is there still a bug in qBittorent with portforwarding 6881? i forwarded it in my router and run nmap on localhost and shows its open yet it is always saying no direct connections on the bottom with that little yellow globe near the nodes
[Code]....
i'm currently travelling in across Japan and facing difficulties connecting to hotel's ethernet connections under ubuntu 10.0.4- when plugging in the ethernet cable nothing happens- rebooting doesn't change anything either.this wasn't a problem before, and i can connect to hotel's ethernet under windows 7 which i'm currently using to post this, but something doesn't work under ubuntu, which is now my main os.
staying at my inlaw's house for a while, i ran pppoeconf to use their optical fibre connection, which worked, but also seems to be the root of the problems i'm now facing to go online via ethernet elsewhere. it seems like pppoeconf disabled something.
I'm getting really tired of using windows, I love ubuntu but theres a big problem. I have a BTHomeHub2 and whats annoying is whenever I goto wireless connections there's only a bt home hub but its not my one. and I have tried connecting to hidden wireless network and nothing worked. I have a desktop pc with a usb plug in BT voyager that picks up the router but it will only find the one down the street not mine. It works fine when using Ethernet.
View 2 Replies View Relatedi have some servers behind a server/router/firewall at [URL] that can be accessed using port forwarding. they are working quite well. [URL] gets you to the first server behind the server/router/firewall (the former link above).
i would want to make the server at the latter link accessible with its own domain name ie [URL]without having to add :<port> to the end of [URL] because ":" is disallowed for aliasing in the a and cname records at network solutions (my dns?). is port forwarding the best way to reach these servers behind my firewall? is it possible to assign them their own domain name? perhaps some method other than port forwarding should be used?
Howcome mysql by default is only allowing connections from localhost? I want to access it remotely from another account (not root).
View 1 Replies View RelatedUnder 10.10 the settings dialogue for Remote Desktop said that other machines can connect to this one as kubuntu.local or 192.168.1.85 but after u/g to 11.04 instead of hostname or IP it now just says 'localhost' - which won't work for obvious reasons. I use RD a lot.
Also, despite 'Always display an icon' being checked no icon is displayed in the panel. I tried checking 'Never display an icon' closing the dialogue, re-opening it and re-selecting 'Always display' it still doesn't appear.
Having a problem with tftpd on CentOS 5.5. I am only able to download files from the localhost address.
I have checked iptables (by adding rules and by turning the firewall completely off -- nothing changes) and enabled tftpd logging (by adding -v to the server_args section in xinetd.d/tftp) and I DO see the request coming in, but no response from the daemon. I've also tried upping the verbosity by adding multiple -vs and/or --verbosity 10 to the mix, but all I ever see is the initial request come in, nothing more. I've even tried running the daemon in foreground mode with -L but I get no verbosity then.
ok so the router works in windows and i know the config details of it.i can see other wifi access points in the area but not my one. i have tried joining it as a "hidden network" to no avail.is there any reason why fedora would not detect my own wifi when it detects substantially weaker signals instead??
View 2 Replies View RelatedI'm running suse 11.1 which is configured as a router. Configured are two DSL connections with static IP's and one LAN connection (3 NIC's all together).
Problem: suse firewall will only port forward connections from one of the DSL connections and not the other.
Because I'm running two DSL connections is there something special I have to turn on/enable on the firewall?
I tried to ping some of the pcs on the local network but for those with icmp disabled it doesn't work. I've used
Code:
nmap -sP 192.168.2.0/24
Hopefully Ody has found a result in the 5 years since he posted this question, for anyone else looking for an answer
NMAP scan for a range of individual IP's can be done using the '-' for example:
(this is accurate as of 2010, actual results have been altered to match OP's address range)
$nmap -sP 192.168.0.1-14
Starting Nmap 5.00 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2010-12-22 09:55
Interesting ports on 192.168.0.1:
Not shown: 999 closed ports
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp open http
Interesting ports on 192.168.0.2
Not shown: 999 closed ports
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp open http
Interesting ports on 192.168.0.3:
Not shown: 999 closed ports
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp open http
Nmap done: 14 IP addresses (3 hosts up) scanned in 8.08 seconds
Since I no longer have access to a spare machine to actually test this out on, I was hoping some kind soul might know the answer, or be willing to try it out for me. I'm trying to find out if the port scanner nmap can detect two different services which are sharing a single port. For instance, if I'd managed to set up, I dunno, a web server and an ftp server to both run over the same port, would nmap with version detection be able to detect both of them, or just one?
