search for: ssdp

Hi everybody, First of all, let me say that I searched a lot on the internet. I spent several hours sitting after my notebook, but I can't configure my network bridge in Ubuntu. I'm really desperate, so I hope somebody can point me out what I'm doing Hardware: ----------------------------------------------------------- $ lspci | grep controller 06:05.0 Network controller: Intel

...//bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|RELATED doesn't accommodate |Enhancement: SSDP helper |multicast UDP solicitation | |resulting in unicast reply | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

...Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo at netfilter.org> --- commit 92246dcc1fdcf222302a42926e0e95af2c30463e Author: Ash Hughes <ashley.hughes at blueyonder.co.uk> Date: Sat Mar 8 21:13:34 2014 +0000 conntrackd: userspace SSDP helper There is already a userspace helper for this, close this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-buglog/attachments/2016021...

...6 Neighbor Discovery-00010003 LLMNR FE80::31A3:E972:A166:BEC7 FF02::1:3 00:04:55.693225 295.693225 13:48:41.622701 (68) njchiaia USC-IANA MC-0000FC LLMNR 172.16.5.111 224.0.0.252 00:04:55.693307 295.693307 13:48:41.796611 (175) njchiaia USC-IANA MC-7FFFFA SSDP 172.16.5.111 239.255.255.250 00:04:55.867217 295.867217 13:48:41.819677 (85) Local #1 0019B9F9B391 DNS 172.16.5.230 172.16.5.74 00:04:55.890283 295.890283 13:48:41.820270 (150) 0019B9F9B391 Local #1 DNS 172.16.5.74 172.16.5.230 00:04:55.890876 295.8...

running Version 3.6.23-14.el6_6 I'm having slow save times with folders names ~something.. ie. /www/~bin/content.txt. doing this via a windows share.. when I save file it has a moment (few seconds) of hesitation.. then saves. When I do /www/bin/content.txt. the file saves instantly. Is there anywhere I can change a setting to fix this? or is this a bug. I've looked in the logs

...Priority: P5 Component: ip_conntrack AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org ReportedBy: philipp at redfish-solutions.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 If I send out a packet like (tcpdump output): 16:37:56.642134 IP 192.168.1.25.34699 > 239.255.255.250.ssdp: UDP, length 135 ..^....'.Y8...E..... at ................l..AQM-SEARCH * HTTP/1.1 HOST: 239.255.255.250:1900 MAN: "ssdp:discover" MX: 2 ST: urn:schemas-upnp-org:device:WANConnectionDevice:1 And a unicast response comes back to the same source tuple (UDP, 192.168.1.25.34699)... 16:...

I'm trying to run Asset UPnP media server under Wine 1.1.27 on Ubuntu 8.04. The problem is that media clients on the same network don't appear to SSDP discover this media server. The server itself *does* advertise itself fine on the network though (but as this is fairly infrequent, then any clients can be hanging around for quite some time before they spot the server). I've tried other Linux-based media servers running natively on this part...

People, some of the machines of my network aren't been listed in (Windows Explorer - Network icon). I made a research and I found the following: - try to activate some services: SSDP Discovery; UPnP Device Host; Function Discovery Resource Publication. Note: this situation happens with machines that were joined to the domain and with others that weren't added to domain yet. I would like to see every windows clients listed in Network icon. I activated these services...

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. Am 19.03.20 um 20:15 schrieb Lars Kruse: > you could write the packets via tcpdump into a file and open this pcap later in > wireshark. Wireshark should give you a good visualization of the traffic > distribution. > Or maybe you already did this without further conclusions? Yeah, this is actually what I did: record with tcpdump, than open the files in

...old computers, and a few for highly-connected workstations that depend on the server being up to function (remote disks) that get dedicated lines (port-to-port). But it's still only 1 server. So how does one maintain browsing in such an environment -- its the only way many UPNP, DLNA and SSDP units function?

...you to see, which protocols and which peers cause the > traffic. > > I am slightly confused, that you already took a look at the traffic, but > you did > not mention, which type of traffic makes up the bulk of the excessive > packets > you encountered. You mentioned "a few SSDP packages", but nothing else. > > Or did I just overlook it in your emails? > > Happy traffic hunting! > > Lars > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Maximilian Stein <m at steiny.biz> > To: tinc at tinc-vpn.org > Cc: > Bcc:...

...cs" menu? These should allow you to see, which protocols and which peers cause the traffic. I am slightly confused, that you already took a look at the traffic, but you did not mention, which type of traffic makes up the bulk of the excessive packets you encountered. You mentioned "a few SSDP packages", but nothing else. Or did I just overlook it in your emails? Happy traffic hunting! Lars

...packages of course, it's hard to tell (at least for me) what is actually going on in the network. I looked at a thread on a similar topic last year [1] on the mailing list, but I don't have any recursive tinc traffic on my tinc adapter (actually blocked by iptables). However, I do see some SSDP broadcast packages (but again, there are way fewer packages on the virtual tinc link than on the physical ethernet link). Do you have any idea about how to analyze the situation further? Or about the actual reasons behind the issue? My configuration is basically as attached. While the "serve...

...--- next part -------------- Arturo Borrero (2): man: fix hyphen used as minus sign nfct: don't link against libnetfilter_conntrack Arturo Borrero Gonzalez (2): list: fix prefetch dummy doc/debian.conntrackd.init.d: drop file Ash Hughes (1): conntrackd: userspace SSDP helper Chas Williams III (1): cthelper: don't pass up a 0 length queue Clemence Faure (1): conntrack: support add/delete of conntrack labels Felix Janda (6): configure: Add AM_PROG_AR to silence automake warning include: Sync with kernel headers src: Use stdint...

Shorewall 1.4.7 is now available at: http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/shorewall-1.4.7 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/shorewall-1.4.7 It will be available at your favorite mirror shortly. The release notes are attached. As always, many thanks go to Francesca Smith for updating the sample configurations for this release. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently

...uld allow you to see, which protocols and which peers cause the > traffic. > > I am slightly confused, that you already took a look at the traffic, but you did > not mention, which type of traffic makes up the bulk of the excessive packets > you encountered. You mentioned "a few SSDP packages", but nothing else. > > Or did I just overlook it in your emails? > > Happy traffic hunting! > > Lars > _______________________________________________ yeah, I had a look at all packages, but there are only very few packages on the virtual tinc link, but a huge a...

I am having a problem registering my cisco phones which is exactly like that described in http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2011-May/262306.html except that I am on Asterisk 1.8.3.3 and using sip level POS3-07-4-00 The symptoms are: o 7960 lines show [X] o Outbound calls can be made from the phone, including call pickup of inbound calls, but not to it. o Trace shows REGISTER

Hi, In a book I'm reading on Samba4, the author explains that network browsing doesn't work for Samba AD DCs "because there is no nmbd process". It's true enough that I can't browse my DC, however, there is an active nmbd process on my Samba server. So I wonder if the explanation of the author is (still) correct. I couldn't find any supporting or contradicting