If I have a dual boot machine (Windows and Linux), and my network administrator assigns me a static IP address, will I get two addresses, or one? Or is it up to the administrator's discretion? What are the advantages of each approach?
Thanks!
Since you are dual booting you will only be using one IP address at the time, so it can be the same one on both operating systems.
The network administrator might assign two different IP addresses to you if so they desire, but it really poses no advantage, save for really specific situations such as running two different servers for the same service under the two OS's and needing to be able to discern the two.
Generally however one IP is assigned to one machine regardless of what OS is running on it.
He can set two Ip's but one is enough because you're not going to use them simultaneously
Related
We want to use zero tier to connect from one cloud machine to multiple remote machines. We do not want remote machines to access each other. What would be a good approach?
Use a single network and set rules based on tags to restrict access
Run multiple networks, each having cloud machine and a remote machine
Are there limits to
Number of members in zerotier network
Number of zerotier networks a machine can connect to at a time - tun interfaces, ip conflicts or performance impact
I would use a single network and use rules to prevent peering between the machines. For instance, you could set the 192.168.141.0/25 portion of the network to prevent peering, and allow only defined network paths between hosts.
Just a personal rant here: You don't want to do that. Really. You're going to make a headache for yourself when you have to scale horizontally (which you will if you're successful). I would STRONGLY recommend taking a mTLS approach to service authentication instead. Somewhat more work at the start, but a lot easier in the long run.
This may seem a naive question, since the computer networks knowledge from university days has almost vanished throughout the years, but before getting my hands on a book relevant on this topic, I would like to find out what more experienced folks out there know about this.
Basically I would like to be able to connect a client (C) to a remote server (S), sitting in separate LANs, without adding special rules (e.g. port forwarding) to any of the routers in between.
I know that some applications (TeamViewer) use broker servers for connecting a client to a remote machine, but what I don't know is if the whole traffic between them goes through the broker server.
For my use case, I would use such a server only for initial discovery of the peers (more exactly the discovery of S by C), then the traffic would go through a connection directly initiated by C towards S.
Would such an approach be possible?
Thank you!
Unfortunately if the devices reside in networks separated by the Internet your first hurdle concerns RFC1918. In order to connect to a private IP you will have to use some level of NAT. To over come this is to build a VPN connection between the two networks affectively connecting as if each are local to the other. Please note that to avoid any NAT configuration in this scenario requires that the private networks are using different subnets IPs
We are considering Riak for use in an embedded device context (embedded Linux) where devices are dynamically addressed (DHCP).
Is this a viable choice?
We can assume that appropriate auto-discovery protocols are in place to enable devices to discover each other. Upon joining the network, a device would obviously need to do a riak-admin cluster join <other device>. Other than this, would Riak be capable of handling devices leaving and re-joining the network on a fairly non-frequent basis? Or, does it play much more nicely in a statically-addressed environment?
DHCP doesn't necessarily mean the device has to join when it boots. If the node names are resolvable via DNS or hosts file, and the listeners are configured to 0.0.0.0, the Riak nodes should communicate quite happily even if their IPs change on reboot.
I need to uniquely identify a machine despite it having multiple IP addresses(which a common scenarios for linux machines) what I am thinking of is to use hostname as an identifier for the machine/system(host name in /etc/hostname). Is it mandatory that a system will have only one hostname or a system can have multiple host names.
Any help appreciated.
I would identify it as some combination of hostname, MAC address, processor serial number, and hardware serial number. This may not be possible with virtualization, though a virtualized machine should have a unique MAC, unless someone has duplicated it.
Also, I'd get the hostname with uname -n rather than parsing /etc/hostname. Not all Unixes (HP-UX) use /etc/hostname, so this increases portability.
f.e your host is connected to networks 192.168.1.12 and 10.0.1.14
Edit your /etc/hosts with
192.168.1.12 ethhost
10.0.1.14 wlanhost
Now you will be able to ping your host with both names ethhost and wlanhost
I have a network of computers connected in form of a graph.
I want to ping from one computer(A) to another computer(B). A and B are connected to each other through many different ways, but I want to PING via only a particular edges only. I have the information of the edges to be followed during pinging available at both A and B.
How should I do this?
You could source route the ping but the return would choose its own path.
Furthermore, source-routed packets are often filtered due to security concerns. (Not always, they are useful and sometimes even required at edge routers.)
If the machines are under your local administrative control, then you could ensure that source-routed packets are permitted. As long as you are able to start a daemon on machine B, you could also easily enough design your own ping protocol that generates source-routed echo returns.
Well, this is actually done by routing protocols that are configured on the media in between the computers (routers I expect). I think there isn't a way where you can say "use that specific route". The routers have different protocols (OSPF, EIGRP, RIPv2) and they do the load balancing. The only way you would be sure of one specific route is to use static routing, but this isn't dynamically done where your computer decides the route.
This is normal because :
if you would be able to chose a route, DoS would be quite easy to do to kill one route.