Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

Thread Info
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 33 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 53621 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Anleitung: feste IP Adresse durch vServer auf Heim Sophos legen

Ben

Update: Habe die Anleitung angepasst und überarbeitet. Es geht noch "besser" über eine statische Route ohne Bridge, was andere Probleme verhindert und so denke ich am saubersten laufen sollte:

http://www.busche.org/index.php/2017/10/24/oeffentliche-ipv4-adressen-zur-sophos-utm-ueber-red/ 



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
  • in reply to ManuelAbeledo

    ManuelAbeledo: Ich habe dies früher auch so gemacht und publiziert aber kann nur davor warnen. Man erzeugt hier eine Bridge auf L2 Ebene und kein saubereres Routing. Gibt es spezielle Netzwerk Konfigurationen beim vServer Provider hat man auf einmal irgendwelchen fremden Host-Netzwerktraffic auf der RED und wundert sich warum Volldampf auf der Leitung ist. Die L3 Routing Variante ist die sauberste Lösung welche zu keinen seltsamen Nebeneffekten führen sollte.

  • Hallo Zusammen,

     

    hat jemand diese Thematik auf einer XG ans Laufen bekommen? Tunnel UTM (vServer) und XG(Zuhause) steht aber der Rest klappt nicht da so nicht konfigurierbar. Beiße mir daran gerade die Zähne aus.

     

    Gruß

    Coyote

  • I want to assign a fixed private IP address to a server so that local computers can always access it. Plzz tells me how to do that.

    Currently, the DHCP address of the server is something like 192.168.1.54.h

    Should I simply assign the server this same IP as fixed and configure the router so that it will exclude this IP from the ones available for DHCP? Or are there some ranges of IP that are traditionally reserved for static addresses?

    AppValley – Legal and Safe

    We would like to inform that AppValley App store is entirely legal and safe to use. Let’s discuss the valid reason for your understanding.

    Valid Reasons:

    First of all, AppValley application struggled for many months under the development process and launched the application after the entire completion. At every stage, the application was tested by the development team. This application does not contain any security risks, viruses, or any malware. Each and every game or application is thoroughly tested by the team and also to stay safe, the application development will release the regular updates to their users. AppValley - Get ++ Tweaked Apps Free for iOS

    AppValley will not access the iOS device root, which means that the application will not work against Apple’s security. It is important that the device will not be affected by any virus or malware attack. You can also download any applications or games without the root access permission. The most important feature for the iOS device is, you will be prompted to enter your Apple ID to use the downloaded installer. This means that the application will be verified by Apple and very safe to use.

    The last important thing about the developers is the reputation they have. They work hard, test the application or game under various testing level and never ever released the unsafe or dodgy software to their users. They are keen and ensure that the installer will be monitored and keeps updated with the latest bug fixes. You will be notified to install the updates immediately to have seamless access to the application or game.

  • in reply to sherylbrock brock

    Hi and welcome to the UTM Community!

    If the "router" to which you refer is the UTM, note that you must assign fixed IPs outside of the dynamic range of theDHCP server defined in WebAdmin.

    Cheers - Bob

  • in reply to Roadrunner188

    Ich hab es selber mal mit der XG probiert, das klappt leider nicht, da sich die Schnittstelle der RED nicht so konfigurieren lässt wie bei der UTM.

    zum Beispiel lässt sich das Gateway zwar übers Routing anlegen, aber man bekommt eine Meldung, dass die Schnittstelle und die Gateway IP im gleichen Netz liegen müssen.

    Auch lässt sich die Netzmaske der RED nicht auf /32 setzten, sondern nur auf /31

  • in reply to Steve Lang

    Hallo Steve,

    I've never seen a RED tunnel between two UTMs configured with a public IP on the redc# interface.  Try something more like:

    Any better luck with that?

    MfG - Bob (Bitte auf Deutsch weiterhin.)

  • in reply to BAlfson

    He is getting a "public ipv4 as a service" that is terminated on his (virtual) RED Device. 
    XG is not UTM, I haven't touched that for a while now, but from what I read its still not something I want to use. 

     

    XG ist nicht UTM und habe ich schon lange nicht mehr benutzt, hat damals nix getaugt und nach dem was ich im Forum lese ist es wohl immer noch so.
    Die IPv4 über RED Geschichte habe ich hier auch am Laufen und funktioniert mit der UTM hervorragend. 

  • in reply to Ben

    Ben, I don't understand how one can have a public IP as the IPv4 address of a RED interface and have it's default gateway be a private IP.  Can you show a picture similar to the one I posted above showing what you did?

    MfG - Bob (Bitte auf Deutsch weiterhin.)

  • in reply to BAlfson

    why not? that way you don't need to waste any public IPv4s. A Gateway is just a Gateway. If the other Sophos has a private IPv4 as its Interface IPv4 on its RED Side and is routing public IPv4s to the RED Interface it will work. No magic involved.

  • in reply to Ben

    Sorry, I'm a visual-tactile and I can't imagine what you're describing - I can't "see" the diagram.  Plus, I don't believe that the configuration daemon would know how to interpret a default gateway definition that's an IP outside the subnet of the Interface.  I'm not saying that couldn't be done with iptables, just that I think you can't make that happen with WebAdmin.

    MfG - Bob (Bitte auf Deutsch weiterhin.)