View 7 Replies View RelatedI'm not too sure if this is the right topic to post in but if it isn't please move it to the correct topic. I recently opened some ports for my Playstation 3 and the connection test on the PS3 tells me that the ports are open . But when I execute this command
nmap -p 0-60000 192.168.1.5 I get this
Quote:
Starting Nmap 5.21 ( http://nmap.org ) at 2010-10-16 20:54 AUS Eastern Daylight
Time Nmap scan report for PS3 (192.168.1.5)
Host is up (0.00063s latency).
All 60001 scanned ports on PS3 (192.168.1.5) are closed
MAC Address: **:**:**:**:**:** (Sony Computer Entertainment)
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 4.12 seconds
I could be executing the wrong command or something but I have read through the manual and couldn't find anything that helped. I have tried this command on other machines that I have opened ports for and get similar results except for a few Ephemeral ports (80,443 etc.) which also makes me wonder why these aren't listed as open on the PS3?
I am trying to forward all the incoming internet/LAN requests on port 80 to my local machine (running Apache), current iptables work (forward incoming internet traffic to my desktop, but if I try to access it from my local network it won't work. Interface connecting my Ubuntu server to the internet is ppp0 (dialed DSL connection through my router that is in bridge mode) which is connected to the eth0 and eth1 is connected to my internal LAN.
[Code]...
what i was able to gather so far (via logs), is that accessing external server ip directly from the LAN goes directly to eth1 which is understandable (i think). So what i need now (i guess) is an rule that will forward the LAN traffic on eth1 without interfering with the ppp0 prerouting rule (as forwarding all the incoming traffic on eth1 to my local machine will break the internet connection)
have a problem with my network-manager in ubuntu 10.10.when I dial one of my vpn connections, my other vpn connections be disabled and I can't use them!I tried to restart network-manager and gnome-panel, but it does't seem to solve this problem.
View 1 Replies View RelatedBecause of the configuration of my house, I need two routers.I have a DLink ADSL router as my main router and the Belkin N1 as my repeater.I have set up the IP address in the Belkin to be 10.1.1.10 - my DLink is 10.1.1.1. I have disable the dhcp in the Belkin and set the DNS as ISP provided. [URL]..I have set the channel to 11 and in the Ubuntu Network Manger I have set the IPV4 to Link Local Only. I can see the Belkin and connect with my PC.but it will not take me through to the internet.
View 9 Replies View RelatedI want to set up a Linux box as a wireless router to replace our existing Netgear WNR1000 router, as I believe the Netgear does not support the coming IPv6 protocol. Unfortunately, it is not flashable with OpenWRT or DD-WRT presently.
As we have Comcast, our cable modem acts as a dumb modem according to the customer support guy I talked to, and our router is the one that asks for the IP address from DHCP. Thus, when Comcast switches over to IPv6, I don't believe my existing router would work, correct?
My idea is to take a Linux box and put two NICs and a wireless adapter in it, using IPCop or Smoothwall to set up a router. I could then enable IPv6 support for when we have IPv6 with Comcast. Is that possible? Would there be a way to get BIND to hand out private IP addresses in the same subnet on the both the LAN NIC and the wireless card?
I have a desktop PC running Ubuntu 9.10 and Windows 7, and a Eee PC 701 laptop running EasyPeasy Ubuntu 9.04. I'd like to connect the desktop to the laptop with a wired connection (eth0), then the laptop to my ADSL router using wireless (ath0).
I have a crossover ethernet cable (I bought on ebay). I have set up my laptop with a static IP address on my LAN and it uses OpenDNS.
I have added this to /etc/sysctl.conf on the laptop:
net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
Then I tried this on the laptop:
sudo iptables --table nat --append POSTROUTING --out-interface ath0 -j MASQUERADE
sudo iptables --append FORWARD --in-interface eth0 -j ACCEPT
This is a variation on what I found on other sites describing how to set up a router. I don't understand iptables very well, but I gather that the above two lines should set up forwarding so that traffic from my router to the laptop will be forwarded to the desktop, and vice versa.
