this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
18 points (90.9% liked)

Selfhosted

40173 readers
625 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

[SOLVED] Turns out I'm just a bigger moron than I thought. The MAC address of my server had accidentally been flagged in my router for black listing.

As the title says, my proxmox host is apparently not able to reach the internet anymore, not sure for how long this has been an issue, I rarely work on the host itself. It can ping other devices on my network just fine, and other devices can ping it. I can also SSH in to it and access the web interface. My VMs are connected to the internet without any issues. I don't need to access the host remotely/outside my home network, this is just for updating it etc.

I can't see the host under active devices in my router though.

I have been trying to figure why, but so far without any luck.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (22 children)

Sounds like potentially a DNS issue

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

This is what I'm thinking too, but I don't know how to fix it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do you have a nameserver set under System > DNS?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's pointing to the IP of my Adguard (located on a different machine)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Have you tried setting the nameserver to Google or Cloudflare to see if that works?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

i have, it doesn't work. I can ping my Adguard without issues though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I suppose you have also logged into your Adguard server to verify that it can ping the internet?

In other words, you have successfully pinged Proxmox --> Adguard and Adguard --> Internet?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Yes, adguard has access to internet

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can you dig @9.9.9.9? If so, its certainly DNS. If it's not DNS, perhaps try to check your iptables iptables -L && iptables -t nat -L.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not really sure what to look for, I'm not very experienced in network, but this is the output i get

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

From the output, you don't have any routing rules for your machine that block outgoing traffic. The dig command confirms that you can talk to servers. 9.9.9.9 is a common DNS Server. Based off of this, it seems like your problem is that your system has a bad DNS configuration (it's always DNS).

Can you parhaps cat /etc/resolv.con? This file normally contains the used DNS servers for Linux systems, unless using special software.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Okay, no external software for DNS management present here. Is that ip a working DNS Server? Is it your server itself perhaps?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

192.168.68.210 is my adguard, it's on a different machine. It should be working, all my other devices use it and I can see the traffic going through it. My servers IP is 192.168.68.120, and I can't see traffic from that on my adguard at all. But it can ping my adguard.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Okay, so if that's your actual DNS Server, can you confirm that it works? dig @yourdns debian.org, for example. Afterwards try to use the default DNS of your system dig debian.org. If both works, your DNS config should be fine. Try a curl debian.org -v too.

debian.org is just a random domain for this, use whatever you want. I don't see anything badly configured so far.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

as far as i can tell from the output, i think my DNS is working?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is the host configured with static IP or DHCP? Either way, verify it has the correct DNS config.

Personally I use static for any device that hosts a service.

What happens if you ping Yahoo.com from the console in Proxmox? It should show the DNS server IP it's using for resolution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

It's set to static, I also do that for anything that hosts something.

It won't ping yahoo.com at all, it just reports 100% packet loss.

Edit: just realised that it won't ping my gateway/router either. It's pinging all other devices on my network just fine though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Not dns then. For some reason you can’t reach the default gateway

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Nope, same result

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If you can't ping your gateway, then you have a problem with your interface configuration.

Do you need it to be on a specific VLAN or something else?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

No i haven't split anything in to separate VLANs

load more comments (18 replies)