Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

I very strongly suspect that the problem is this line in the qemu host's iptables -t nat -L -n -v: 76 6384 MASQUERADE all -- * * 10.10.15.0/24 !10.10.15.0/24 This is causing original (ie, not return-half) traffic from hadoop2 to driver to be NATted to 10.10.15.1. You could test this hypothesis by exempting just the traffic ...


2

The routing table is a system-wide thing, and not user-specific. So, it is not really simple. The steps are the following: 1: Create the multiple routing tables with the extensive usage of the ip route and ip rule commands. 2: Set up iptables to mark the outgoing packets based on the UID of the sender process. 3: Set up your routing tables based on the ...


0

Here is a full explanation, which might help you understand it all http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.cookbook.fullnat.intro.html


0

There are couple of options: option 1(Simple but need multiple 3x routers) -Install a switch and connect to ISP router on WAN interface -Install a router for each individual company utilizing 1 x public IP Option 2(Use of 1 router and layer 3 switch) - install a single router with VLAN capability, setup 3 x VLAN (sub-interfaces) for each company. -install ...


0

This is resolved! I was missing the following rule in my IPTables ruleset: iptables -t nat -I POSTROUTING 1 -o eth0 --jump MASQUERADE


0

What most likely happened is you created a loop that used the multihomed provider as a transit AS and your packets went back and forth between BGP servers until they were finally routed. It's hard to say for sure without seeing the exact prefixes your were advertising to the multihomed peer.


0

Finally I solved my specific case with running nginx as reverse proxy, available from localhost only, using proxy_bind directive. From my scripts I should make queries to something like http://localhost/nginx-proxy-ip-N/https://api.example.com/?q=123


3

Actually it's not colliding. One subnet has more specific mask 192.168.0.0/24 has more specific mask than 192.168.0.0/16 For example default gateway is default because it has less specific mask /0. If you add a route to 192.168.0.3/32 via another interface it would have more specific mask than other two routes.


0

I had the same issue and figured out that the root problem is because Ubuntu does not automatically register the new network interface as plug and play. You can confirm this using $ ifconfig . Even upon reboot it still does not see the new ENI, you need to manually create it to make it work. Step 1, create a new .cfg file for eth1: ...


0

I think I've hit similar problem years ago. You can give a shot for: --multihome Configure a multi-homed UDP server. This option can be used when OpenVPN has been configured to listen on all interfaces, and will attempt to bind client sessions to the interface on which packets are being received, so that outgoing packets will be sent out of the ...


2

In order to get the switch(es) routing table to update, the server needs to send out via its new IP, so that the new MAC can be known. To do this I simply restarted the server - It seems on boot the NIC must send out some sort of data from all of its configured IP addresses.


-1

ipconfig /flushdns on the client should do the trick. If it's the router that's the issue, flushing the ARP cache would work. Correction, I realized this was when changing DNS records, not moving IPs. Please disregard.


2

The easiest way to understand the difference between the two is via an example showing the hierarchical nature of the prefixes. An example hierarchy An ISP has been allocated a prefix from a RIR which in this example we will assume is 2001:db8::/32. This prefix is different from the ones handed down to the customers in the sense that the ISP will have to ...


1

The Windows host with vmware workstation, you will need to create a network and add both routers 1 & 2 to the same network or same switch so that one can reach other. In this way, routers would be able to broadcast their routing table and be able to forward packets to destination.


0

I needed to create an iproute2 policy, and the disable rp_filter for the interface and subinterface. After that it worked perfectly.


2

Thee was a very similar q on UL: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/86056/why-does-linux-require-moving-ip-from-eth-interface-to-bridge-interface The analiogy is that ETH resembles an uplink L1 cable.


2

Your subnet mask is undoubtedly 255.255.255.0, so that address is not on your network. If your subnet mask is 255.255.0.0, your machine wouldn't be sending traffic to it through your gateway.


1

I was running into this issue while using a home OpenVPN server and connecting to it using the Tunnelblick application on Mac. What was happening on my end is that a route with my home IP as the destination and an incorrect gateway was getting leftover after disconnecting from the VPN. Deleting this route solved the issue, simply $ sudo route -n delete ...


0

You may have 172.31.254.13 used twice on your network. I am also suspecting routing or arp issues on the receiving side: Could you check arp -na on host 172.31.254.13 and host 172.31.254.31 ? Full routing tables with ip route command on each host might also help.


-1

You are having a VIP on a different network on the same card. (same MAC) Try to do the same but create vNIC that are separate segments and then set a default route and specific for the other NIC.


1

The route command was old since 10 years ago and you should go with the iproute2 packages. When you're using ip route show the main table is displayed. To display the local table use ip route show table local. Hope it helped.


