br0 - 192.168.0.1 - Internet eth2 - 192.168.1.1 - LAN tun0 - 10.0.0.2 - VPN (via br0)
What I'd like to do is to route all TCP packets coming from eth2 to tun0 where a VPN client is running on 10.0.0.2. If I delete all default routes and if I add a new route to tun0 like :
route del default route add default gw 10.0.0.2
Everything is fine, and everyone on eth2 can reach the Internet using the VPN access. Now the problem is that my VPN client does not allow any other protocols other than TCP. And I also want to allow VPN access only to eth2, no other LAN nor the router itself. use iptables to filter any TCP packets and mark them, so they can be sent to tun0, while any other packets can reach the Internet via br0 (192.168.0.1). I found on the Internet that we can mark packets before they get routed. Using the following commands :
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j MARK --set-mark 85 -i eth2 -p tcp --dport 80 ip route add table 300 default via 10.0.0.2 dev tun0 ip rule add fwmark 0x55 table 300
First of all, --dport 80 never work... :/ I wanted to filter TCP 80 packets coming from eth2, but none of them seems to be HTTP packets... oO (very strange...). Nevermind, I decided to forget about the --dport option. I use the "iptables -L -v -t mangle" command to see how many packets are marked, and it is working fine, all TCP packets coming from eth2 are marked. Now the problem is that none of them are routed to tun0 they are all respecting the "route -n" rules... and not the "table 300" rule I have created.
I got this definition:"a process that replaces a series of related, specific routes in a route table with a more generic route." honestly I found it not so clear.. I want to know if this definition is correct and also more details about this subject..
Having trouble getting my Netgear WNA1000 working thru wireless router. Have tried lots of suggestions from other threads to no avail. Someone suggested that th routing table isn't set correctly, so have been trying to use the follwing to make the proper entry in the routing table: sudo route add -net 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev wlan0
Result: error message stating with: "route: netmask does not match route address"
followed by "Usage" instructions which tell me to do what I just did. Any ideas on how I can populate my routing table with correct entry for my wireless card? Not to complicate matters, but I temporarily turned off encryption on my router to eliminate that as a possibility until I get connected. So maybe it'still trying to connect via encrypted mode - do I need to turn off encryption on my (client) end?
I use the system command route from a process (using the system() call). For security reasons the process does not have root privilege and for some reason I cannot use ioctl() either. I tried to set the capabilities of the process to NET_ADMIN and SYS_ADMIN but the route command still failed due to insufficient permissions.
What are the capabilities that I need to set for route to be successful?
I do not understand this command well. Yes, I have looked at man route and that whilst that gives lots of information about the switches I cannot see it in context. I have a server with two nics. One to the Internet (eth1) and one to the lan (eth0). I use pppoe and when it is running I get a virtual adapter appear in ifconfic called ppp0 which shows the public DNS and ISP session IP. I entered the command: route add -host (gateway IP) dev eth1 and get the Internet to appear on the server. However, I do not get the Internet to the clients. I have turned off the firewall to be sure that this is not the problem.
I've succesfullly connected to my vpn with kvpnc, but none of my traffic is going through the vpn! I dont know how to route traffic to the vpn. for instance, when I go to whatsmyip.com it still has my previous ip.
How can I add this to Ubuntu so that I can effectively use both networks connected to my machine. All I do in WinXP is run this from the command prompt: route -p add 10.0.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0 10.15.122.9
I'm trying to troubleshoot some networking issues I'm having between my Linux servers connecting to a server at another location after a Cisco ASA firewall has been installed at my location. I can make the connection work if I lower the mtu on the NIC (ifconfig eth0 mth 1000) - however that supposedly can break the local network if I don't set everything else's mtu to match. Supposedly I can use the iproute package (debian etch) to lower the mtu on a per-route basis, but it doesn't seem to work for me.
Code: ip route delete default ip route add default via X.X.X.X mtu 1000
I have a server that I can ping, and I can connect remotely with ssh to it. But when I try to connect to apache (port 80) I get "no route to host". But I can connect to localhost It's not just my client system that is having this problem but also systems that are on the same subnet There is no firewall running on the server route on the server
So everything coming from the IAX-provider on port 4569 is forwarded to the Asterisk-server's WAN-interface (eth1). This needs then be routed to an internal SIP-phone (an IVR-system will define which one) via eth0. When a call is initiated from an internal SIP-phone (they register to the IP-address assigned to eth0) it needs to be routed via eth1 to the gateway (192.168.4.250). Asterisk will setup an IAX-channel on WAN-interface (eth1) to the IAX-provider (via gateway). So... will this work :
route add -net ip_IAXprovider netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.4.250 dev eth1
route add -net 192.168.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0 (no gateway needed for the LAN-interface, communications to the gateway need to go via the WAN-interface !)
