So this is a classic question that I’ve seen many times before...
I’m trying to connect to my home network when not at home using a raspberry pi.
I’m well aware that the way to go with this is to use a vpn server such as OpenVPN.
However, in order to connect to the vpn I would need to forward a port on my router... which I can’t do.
I’ve found remote.it which allows remote connection to a computer (pi) without port forwarding.
What I would like to know is how would I set about using the 2 together, I.e. connecting to remote.it which in turn connects me to my vpn server?
I'm sorry to be finding this question just now, but in case it's still useful to you or to anyone else, here's what you need to do:
Install remote.it
Set-up a remote.it connection to use the protocol (TCP/UDP) and port required by the VPN application
Make a remote.it connection/adding the service to your network (remoteit - Desktop application UI terminology)
Use this connection info (URL/port or localhost:port) with the VPN client
Send an e-mail to support#remote.it if you need help
I would recommend ZeroTier(https://www.zerotier.com/). It haves its own linux client , and you can connect to as many networks as you would like.
You can also configure IP address from the website.
There is also an Android an IOS app that is really simple to connect.
Related
i'm planning on implementing web server hosted by Raspberry Pi at home, while also having a Dedicated Server with public IP.
The main problem is that my provider charge a lot for a static ip, so i simply dont want to pay.
And here is the question:
Is it possible to achieve what i've mentioned on given diagram (if yes, then maybe some hints?)
Will RPi be accessible through local network while connected to VPN
Thank you for any help!
1.
That is basically possible, it is called a Reverse-Proxy (See wiki for a brief description). The exact implementation depends on the web server you use.
Your dedicated Server will then accept client connections, get the content over the VPN from your Raspberry and serve it to the client like it's his.
2.
Your Pi will still be accessible from the local network while being in the VPN, since it should use a virtual adapter for the connection if its a client on its own. Otherwise, if the router acts as a gateway to the VPN it will do the routing and again your Pi will be fine.
I set up a VPN on my virtual Server using openswan, xl2tpd and ppp (see this tutorial: https://raymii.org/s/tutorials/IPSEC_L2TP_vpn_with_Ubuntu_14.04.html).
So I am talking about a L2TP/IPSec VPN with a PSK.
The problem I have:
I can connect a smartphone with the VPN using the on-board API.
But after that I cannot connect any more devices to the VPN using a device from the same network (others or cell-networks are working).
For me that means NAT-support isn't enabled but as shown in the tutorial I set the nat_traversal-value in /etc/ipsec.conf to "yes".
Actually, if I connect a windows-computer first, I CAN connect both the computer and one more other device (smartphone), but I am NOT able to connect another device.
I am sure the problem isn't:
- the phone: Sometimes I can connect, sometimes not, as shown above. No installations block anything.
- the router: A connection to the VPN is not impossible.
- the server itself: A connection to the VPN is not impossible.
I see the problem in the configs but I have no clue where to look for these settings.
If someone knows what to do I appreciate every answer.
Thank you.
I found my problem in the config files.
For anyone who has the same problem, add the values to the /etc/ipsec.conf as shown below:
version 2.0
config setup
oe=off
listen=%IP_ADDRESS%
conn L2TP-PSK-NAT
rightsubnet=vhost:%priv
also=L2TP-PSK-noNAT
conn L2TP-PSK-noNAT
rekey=yes
It should work after that c:
I wanna use oVirt engine 3.6 in my Internet connectionless network. I installed oVirt with yum over internet. After that I tried to work offline. When I go offline Web Interface it still works fine. But I connected it to my local netowork Interface starts not to respond. I check POST/GET requests that made by it and I see it stuck on request/respond to/from GenericApiGWTService. For example, normally time between request and respond takes 1 to 600ms but when I connect it to local network it take up to 300.000ms second and eventually it fails. I use CentOS 7 x86_64. I couldn't figure out what is it cause to that.
