The Edge Traversal option controls whether unsolicited traffic from Teredo (and maybe other tunneling software) is allowed. The documentation for IPV6_PROTECTION_LEVEL socket option explains this: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winsock/ipv6-protection-level
show access-list INNERin | exclude ^[ ]
Exclude lines which start with a space.
The square brackets are not really necessary, as long as you have a space after the "^". You can also abbreviate "exclude" as "e".
I just got the same OVH server and found the same problem.
I used a workaround and did not search the root cause pf not loading security table.
If you are using IPSec on Linux (StrongSwan) policy routing is performed using ip xfrm policy: policies with dir out are used to decide which tunnel to forward packets to, while policies with dir in and dir fwd are used to decide whether allow or drop the packet.
Assume serverA has public IP 192.0.2.1 and private IP 10.0.10.1 (you can attach it to the ...
This worked for me (on Ubuntu 18.04):
sudo bash -c "ufw -f reset && iptables -F && iptables -X && ufw allow 22 && ufw -f enable"
It resets (and disables) ufw and then resets iptables clearing and removing all chains. Then it enables the ufw again, but not before it allows port 22 for remote access. The two commands that ...
Expanding on my hint in the comment.
I know how to make tunnels in OpenVPN, since I use it to get connected to IPv6 network, but the idea should be the same for IPSec.
I'll start with what I am familiar with (which is IPv6) and show how it can be translated to IPv4.
Though a friendly disclaimer:
I haven't experiemented with multihome routing on IPv4, so ...
The best way from my experienced is using nmap
nmap 10.0.0.1 -Pn -p 427
Obviously replace 10.0.0.1 with public IP if testing from another machine or with 127.0.0.1 if testing on that specific box.
will output something like this:
PORT STATE SERVICE
427/tcp filtered https
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 2.14 seconds
Options above ...
I ran into this issue on CentOS 7.7 as well.
But the problem itself doesn't seem (to my knowledge) to be CentOS related.
The issue surfaced when RHEL tftp-server 5.2-22 was released. Reverting to 5.2-13 fixed the issue.
For anyone else, to downgrade, use:
yum erase tftp*
rpm -ivh ftp://ftp.pbone.net/mirror/ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/7.3/...
Usually, I wouldn't recommend that kind of approach to solve, and there are a lot of reasons why: networking issues, performance issues, troubleshooting issues, and so on.
I would try solving that initially with a DNS name resolution or, if it's just a web application, a reverse proxy inside your network (if that's the case, that could also be solved using ...
This should do it. The top command works using iptables, which is relatively simple in this case as it is for all traffic between two IPs
# iptables -t nat -A OUTPUT -d 192.0.2.1 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.0.2.2
In 'Microtik' format it is:
/ip firewall nat add chain=dstnat action=dst-nat src-address=192.0.2.1 dst-address=192.0.2.1 to-addresses=192.0.2.2
netsh advfirewall is not recommended anymore and might be deprecated in future versions of Windows (see the warning message when you enter netsh advfirewall).
Additionally, I'm not aware of an "enabled" switch in netsh advfirewall firewall
I suggest you use Powershell to get the list of enabled inbound rules :
Get-NetFirewallRule -Direction Inbound -...
To mount Synology to Ubuntu 18.04 system, I had to enable ports 111,892,2049
When mounting, here is what I see (NFS 4 is not enabled on my Synology):
root@ub18ovh# mount -a -vv
mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'vers=4.2,addr=220.127.116.11,clientaddr=18.104.22.168'
mount.nfs: mount(2): Protocol not supported
mount.nfs: trying text-based options 'vers=4.1,addr=5.6.7....