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 :
Code:
route add -net ip_IAXprovider netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.4.250 dev eth1
Code:
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 !)
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
I have a linux router with 2 physical ISPs and a VPN tunnel that all my traffic passes through. I would like to setup a rule to redirect all traffic from one internal IP address (10.0.0.x) through the physical link only. My current script is as follows.
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..
I have to route some packages over the right interface.I default route everything for the target-network over one network-interface. That works perfectly. But i have to route packages for one specific host and one specific port over another network-interface. I tried many things with the route-command, but i think there's no possibility to route only one port? May i can do this with iptables? I only found ways to forward some packages, which are coming in over one interface. But in my case all packages go out over one interface.
I've got a few systems which forward ports to one another all over the place, and somewhere along the line a port forward fails. I want to trace the route of a connection on a specific port to see where the connection hits a wall, to see what system is causing the problem. I've tried `tracetoure -T -p <port>` but it doesn't output anything about the ports it hits, stops when it hits the address I supplied even though it is forwarded elsewhere, and there doesn't seem to be a verbose mode. interstingly, if I specify a different source port via the '-s' option, the trace keeps hopping to * * * * and never get anywhere (at least to 27 hops then I CTRL+C)
I have two NIC, one is ethernet and second is via modem. On the eth0, most of no standard ports are blocked, so I need to connect to specified port on some IP, through ppp0 (modem), to use ssh connection on non standard port to that IP. For other ports on that IP and all other IPs I want to use eth0.
|eth0 (a.a.a.a) | Linux PC |<----------------> | ROUTER |eth1 (b.b.b.b) | |<----------------->|
the linux machine has two interfaces eth0 (a.a.a.a) and eth1 (b.b.b.b) connnected to two interfaces of a router. Now that if I send any packet destined to b.b.b.b from a.a.a.a interface on the linux machine, it should take the folowing path: eth0->router->eth1 . and it should be the same for vice versa.
PC1 runs radvd to provide router advertisements to the network and a DHCPv6 server for stateful addresses.Each interface is configured on a separate subnet. PC2 runs a DNS server on eth0. PC2:eth1 is used as an IPv6 client for testing purposes. The connections from PC1 to PC2 are just crossover cables.I've created virtual machines of both PCs and have created 4 virtual adapters on the host machine for each of the local-only interfaces.Now I have this:
My Ubuntu Box has 3 interfaces. eth0 (Internal 192.168.1.0/24)eth1 (External ISP DHCP)eth2 (External ISP Static IP)I need the outgoing traffic to internet for 1 of the internal pc (192.168.1.10) to only go only go through eth2
When I run OpenVPN server - tap0 adapter, it breakes Teredo(Miredo) IPv6 address down. I dont need IPv6 on OpenVPN, so is there any way to disable IPv6 on tap0 completely?
As part of my job, I have to configure a lot of network devices that are configured through web pages. This generally means plugging in to them via ethernet, going to their default IP address and reconfiguring them. I set my IP address using ifconfig, which is much faster than plugging numbers in to networkmanager's GUI. The problem is, NetworkManager seems to take the interface down at random.I could disable NetworkManager but then I don't have a wireless connection.Is there a way to tell NetworkManager to temporarily ignore what is happening on a specific interface or should I just ditch NM altogether when doing this kind of work and use wpa_supplicant to get on my wireless?My co-worker with the Windows machine is looking over my shoulder and chuckling
How can I force a Wine application (or Wine itself) to use a specific network interface? I have installed hamachi and am trying to play starcraft over virtual LAN. However, when I run Starcraft with hamachi running, it does not work. I have now determined that hamachi creates a network interface called "ham0". How do I force Wine/Starcraft to use the "ham0" network connection? I have looked into forcebindip but it crashes on wine.
How can I force a Wine application (or Wine itself) to use a specific network interface? I have installed hamachi and am trying to play starcraft over virtual LAN. However, when I run Starcraft with hamachi running, it does not work. I have now determined that hamachi creates a network interface called "ham0". How do I force Wine/Starcraft to use the "ham0" network connection?I have looked into forcebindip but it crashes on wine .
I'm hoping some of the Linux network experts can help me with this problem.
Situation: I have a technology which is a WebLogic JEE application that communicates to an Oracle database. Everything is installed in a single Linux virtual machine running in VirtualBox. Traffic from the JEE application goes via JDBC over TCP to the local running database. What I want to do is test a new database firewall server that wants all traffic destined for the database to flow via another virtual machine running the DB Firewall software.So therefore want I need to do is have DB traffic forced out over one interface only to return on another interface on the same VM listening on a different address.
