Web Server

Posts: 1 · New Forum Member Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1

Interesting.... I have a web server that is connected to a D-Link router. My DLS service gives me a static IP, and the server (a Cobalt Qube) has a static IP behind the router (and all other computers on my network are assigned dynamic IP's by the router). I put my VT1000v between my DSL modem and the router, assigned the router a static IP in the VT1000v, made that IP a DMZ, and lo and behold, everything works EXCEPT I can't get to the web server from WITHIN my network. That is, I can connect to it using my internal IP address (192.168.0.X), but can't get to it when I use the www.xxxxxxx.com address. OUTSIDE of my network (i.e. from work) I can get to the server using the www.xxxxxx.com address. Any ideas what's going on?

Thanks.

Posts: 7 · New Forum Member Joined: 1067965810 Posts: 7

if you can get to it from the inside based on the ip address and not the name, I would guess it's a DNS issue.
Have you tried the FQDN and the server name? i.e. http://server.domain.com and http://server

Ping the server using both names and do a traceroute using both names, see what you get...

-MannyO

Posts: 46 · Full Forum Member Joined: Sep 06, 2004 Posts: 46

Have you manually entered your provider's DNS Server addresses into the router? It may be having problems acquiring them through the phone adapter.

Posts: 16 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: Oct 20, 2004 Posts: 16

simple to say fix:
update your host file so that your webservers name = your private ip.

server.name.com 192.168.1.1

See the problem is that your getting your DNS requests for server.local.com resolved to the real IP because they are going through the router to the ISP.. that would normally be fine but the NAT gets things really messed up..

Best solution:

If you have an internal DNS server then you can solve a whole slew of issues you may not be aware of and the problem your having by adding your DNS server internal IP to the routers list of dns servers.

If you have a domain that your workstations log onto then you have a DNS server. add that machines IP to your routers list of dns servers and your workstations will resolve better.

Look in your broadband routers configuration web page. You should have an option to add in a dns server. add in the internal IP of your DNS server then you should be able to get to the web server without issue.

http://marauder/dan/dnsconfig.jpg

otherwise the host file change will work fine you just have to do it to all machines on your network that want local access to the webserver.

Posts: 16 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: Oct 20, 2004 Posts: 16

http://warhammer.mine.nu/dan/dnsconfig.jpg

this is one of the linksys RT31P2 setup screens. I am sure the d-link has one much the same.

Posts: 77 · Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:34 am Post subject:

My problem with VT1005 is almost the same. The only difference is that I use to access six different virtual hosts on the server (Webstar V) I run on my PC (Mac OS X).

The whole world can access any of the six virtual hosts. But me. The rest of the word uses an URL like: http://virtualhost_1.no-ip.com. The whole world access my site. I'm the only one who can't. (I was able to access any of my sites prior to install vt1005). When I use my router address or my PC address or my server address I can access only one virtual host, the one I define as Default Site. (Only the first page. If I try to access to another page, I get a white one!. This is OK only with static site. Any dynamic site, like blogs, gives only a white page.)

Yesterday I made the tests from the very beginning:

Config 1: cable-modem -> vt1005 -> Linksys routers -> PCs
Results: The whole world BUT ME can access web sites I run on one of my PCs.

Config 2: cable-modem -> Linksys routers -> PCs
Results: The whole world AND I can access web sites on my PC.
(The world and I use the same addresses like "http:// mysite.redirectme.net:8000")

Conclusion: The problem resides somewhere in the VT1005 hardware or firmware. ??? A matter of DNS resolution?

Question: what should I do to access to my web sites from my PC? Give up on Vonage? Replace the vt1005 with....???? Configuring a DNS server on my home network don't seem to be easy to do. I'm computer knowledgeable just enough to be dangerous.[/u]

Posts: 16 · Vonage Forum Associate Joined: Oct 20, 2004 Posts: 16

I think i answeed you ahmel in a different post but...

The problem becomes clearer.

turn off the NAT on your linksys router.

it sounds like the vt1000 provides nat ability.

I dont know how that is working but your really dont want double nat taking place.

that all sounds bad.

im trying to get all this straight.

you have the vt1000 set up and that does NAT to your linksys router that also does NAT and that has a DMZ to your server?

I dont think thats a very good solution.

I dont know what the capabilities are of this vt1000 thing are. if it does nat and has a DMZ then just use your linksys as a switch byt turning the nat off on the linksys.

Posts: 77 · Posted: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:11 pm Post subject:

Here is a simple test I did to check if VT1005 can connect to virtual hosts within a local network the way a Linksys router does.

Test # 0.1 (no router and one pc)
Cable-Modem > VT1005 > The Mac on which I run my server.
VT1005 DHCP enabled, Port forwarding: 8000 TCP to 192.168.102.2
Mac IP address = 192.168.102.2, routeur = 192.168.102.1 (=vt1005)
Result # 0.1
The whole world can access any of my virtual hosts.
I CANNOT access any of my virtual hosts.

Test # 0.2 (no vt1005 and one pc)
Cable-Modem > Linksys Router > The Mac on which I run a server
DHCP enabled, Forwarding: 8000 TCP to 192.168.1.154
Mac IP address = 192.168.1.154, router = 192.168.1.1 (=Linksys)
The whole world can access any of my virtual hosts.
I CAN access any of my virtual hosts.

Conclusion ... ???

Posts: 77 · Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:35 am Post subject:

Bye Bye VT1005.
Hello Linksys RT31P2.

I received yesterday from Vonage the Linksys router RT31P2. 10 minutes later, I can access my sites from the inside. This new hardware seems to solve the problem.

A router with 2 phone ports seems to be better than 2 phone ports with a router.