Something to Do with DNS?

Hey folks, I've got a file server behind a wireless access point connected to the internet at [IP address]. Accessing the server through the IP address directs me to the root folder for my http server, Apache 2.2; there are no web pages in the directory.

I've also got a domain registered with NameCheap and a free DNS service with said domain register. My options for configuring the DNS are URL Redirect, URL Frame, A (Address), CNAME (Alias), and TXT record.

I want to configure this mess such that I can access the server through my domain name and have my directories show up after the domain name.

For example, if I access the root directory through the domain and then access a folder through the root directory, I want my browser to display [domain name]/[folder 1].

None of the DNS options allow me to do this; the best option, URL Frame, displays the domain name, but never the folder that I access.

I also want to be able to access the server through the domain name in applications like Remote Desktop.

Any ideas here?

 

I know little about apache. Sounds like you do not have Apache setup to display the index/page. All you should need is the pointer from the dns to your IP address. From there apache should take over any time the server is hit.

I run a FTP server, using dyndns with only the IP address pointer, works like it suppose to. If you just need file access this is a better solution.

Now from behind a firewall router you must define a rule to redirect port 80 to your server. Most IP's block port 80. They do not want residential clients running web servers. Being on a wireless will be slow, but depending on servies the uplink speed is normally the limiting factor. If this is the case you will need to define a port that you will be using. Then change the FW rule to do redirect on the port. Most all routers have predefined services. This handles all of the behind the screen actions that make things work through a NAT Firewall.

With remote desktop you will be using a different port so it will not interfer with the server.

 

I don't have an index page. Just a file structure.

I do have an ftp service on the same machine, and yes, I would like my ftp client to display the domain name instead of the IP address instead as well, but I figure if it works with one thing it'll work with any other.

I already have my ports configured; I'd assume they're correctly configured if I can access the http (80) and ftp services (1024). Remote Desktop uses 3389 and that's set as well.

What exactly is this "pointer" thing you're talking about?

EDIT: If these are the pointers, none of them do what I want:



EDIT2: To make it more clear, I want the IP in both of these cases (in the browser address bar) to be replaced with my domain name. The best I can do right now with URL Frame is make JUST the domain name, not the folder, appear in both cases. I can access folders by manually typing in the domain name and the folder, but the address bar will only show the domain name.





Furthermore, none of the options allow me to access the ftp service or remote desktop with the domain name.

 

OK, I have to answer this question, and it is going to be in general term since I am not there. I have questions for you before I can pin point what I should say.
1. Do you have private DNS server in your organization?
2. Do you have DMZ in your organization?
3. The server that you want your clients to access has public or private IP address? Does it behind firewall? How well you know NAT protocol?

I think ftp protocol uses ports 20 and 21. If you specify 1024 as you designation port. You have to add something like ftp://domainname:1024 and configure your firewall to redirect the port to specific server.

If you don't have private DNS, you have to point A (Address) to your router public IP address, and use port forwarding to your server. This should be an easy job.

If you have private DNS server, which most of big companies do, you have to create CNAME (Alias) on your DNS. The DNS will take care of the rest.

 

IE does not seam to like FTP on a different port, even though if finds it. I had to switch to a FTP Client software like FileZilla, it has no problems at all. Yes FTP def to port 20 & 21. If your going through a FW you must be in Passive Mode, behind a FW active mode.

Normally the port sets up the service, so changing things around you need to have your router doing the redirect. If you do not do it at the DNS settings.

 

What do you mean by, "IE does not seam to like FTP on a different port, even though if finds it." ? I never have any problems using IE6/7 to connect to FTP server on different ports. I don't use any other software for FTP either beside Server 2003 and IE on clients. I never have any problems with the connection at all.

What do you mean by Passive Mode or Active Mode? I thought you just do port forwarding or PAT in Cisco term and that it.

 

IE defaults to passive mode, and should work on any system that is behind a FW. I do not use IE, prefer FF. I do not have Vista aka MEIII either. I will not upgrade to an OS that consume that much resources and pay MS to be a beta tester for them. The problem I had was going through a firewall on each side, just could not get IE to give a dir listing or file transfer, the FTP was not on the def port, too. Ended up using one of the free file transfer service.

With FTP Client software you have the option of auto, passive or active. most cases auto works on larger servers. You must be in passive mode to go through firewalls, and active mode if local.

I have run test on XP with different FTP clients, IE is one of the slowest. Which is expected with it's huge overhead. FileZilla tested the best. All test were done internal from my server using the same machine, and same files/folders. Used Netstat and what the client reported as speed for the basis of my results. All on GigE network. FileZilla was able to reach my HD limit on downloads.

 

What do you mean by passive mode? Can you give me a definition of passive mode? I still don't get it. So you have Gigabit backbone? What is your bandwith on your WAN? What is your routing protocol on your network. I use OSPF. I don't have any problems for clients to list the folder directory using IE6/7. They are working fine.

As the hardware get more powerful, most of the software including OS always consume more resources. Don't you think? The application always have extra service for new release. Yes, no software is perfect, but it is an evolution. Multithread application always consume more memory. Cacheing is another thing too. I ran network with 4000+ people, so I can speak for myself. I have 10 Gigabit backbone, but it doesn't always translate to demon speed since you have to concern about distribution layer on the switch and other routers too.

FTP on server 2003 only allow to to use anonymouse or authentication connection. Of couse, authentication password is clear text unless you tunnel the packets through VPN. If you talk about IE has a huge overhead, don't you think it is about layer2/3 on OSI model?

What type of firewall are you using anyway? Is it SPI type or Application Layer filter type. Most of the FTP servers are on DMZ, so it is a matter of PAT. I assume that you use SPI firewall as your front line of defend.

 

Wow. Ok, every one of Merlin's posts was way over my head. I'm not trying to do anything complicated here XD

But I figured it out. Namecheap's DNS was a piece of crap and only supported URL forwarding/frame even when it claimed it was doing A (Address). Switched to a free DNS service and got everything working. Thanks for the effort anyways, folks.

 

merlin for your reading on ftp http://slacksite.com/other/ftp.html

 

Thanks, I will read it tonight. From the answer above, you probably don't like MS. Am I right?

 

MS creates a lot of problems as well as clearing some up. I do not like being a beta tester, use to do that. They have a major attitude problem, that Europe is working on right now. Most all of the packages are way to complicated, avg user only needs 10% of the features. The other 90% is where all the problems are. With the exception of XP all OS they have released has required a new generation cpu to run. I use XP (and 2K), Linux, BSD, Apple OS9 & X. There are good and bad with all. Apple's OSX is by far the best, it just works without all of the headacks.

 

Well, I am MS supporter because I do believe that MS products are driving technology forward. I could not survive without Active Directory, which is introduced by MS. Server 2003 allows me to deploy, update, manage, and inventory hardware and software in my organization.

I also like Vista, and I think it is an improvment over XP. The deployment of Vista and Server 2008 would simplify network infrastructure management into the next level. With the new release of new OS, the demanding for more powerful hardware always occur. If you look back on XP released on 2001, 512 RAM seemed too much for the computers in those days. Now, 2 GB RAM is common for today. You see the trend? Vista is also much more secure than XP. The protection on OS file system is much tighter than XP. TCP/IP stack on Vista is also much more efficient than its predecessor and IP V6 is build in into the protocol.

I assume that a lot of companies in Europe are using OSPF and their routing protocol. The emerging of IPV6 would trouble them since OSPF doesn't support IPV6 and the OS before Vista doesn't support IPV6 as well. Well, I don't like to make a long post, but this is just one of my opinions.