Hot answers tagged

45

The short answer - Yes. It usually works by default. The long answer - Depending on what you are using it for, it may slow down with multiple connections, but that is a bandwidth issue, not an ssh issue.


26

Firstly, what is the purpose of me being assigned one of each type? Ideally, we should be moving towards greater IPv6 rollout, due to IPv4 exhaustion. However, a lot of servers still don't support IPv6 - there are many workarounds, none particularly great, but they generally involve tunneling through an intermediate server that can translate between the ...


24

There are many questions which deal with this but here is a crash course on what are called 'Private IP Addresses' as defined in RFC 1918 IP addresses were broken up in to what are called classes as seen here, this is no longer used (replaced with CIDR) but may help to understand different sizes of networks: There are a couple basic distinctions ...


11

You can never be sure when it comes to traceroute results. But there is hope for your special case. The contract says the servers are in the EU. There is a test you can execute which, if successful, would give you 100% guarantee that they are lying. (if unsuccessful, they might be telling the truth, or they might be lying) The idea is to use something like ...


10

Yes it is possible, it is the default behaviour. Trust You can rely if you are using an updated version of ssh and the protocol is not any more 1. grep "Protocol" /etc/ssh/sshd_config The command above should give you Protocol 2. Limits for the connections You can see ssh as the encrypted evolution of telnet, born in the far '69 to allow remote ...


6

This is no different than connecting 2 wired Ethernet ports on the same computer to the same network... it requires what is called interface bonding, NIC teaming, or link aggregation, which is only officially supported by Windows Server OS for Microsoft products (it worked in Windows 10 up to build 10240, officially broken now), but this also requires a ...


5

Yes, it totally is. But this should be implementation-defined. You could as well program your own (probably not so secure, and worse) ssh server that cannot handle multiple connections. But just like common HTTP-Servers of course support this, openssh does so too. Actually this is the very concept of Unix: A multiuser system where a server does all the work ...


5

400Mbps = ~50MBps 1Gbps = ~120MBps Assuming you've a 1G network then at most you'll transfer around 110MBps real world, but there are a few potential limits. One being SMB/CIFS overhead and the other being the speed of the destination. The newer timecapsules have been benchmarked at 130MBps read and 100MBps write so should be able to saturate GigE but ...


5

If you man ping for your version, you'll see that one of the options is the hop option (ping [hop ...] destination), this lets you ping your destination through the hop and is useful if you have multiple gateways and want to explicitly tell the route of the ping. So ping ping localhost is going to ping localhost while using ping as it's hop. But the real ...


4

IPv6 and IPv4 are different and incompatible systems, you are running a 'dual stack' and your OS will try one then the other - typically 6 and then 4. If a site has a AAAA record, and you have a dual stack setup, you will typically connect to ipv6 first then ipv4. In theory this also means you can connect to ipv6 only or ipv4 only servers transparently. ...


3

This is an IP V6 address. They are expressed in Hexidecimal notation, using number 0-9 and letters a-f to represent numbers between 0 and 15. IP v6 addresses are 128 bits long (v4 addrs are only 32bit) so they are much longer. In Tracert (on modern IPv6 capable windows OSs), you can specify the IP protocol you want to use with the -4 and -6 switches: ...


3

This message is a warning that it'll start up DHCP and/or NAT services, which, if incorrectly configured, could cause conflicts if you then wired it up to another network with DHCP and NAT running. In this instance, you'll be enabling the sharing over an ethernet connection with only one device attached, so there shouldn't be any issue. If, however, you ...


3

Nobody can seriously diagnose network issues by looking at the activity lights. The "technician" was probably trying to sound impressive, but collisions in the context of Ethernet are literally nonexistent when you're using switches and not a problem if you weren't. Let's get some background on networking. Collisions - a situation in which multiple machines ...


3

There are a number of possible solutions including - An HTTPS site with client side authentication. Via an email framework triggered with PGP encapsulated messages Using anything suitably secured and based on stunnel. C&C server style using encrypted IRC Using regular unencrypted protocols (including telnet or nc) over a suitably secured VPN. ...


3

In the port forwarding section, you should specify the local IP address you want to pass the packets to. For example, if your public IP address is being accessed on 49.248.xxx.xxx:5901, and you have a server listening on 192.168.0.103:5901, you need a port forwarding rule for traffic to 192.168.0.103, on port 5901. When your WAN IP address is sent a TCP or ...