But this doesn't work. The connection doesn't even establish between the laptop and the desktop.
I'm having trouble getting my network set up the way that I want it/had it. You see, when I first set up my network, I just had my cable modem going directly to my standard wired router (A D-Link DI-604), which had DHCP,and was connected to all of the computers on my network. I had one switch hooked up to one of the ports of the router, but this was a regular switch, and it would not try to assign IP addresses, it would just pass through the DHCP info as I wanted.
Now however, my network setup has changed. My room mate and I both got laptops, and we decided that we wanted to have wireless access so we didn't have to constantly plug in to the router.
Now my network is set up like this: The modem is hooked up to the router(DI-604), which is hooked up on the LAN side to our computers, our switch (which is hooked up to 3 more computers), and to a wireless router card (A Gigabyte GN-BC01).
The wireless router card has two jacks for ethernet. One for WAN, and one for LAN. The LAN side we have plugged only into the computer in which the card is installed.
Now the problem is this: The wireless router card comes with DHCP by default, and it's assigning addresses to the laptops and to the computer hat it's in, and worse, the IP addresses are on a different subnet than that of the main dlink router. The Main (dlink) router assigns addresses from 192.168.0.1 (itself) to 192.168.0.254, while the wireless router card assigns addresses from 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.254 (itself).
Because of this, I cannot access services on the wireless network from my wired network or vice versa. The first thing I tried was setting the card to assign addresses from 192.168.0.12 to 192.168.0.253, however it just said "internal error" when I tried to do this. I decided that this may be because it sees that it was being assigned an address on it's WAN side on the same subnet. So the next thing I tried was disabling DHCP and setting the "LAN IP Address" to 192.168.0.12, hoping that the DHCP would just go through the card, like a switch. I would have set the LAN IP address to be assigned by DHCP, but this was not an option, so I decided that'd be the best thing to set it to.
Once again however, setting the LAN ip address to an address on the same subnet as that of the IP assigned to it's WAN side caused it to report an "internal error". I verified that this was the issue by setting the LAN address to several other private IP addresses to test (I.E. 10.0.0.1, 192.168.3.1, 192.168.5.12).
My question then really is: How do I set up both routers so that I can access services and computers from each network from the other network. Should I set them with different subnets and set the gateway on the wireless network to the main router? To the wireless router card? Should I put them on the same subnet? Will it know how to communicate?
Here is a link to (picture) my network diagram. Network Diagram
I've got a Laptop with wireless broadband connection which needs to be connected to a desktop machine so that the internet connection could be shared. Both has got Ubuntu 9.1. I don't have a router or a switch. I just need direct connection with a cross over cable.
View 5 Replies View RelatedIve just installed ubuntu on a small nettop type pc. It can connect to the internet but I want a direct network connection thru gigabit LAN using a crossover (apparently a straight cable would have been sufficient). Anyway, I have no idea where to begin. The network connection manager in Ubuntu shows Autoeth1 which is right and, if I manually set the IPv4 I can get the PCs to somehow see each other and the 7 pc to give a 'network access only' but that's it.
View 2 Replies View RelatedThese r IP provided by my ISP that i've put on Fedora 8:
WAN IP:xxx.xxx.xxx.17 (eth0)
Subnet:255.255.255.252
Gateway:xxx.xxx.xxx.18
Valid static(public) IP set of 2:
IP:xxx.xxx.xxx.147 & 148 (eth1, eth2)
Subnet:255.255.255.240
i want to run xxx.xxx.xxx.147 as a web server & xxx.xxx.xxx.148 as a ftp server. but I'm able to ping only xxx.xxx.xxx.17(WAN IP) from outside world. Can any1 tell me that how can i bring my 147 & 148 IP online without router.
Excuse me if such thread exists already, i carefully searched the forum so i wont create a second one concerning the following problem:So i downloaded (on my new fresh Fujitsu SIEMENS Li3710 running Vista the Ubuntu 9.04 distro.. im a complete Linux noob, but i wanted to give it a second try) so i downloaded it and burned it on the fast laptop, so there wont be any errors caused by low memory during burning I installed and then i went to the Ubuntu desktop - i had all drivers installed. Everything but Amarok sound worked, i turned off my laptop and went doing my job.. The next time i started up my laptop and went on the desktop .. a tradition is to browse the web, so i did that and i couldnt load a single page, except pages with direct IPs i had Skype working just fine and i had a friend there running SuSe and asked him for help. We identified it as a DNS problem, but because of my noobness i couldnt deal with it and i HAD TO switch back to windows, wich i regret so much.