14

The route command is deprecated, and should not be used anymore. The new way is to use the iproute set of commands, which are all invoked with ip followed by an object. For example: $ ip route show default via 192.168.1.254 dev eth0 192.168.0.0/23 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.27 Now, I hear you say, this is basically the same info! ...


0

That most likely means you are trying to add a routing table entry to a network which the router identifies as a local one. In this case it's a network configured on FastEthernet 0/0.


0

If I were you, I would use routing protocols like eigrp or ospf. These protocols are flexible. or instead, you can use default route.


0

You need to do this on web server. Try with a reverse proxy Original post: http://www.jamescoyle.net/how-to/116-simple-apache-reverse-proxy-example


1

Check your access point for a 'Wireless Separation' option. Some access points are configured by default to restrict traffic between wireless devices.


1

So each branch is connected to the main via a "serial link". I suppose what you mean is that at each branch there is a router with 10/100/1G/10G Base-T on one side, and a serial connection on the other, with the serial connection being to some kind of DSL or or other modem or MUX. Then over this serial connection, the router uses PPP to create an IP ...


0

Edit: Add OP's solution from comments: Remove eth0 (wired) from NM NM_CONTROLLED=no Left eth1 (wireless) controlled. The default when NM_CONTROLLED is omitted Set eth1 METRIC=20 Produces 2 default routes where eth1 takes precedence Answer: Network Manager may always choose wireless or wired as primary (based on other questions here) which seems to ...


0

Red Hat uses the last interface up as the default gateway device. To set eth1 as the default, add this to /etc/sysconfig/network: GATEWAYDEV=eth1 See: https://access.redhat.com/solutions/41459 It should get processed on every ifup call. You can check the routes with ip route show


1

After several painful days of debugging and routing and routing tables and a fuming head, I gave up and reconfigured all IPSec clients under my direct control to use the .92 IP and everything works as expected now. I'm still at a loss for why I couldn't sourceroute or SNAT the packets...time for some serious testing in my testing environment (I suspect some ...


0

Why not just use Apache + mod_proxy on the linux box? Should make this task quite easy if you setup separate rules per IP


1

Assuming you've checked the basics like ensuring that the access list is actually bound to the interface with the access-group command, if the logs are showing that the traffic is being denied, you can find out more information by simulating a packet with the packet-tracer command. That should tell you exactly why the packet is being rejected. Assuming your ...


0

As you said you have no idea how to setup the iptables on the server and do the configuration on the client side then you should set the default gateway on the clients to the servers address. The server should allow routing (by enabling the net.ipv4.ip_forward echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward) and has its default gateway set to the openwrt ...


0

If I interpret the configuration correctly, you tell neither router A nor router C that they should use router B to reach the respective other network (via 2001:DB6:3C4D:1::1, resp. via 2001:DB6:3C4D:2::1 instead of via ::). In fact, you configured A and C with both networks 2001:DB6:3C4D:1::/64 and 2001:DB6:3C4D:2::/64 on their respective local link.


-2

You would need to have a netmask of 255.255.0.0 on your PC that's trying to access the NAS. This way you will be able to see all the devices from 192.168.x.x subnets. Then to have DHCP pools for each subnet, these would need to be on separate VLANs, otherwise I do not see it working out. You would just get DHCP service conflicts on the network and you need ...


1

You have two possibilities: setup a route-based VPN, which permit to control packet flow with simple routes; using the (standard) policy-based VPN, create an hub-and-spoke tunnel topology. Both options are documented in Juniper's ScreenOS Manual (VPN section).


1

I think the security-level should be considered. You can ping from Inside to Outside, but the echo traffic must be allowed to go back to Inside.


0

I assume that you need rules for the ICMP (not IP) traffic to allow ping. First of all, you question could be duplicated to this one: How do you allow ICMP Echo Requests on a Cisco ASA 55xx Router? However, I use slightly another configuration to allow ping. From your question, I'm not sure on which interface you need to allow it, so I'll just post my ...


-2

You can use the 'deny all log' command in the ACL to see the realtime results of the 'implicit' deny all rule and go from there. It was called the 'explicit' deny all rule.. googling here it is edit: sounds like you may have already done this.


0

Route Add command followed by -p switch (Persistent) HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip \Parameters\PersistentRoutes https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc757323(v=ws.10).aspx


1

You have several options Proxy - If you are interested in a limited number of protocols (e.g. HTTP) you can set up a server as a proxy server (e.g. using Squid). There are ways to set up transparent proxies but the simplest is probably to explicitly configure client applications to use the proxy and enforce this in your router's firewall (e.g. only allow ...



Top 50 recent answers are included