JEE application running in WebLogic bound to 192.168.111.12 (eth1 a VirtualBox hostonly interface). Makes a request for 10.0.111.12 (eth2 a VirtualBox internal interface) which the database is listening on. Because both IPs are on local interfaces, Linux is going to handle the traffic and not route the 10.x traffic via the 192.x interface.I also have running the database firewall server which has a bridge (br0) between the HostOnly network and the Internal network.Both systems are running Oracle Enterprise Linux R5U4, which is basically the same as RedHat.What I want to do is have the request for 10.0.111.12 forced out via 192.168.111.12, bridged over the br0 connection and back into 10.0.111.12 and to the database. My networking knowledge is pretty good, but i'm stuck right now on the right way to do this. I'm pretty sure it is possible, I just need clear advice.
Reason for setup: Ideally I would build the system with the database on a separate machine so that I can easily route the traffic. Unfortunately we have many VirtualBox based demonstration systems with both the application and database installed on the same VM and therefore the amount of work to migrate these two dual VMs is going to be significant, also many of these VMs are demonstrated from laptops which have limited resources and creating a new database VM reduces overall performance. If I can create a way to force the traffic in this manner off and back onto the same VM via the other VM bridge, it would be fantastic.
today I tried to configure a network route to a host for testing my network interface. Code: route add 192.168.1.15 eth0 As I have to eth interfaces and both interface got their IP from DHCP (192.168.1.11 and 192.168.1.12) and are in the same subnet, I shut the other interface down:
Code: ifconfig eth1 down Then I tried to test the interface by doing a ping to 192.168.1.15. Problem: When I unplug the cable from eth0 (and eth1 is still plugged) the ping still works. Somehow my linux (it's debian) powers up again eth0 and pings over this port.
How can I stop my linux doing this. I just want to have the route added only on the one interface - not the other. Is it maybe some case of a default-gateway?
I have a suse with 2 eth interface both connected :
eth0 is configured with public ip Code: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1E:0B:48:7E:D2 inet addr:87.*.*.* Bcast:87.*.*.* Mask:255.255.255.240 and eth1 with internal ip Code: eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1E:0B:48:7E:DA
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 :
Code:
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 :
Code:
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 have configured LVS under RHEL5. I need to configure static route to my VIP. Now, I used the following command to add route but reboot OS will flush the route.
# route add -host 192.168.11.55 dev lo:0
how to add static route for certain network via /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-<device-name>. But I did not found that for host.
Is there a way to bind specific programs to specific network devices (not IPs, since I have dynamic IPs)?
For example, I wish for irssi to route through eth0 and w3m to route through eth1. Keep in mind these devices have dynamic IPs, so I cannot attached them to an IP.
The solution cannot be accomplished through route since route pivots on IPs not devices.
I need to instruct sendmail to accept mails that are destined to users that are not available on my server and then forward those emails to catchall@mydomain.tld.Please remember that i don't want to forward every single mail to catchall user. I just want to forward those emails which would be destined for users that do not exist on my server.i have used define(`LUSER_RELAY', `local:catchall@d.com')but it doesn't seems to work.
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?
Is there a way to make a program use a specific network interface ? When using my laptop at work i may be physicaly connected to multiple networks. i was wondering if i can make sure that certain applications use a specific network interface. I would google around for the answer but i cant figure out how to phrase it correctly for a search.
suppose I have multiple interfaces installed on my machine. The question is how to specify which interface to use while starting a web-browser.What I would like to make possible is something like:Code:browser_name interface addressif it is possible in for any web-browser or via scripts please advise me accordingly.
I am running Debian Squeeze on an old pc (AMD K62-500) which serves as my multiwan router and torrent box. Internet uplink is provided via a dsl line and 2 wireless canopy modules.
Setup has been generally fine except when connecting/downloading as free user from sites like rapidshare, hotfile, filesonic, etc. The problem arises when I am connected to these sites using the wireless uplinks because of the shared public ip. I don't really download that much using direct download methods so I don't really see myself being a premium user from these sites.
If these sites are on a specific ip or ip range, an entry on the static routing table would have been fine but when I tried using ping, a different ip would appear to reply each time.
I wonder if there can be a solution like using iptables where in traffic to and from these sites will only use the NIC connected to the dsl line.
I just had an ATT Uverse RG installed. However my Smoothwall router that previously worked fine with the ADSL SpeedStream is no longer accepting an address assignment DHCP ip address from this new gateway. (3800HGV-B)Any thoughts ideas or experience working with this hardware? ATT only supports Windows and Mac