I know that im a noob, but if i have an internet running at its best i can look at forums and resolve my other issues, so im asking for a screenshots on DNS settings so i can fix it the next time i install Ubuntu.Also! I was using cable via PPPoE (and the only terminal command i know is "sudo pppoeconf" ), now im with router, connecting my laptop directly via WI-FI, will i have the same problem and will i have to make settings so i can connect to my router? Because back then i tried to connect to wireless networks and the ones i could connect on XP/Vista/7 i simply couldnt connect on Ubuntu...I really want some real PC knowledge and to use Linux
I am working on a load balancing project. The type of routing I am implementing is direct routing (LVS-DIR).
The following is a script that sets up the Linux Virtual Server (LVS) or the load balancer:
On both, the LVS and Real Server 1, the firewalls (iptables) are not running.
A few questions I have are:
1) On the LVS, is apache supposed to be running?
2) If so, what would be the ServerName for apache on the LVS?
3) What would be the ServerName for apache on the real server1, is it the server real IP or the VIP?
When I try to access the web content on real server1 in a browser on the LVS, I get Failed to Connect. A connection to the server cannot be established.
The load balancer has two NICS, eth0 and eth1. The real servers will connect to the load balancer via eth1, and the client will connect via eth0.
I am in China, where some web sites(....., facebook, etc) are blocked. So I have to access these blocked site by VPN. But how can I access blocked sites by VPN and unblocked sites by my direct ADSL?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI cannot connect my Dell Inspiron 1300 through the NetworkManager "wired" connection, when I try to go direct to the cable modem. It fails to connect.
If I connect the cable modem to my (linksys WRT54GS) wireless router, and then connect my laptop to a wired port in the router, it connects in seconds, successfully.
This has happened to me 2 other times, when I tried to connect my laptop to a client's cable modem, because my client did not have a wireless router available, in their home.
My wireless works fine. This has me perplexed. I'm using Ubuntu 10.04 LTS and NetworkManager Applet 0.8
I've tried some things to see what is going on, such as "ifconfig" "dhclient" as well as modifying the "Auto eth0" parameters and adding my laptop's MAC address, etc. Results were no fix or solution. I feel like I'm headed down the wrong road. Would someone set me straight? I have a feeling this is simpler than I think.
Do I have to actually reset my own or someone's cable modem to get this to work? I don't want to do that unless there's no other way. Is there? Let me know what commands I can or should run.
i have the following system in my lan.
firewall(iptables)
etho(private) - 192.168.2.1
eth1(public) -189.117.57.2
squid server at 192.168.2.10
my request is that i have to make all out bound internet connection should go from proxy server , not directly to firewall. Please specify a iptable rule for blocking direct internet access. my clients ip ranges from 192.168.2.20 to 192.168.2.47
I've moved a linuxbox from being my gateway (nat, etc) to behind a new gateway (a DD-wrt router). For transparency purposes, I'd like to continue using the old box services, and just have the gateway in front of it.
Here's what I did:
The newgateway is setup for class C, 192.168.0.0
This configuration works, but sometimes it doesn't and I haven't figured out why yet.
At sometimes, clients on the LAN get throughput rates with very little speed loss (using speakeasy speed test). They will run at 33M on the LAN, running through both the newgateway, and the oldbox, and get about 35M with directly connected to the cable modem.
Other times, it seems nothing can talk with anyone, and I am not sure why.
I know what I have done is a little unconventional, but it's a transitional thing, and I am not sure it is the cause of the problem, although it was the last things changed.
PVM 3.4.6 cannot add localhost. It says it can't find pvmd3, but why is it even looking for that when that is not part of the installation?
View 2 Replies View RelatedSo i was trying to Wget some files from a server to test how much i know about Wget. Running Karmic.I think it connecting to localhost is wrong right?
View 5 Replies View Related