I fix the problem by;
Use another IP from different address group then the one you use for
internet connection. Example: I used 192.168.1.10 for internet
connection. When I connect pc to local I changed it to 192.168.2.10
Delete all Gateway and DNS IPs.
Then it works fine.
When developing and testing WP7 apps you're pc is connected to either a real WP7 phone or to the WP7 Device Emulator. For a specific development-purpose I would like to connect directly to the development pc (let's call it the host pc) from the WP7 app without having to rely on an external toast-server. I'm using plain sockets, System.Net.Sockets.Socket.
There seem to be two options:
Obtain the host pc's LAN IP and connect to that
Connect to localhost
Option 1 usually works well, but not always: The host pc may not necessaily have an IP, in which case there's nothing to connect to. Also, in some scenarios all LAN traffic is directed through a company-wide proxy which will disrupt this mechanism.
That lead me to try out option 2. To my surprise it seems to work, but I need to be more sure than simply "it seems to work". I've googled all over but can't find any definitive answer, not even on Microsoft's site like e.g. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff754351(v=VS.92).aspx. So this is my question:
What exactly is the defined behavior of connecting to localhost from a WP7 app?
Altrernatively, is there a fool-proof way of connecting back to the host-pc?
(Let me stress this again: For this particular purpose I can't use toasts, because the development pc may not even be online.)
Edit:
I work at EQATEC and the application in question is the EQATEC Profiler. Right now the profiler/app-communication is handled by injecting a socket/http-client into the deployed WP7 app that connects back to the profiler's LAN IP address. It works very well and is really fast, but in some very rare cases users are offline and therefore doesn't have an IP, or have some prohibitive lan proxy rules.
Therefore connecting to "localhost" would be excellent if that somehow magically would always work for everybody. It works for me and a couple of test-users, but does it work for all our many thousand profiler users all over the world? I'd like to be more sure.
"localhost" by definition is the machine running the code (well specifically the NIC doing the communication). For either the Phone or the Emulator, that would mean the phone or the emulator, not the PC they are attached to.
When you attach to a PC, you do have a network - it's an RNDIS connection in which both sides get an IP address which traditionally (pre-WP7) could be resolved with 'ppp-peer', though I've not tested that resolution on the Phone. I suspect it will be the same, since WMDC is still what's connecting and they'd have little reason to change that connection mechanism.
If the emulator is resolving localhost to the PC on which is resides, that's a definite bug and I would not count on it continuing to work as they add more robust socket support to the Phone platform.
System.Net.Sockets.Socket isn't really currently available for WP7 programming, but it might be available at some future point (maybe in Mango... maybe...)
AFAIK, the only way to reliably do what you want to do is to set up an http server on the development PC and to provide your app with an HTTP address of that server - or to route messages via some "Cloud proxy"
I'm surprised localhost works at all on the real device... I can only assume that they are asking the connected PC to resolve that DNS name - but even then I'm surprised 127.0.0.1 works.
The ip you're looking for is "192.168.55.100"
That's the ip address the phone uses to connect to the host pc.
If you'd like to connect to the phone, apparently its ip address will be "192.168.55.101"
For the emulator just use localhost or 127.0.0.1
This is from the old ActiveSync days, so I don't know how official it is or how likely it is to last, but for right now at least it worked on my phone.
Recently we got a new server at the office purely for testing purposes. It is set up so that we can access it from any computer.
However today our ip got blocked from one of our other sites saying that our ip has been suspected of having a virus that sends spam emails. we learned this from the cbl http://cbl.abuseat.org/
So of course we turned the server off to stop this. The problem is the server must be on to continue developing our application and to access the database that is installed on it. Our normal admin is on vacation and is unreachable, and the rest of us are idiots(me included) in this area.
We believe that the best solution is to remove it from connecting to the internet but still access it on the lan. If that is a valid solution how would this be done or is there a better way? say blocking specified ports or whatever.
I assume that this server is behind a router? You should be able to block WAN connections to the server on the router and still leave it open to accepting LAN connection. Or you could restrict the IPs that can connect to the server to the development machines on the network.