We have a Red Hat Linux server that sends email out daily. It points to and Exchange server for smtp. It works fine, however, at least once a day, an email will fail and in the maillog I see "No route to host". After a few minutes, everything is working fine. The Linux server and Exchange are on the same VLAN and IP subnet.
I have a 4.7 VPS web server on the net and it works very well. I am intending to upgrade it to Centos 5.x and have been having a play using VMWare Appliances and VMWare Player. I have therefore installed a local 4.7 applicance (all works well) and a 5.2 appliance (can't get basic internet connectivity).
I am running VMWare in Vista (apologies) and am connecting via a broadband modem (which effectively presents a serial modem to the computer via a USB interface). Using VMWare I am hooking this up to either the 4.7 appliance (works fine) or the 5.2 appliance (detects fine and connects but there is a problem). I think the issue with 5.2 is a firewall or a routing issue
I have prepared a report of the most common things people would need to know. The 5.2 appliance can see the USB device (lsusb), connects fine and obtains an IP and DNS addresses (wvdial) but ping fails. However the same on the 4.7 appliance works fine - I can use yum, ping and lynx etc. I have turned off the firewall on both appliances, but something is still getting in the way in 5.2!
*********************************** CENTOS 5.2 - ROUTING ISSUES? *********************************** * Have disabled the firewall using system-config-security-level > lsusb lsusb Bus 001 Device 007: ID 0fce:d0c5 Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB
I have two system, an Intel Core2 Duo system running the 32-bit version of Fedora 12, and a MacBook Pro running the 64-bit version of Fedora 12. I'm using the Gnome desktop on each system. I have enabled all the services I believe are necessary to support NFS including nfs, rpcbind, rpcgssd, rpcidmapd, and rpcsvcgssd on each system. I have added an entry to my /etc/exports file to export my home on each system, and if I type this command:
$ showmount -e localhost
I get a result like this:
Export list for localhost:
However when I issue this type of command:
$ showmount -e <remote host name>
I get this kind of result: rpc mount export: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = No route to host Research on the Internet indicates this is usually due to a firewall problem. However, I use the Firewall Configuration application to the disable the firewall on both systems, and I continue to get the same result. What is needed so I can get this two machines to display their exported file shares remotely? It turns out I did not disable the firewall when I thought I had. Now that I'm certain the firewall is disabled on both systems, I'm able to get the showmount command to succeed.
I've got an Ubuntu web server running 9.04 & Apache2. Ive got 2 NICs, one with an internal address for the LAN and one with and external address for the WAN to host the websites. My IP configuration is as follows (/etc/network/interfaces):
# The loopback network interface auto lo eth0 eth1 iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface (WAN) iface eth0 inet static
When i do a traceroute from a LAN PC and it makes it all the way to the router and then just stops. I'm probably missing something very simple, its been probably 10 years since i took a class in this.
I have 3 computers on a local home network. Computer 1 is not receiving incoming anything from other computers on the network, and I don't know why. The regular internet works fine. Computer 1 can ping and ssh into either 2 or 3. 2 can ping and ssh into 3 and vice versa. But nothing can ping OR ssh into 1. Trying to do so says "no route to host". All computers are running Ubuntu Karmic. I don't even know where to start figuring out what's causing this, but it's probably something simple. I'm using the IPs I found listed in my wireless router's web-based control panel.
I have a 10.04 install with 2 network cards. wlan0, and eth0. wlan0 is the internet connection. eth0 is the local network. I want to be able to have internet connection sharing between eth0 and wlan0. I have set everything up, using firestarter.
is there a way of testing the eth0->wlan0 routing from the machine itself? The routing table looks sound, but I would like a quick way of confirming it. Is there a tool, like PING or TRACEROUTE which will let me say "ping [URL] going through eth0" ?
I set up a routed OpenVPN server. Everything works fine. But I'd like to route the DNS queries thru the tunnel too. So I added:
Can't find server name for address 10.8.0.1: Non-existent domain Even thou I have a DNS server set up correctly (on the same server as the VPN) with recursion. I verified that by sending queries form external source, which worked fine. I suspect that the Bind server doesn't listen to the tun0-interface only eth0, but the Bind manual says it should listen to all interfaces by default. The server log shows:
Code: named: client 10.8.0.10#3807: RFC 1918 response from Internet for 184.108.40.206.in-addr.arpa
How do I get these DNS queries to resolve thru the tunnel?
Is it possible to for me directly RDP into my company's RDP server from my Linux OS, in same way I can RDP into it from my Windows OS on my work computer or home computer, which has the RDP setup settings you use to create the session?
Of course I can get into the work machine, and then the RDP session, but is there a way to go straight into it without using the Windows Desktop to click on RDP? Does Linux have an RDP program similar to the setup using on the Windows side, in terms of being able to configure the settings to get into an RDP directly?