3

No, just having different SSIDs as per your diagram would put Computer B on the same network as your other machines. It would be able to communicate with everything else on your network. The SSID is just used as an identifier for the wireless connection your adapter will connect to. Beyond this, it will communicate with the same network. In order to solve ...


3

The answer by jcbermu mentions that RFC 1340 (assigned numbers) had a run of unused ports from 374 to 512, and 443 is right in the middle. assert https_port == (374 + 512) / 2 == 443


3

Firstly, EoP uses mains voltage which is severely dangerous, do not attempt anything unless you're sure its safe. The current popular standard is AV2, that means you need to create an OFDM modem that can withstand 110/230V AC. Then you need a gigabit interface and a board to interface the two. Building such a device would require a high level of expertise ...


2

I'm leaving an answer because someone may encounter same problem. Okey, as seen from results from traceroute the packets were "stopped" just before my server. That could mean two things: my firewall or some filtering of outgoing packets on previous server. As suggested by @BenVoigt I have used iptables -vL command and compared amount of bytes per rule. ...


2

Use the proxycommand feature of ssh and authenticate to the C directly from your machine A. Store in your ~/.ssh/config: Host B Hostname hostnameB User userB HostC Hostname hostnameC User userC ProxyCommand ssh -W %h:%p B And then you can connect transparently to C: ssh C


2

As "spherical_dog" mentioned above, the only sensible way to do this is to find another computer with internet, download the driver installer onto a usb drive, and run it on the faulty machine - that should easily fix the issue. Do make sure it's the right driver though, it'll save a lot of head scratching...


2

The combination of these rules will do it: iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -m iprange --src-range 10.0.0.50-10.0.0.100 -p tcp --match multiport --dports 53,67,80,443,9091,32400 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -m iprange --src-range 10.0.0.50-10.0.0.100 -p udp --match multiport --dports 53,67,80,443,9091,32400 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -m iprange ...


2

As your network is behind NAT, you won't be able to use a standard PING to each device. The ping utility sends ICMP requests, which will be responded to by a single device when sent to a WAN IP address, usually your NAT gateway (in this case your WiFi router I believe). This is the intended behaviour, and is one of the fundamental security aspects of NAT, ...


2

As BillP3rd mentioned in his comment, "Technically, it could be located literally anywhere, regardless of what TRACEROUTE says. All you can know for sure is where the path from the Internet ends." Now for the most part we only care where the path from the internet ends because that's where your traffic is going. However it's not a 100% guarantee the ...


2

The way to force all of your traffic thru wlan1 instead instead of usb0 is to force a new gateway: as sudo, ip route del default ip route add default via 192.168.0.1 dev wlan1 (I assume your gateway has IP address 192.168.0.1, if not change accordingly). You can restore the previous situation by means of ip route del default ip route add default via ...


2

Microsoft's solution in Windows 10, NIC Teaming (LBFO), is not useful, as the documentation says: NICs representing technologies other than Ethernet are not supported in teams (e.g., WWAN, WLAN/WiFi, Bluetooth, Infiniband including IPoIB NICs). For wireless, the Microsoft solution is therefore out. In any case, one other unfulfilled requirement is ...


2

For PoE to work, both ends of the Ethernet link carrying power need to support the same flavor of PoE. I've never seen a USB Ethernet adapter that supports receiving (acting as the "powered device" (PD), not the power supply for) any flavor of PoE. I doubt a PoE-receiving USB Ethernet adapter exists, because PoE is thought of as a way to power whole remote ...


2

I suppose what you need is a 'container-like' technology. Take a look at docker (Which is a very famous container technology now). It runs the process in a separate container which may have different control group, resource namespaces etc.. and also, could have a different dns server configuration.


2

I do tech support and the argument of TIA-568A vs TIA-568B vs 'whatever, but straight through" comes up every now and again. You should use the appropriate standard for your application. Since you're referring to Ethernet, you should use Cat5e or Cat6 cable and terminate with the TIA-568B pinout. TIA-568A This standard is acceptable/meant for voice ...


2

If I understand your description correctly — a diagram with Ethernet ports and IP addresses labeled would have helped — Router 1 is downstream (farther from the ultimate WAN/Internet connection of this network) from Router 2. If that's right, then PC1 should be able to reach PC2 at 192.168.2.201, and you shouldn't even need a static port forwarding rule in ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible