found this might be helpful. http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Avahi Also if you don't require zeroconf you can disable avahi by doing the following: rc-service avahi-daemon stop rc-update del avahi-daemon default


1

Only difference between the Private Subnets and Public Subnets is that, the latter one has connectivity to Internet Gateway established by the Subnet's Route table entry [ example : 10.0.10.0/24 ig-abcdef12 ]. So in your example you would put the ELB in front of the Instances which are in Public Subnet. For the record, you can also create an Internal Load ...


0

I cannot comment because I don't have the required rep, but from my limited networking knowledge, I suppose this would come down to what kind of router you are using. This would be trivial if you used a Linux box as your router, with the iptablescommand. You could create forwarding rules on the machine and route all traffic through that machine. Since you ...


1

There's no way in nginx to put redirects in a htaccess-like file (mainly because it's a performance killer). You will have to do this in the nginx configuration (and reload nginx in order to make the redirects available). To get this deployed to different servers, you could use a directory structure like this: Docroot: /var/www/$hostname/html Local ...


0

You're on the right track. You need two NICs, mainly because your Linux firewall is sending outbound packets in a round-robin fashion when it comes to select a route as they both have the same metric. Having two NICs will just do round-robin per NIC and not per route, keeping each TCP connection on the same NIC. Keep in mind this could still cause you ...


0

When the client is initiating a data transfer, it asks the FTP server, where to connect to. The IP address that you server provides in likely its internal address on its network, rather than an external IP address that can be used by the client. It's an incorrect configuration on the server-side. But as this is a quite common misconfiguration, many FTP ...


1

Looks at first glance as a NAT issue with the FTP protocol helper failing because of the TLS encryption and I would expect that to become a firewall problem as well. Some background here in an older answer of mine. The solution is probably to fix the passive TCP port range that FTP over SSL can use, have the FTP server advertise the external IP-address ...


1

You will need to mark the connections coming from ether3_3G so that you can then mark the replies to be routed back via ether3_3G. Here's an example configuration (not tested) /ip firewall mangle add action=mark-connection chain=prerouting comment="Mark connection so packets from 3G get returned to 3G properly" disabled=no in-interface=ether3_3G ...


1

Unless I've been missing something all these years, no it isn't possible. What you are wanting is for your office computers to initiate a request to Youtube across WAN A's tunnel and then receive that request back through WAN B (their normal internet connection). TCP/IP simply doesn't work that way. You're not going to be able to spoof/NAT the source IP ...


0

Make the team to add the route in Cisco. ip route 192.168.x.x 255.255.0.0 10.222.3.1 reference: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2/iproute/command/reference/fiprrp_r/1rfindp1.html#wp1054112


3

Please have a look at the following: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/azure/jj156075.aspx According to the documentation, assuming all of your network information is correct, you should disable Perfect Forward Secrecy if you are using static routing.


1

The trick involves enabling localhost/localnet route processing for your outbound interface with: sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.all.route_localnet=1 Then this works: iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -m addrtype --src-type LOCAL --dst-type LOCAL -p tcp --dport 8888 -j DNAT --to-destination 10.0.3.10 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -m addrtype --src-type LOCAL ...


1

[alex@chlorine ~]$ traceroute 192.168.178.1 traceroute to 192.168.178.1 (192.168.178.1), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 10.0.0.60 (10.0.0.60) 128.311 ms 130.495 ms 182.502 ms 2 10.0.0.60 (10.0.0.60) 184.198 ms !X 188.066 ms !X 190.507 ms !X !X does indeed mean "administratively prohibited." Check for firewall rules on the VPN server and the ...


1

Your clients on the other end need the routing information as well, so I believe you'll need to have a gateway set for them to talk the other way around unless your VPN server currently acts as the default gateway on the 192.168.178.x network. (if your firewall is set up right), the machines on the local LAN would need: route add -net 10.0.0.0 netmask ...


0

Couldn't comment due to low rep. What kind of FTP server is it? Since I usually run Linux FTP servers, I would put the FTP server on a vLAN (on a different subnet). You could configure the VPN machines to connect to that subnet instead of the main subnet for the rest of the network by making the VPN Server a member of the vLAN network (with a virtual ...


1

This is entirely possible, there are a few caveats however. The easiest way to go about this is a a load balancer, then use a separate mailstore (NAS/SAN/whatever floats your boat) and a MySQL (or any other) backend, redundant if you wish. The Public IP for your mailserver is assigned to the load balancer. The mail itself is stored outside the single mail ...


0

/etc/ppp/peers/CONFIG: ... defaultroute replacedefaultroute /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/CONFIG: #!/bin/bash route add -net 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 gw 192.168.0.10 dev eth0 iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE


0

The problem was that I was using IP alias, which creates an interface that Iptables cant use. Eth0:0 is not a valid target. I should use instead: iptables -t nat -I PREROUTING --dst 5.6.7.8 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 172.17.0.2:80 iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp -d 172.17.0.2 --dport 22 -j ACCEPT iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.17.0.2 -j MASQUERADE



Top 50 recent answers are included