search for: subnetmask

...C avoiding that the information is not going out to the WAN by making the firewall rules. Altough i did make the sentence inside the firewall pass any from any i did not get the name of the server vissible in the workgroup. Only the win2K workstations where visible The IP parameters where set to subnetmask 255.255.255.240 this includes all the workstations and the first NIC from the firewall. After changing the subnetmask to 255.255.255.0 i see the server joining the workgroup and I could access him. Could someone give me a answer on the following question: Is browsing from samba only on the ad...

from: Jeff Sloan <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> Based on commit: 9314e330 Setting UseDefaultAddress to TRUE uses invalid StationAddress and SubnetMask values. This is in a network with a local TFTP/MTFTP server. If the server is local, on the same subnet, UseDefaultAddress is set to false and the client ip and subnetmask are loaded, otherwise set UseDefaultAddress to TRUE. This is added to core_udp_connect and core_udp_sendto. Signed-off-by:...

>>> Setting UseDefaultAddress to TRUE uses invalid StationAddress and SubnetMask values. This is in a network with a local TFTP/MTFTP server. If the server is local, on the same subnet, UseDefaultAddress is set to false and the client ip and subnetmask are loaded, otherwise set UseDefaultAddress to TRUE. This is added to core_udp_connect and core_udp_sendto. Signed-off-by...

...to improve the instructions at http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php/Debugging#PXE-Capture-Mirror to provide examples for Cisco and HP and an inline example with Linux bridging. Reading back, you stated "Strange thing is that the struct shows 0xc78cef71 for StationAddress and 0xc78cef75 for subnetmask when usedefaultaddress is set to true. Since my subnet is 10.39.31.xx, I am completely baffled as to how the default values were set but I will figure it out. I just need to do some additional digging." Did you obtain this based on extra Print() statements? They look to be adjacent memory a...

...From: Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> To: jeff_sloan at selinc.com, Cc: For discussion of Syslinux and tftp-hpa <syslinux at zytor.com>, masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> Date: 07/08/2015 03:06 PM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Updated udp.c to use real client ip and subnetmask values if on local subnet On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:32 PM, <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> wrote: > from: Jeff Sloan <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> > > Based on commit: 9314e330 1) I don't see this commit ID. 2) Did you try commit ID 5186539 without this patch? If so, what did...

...Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> To: Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com>, jeff_sloan at selinc.com, Cc: For discussion of Syslinux and tftp-hpa <syslinux at zytor.com> Date: 09/12/2015 07:35 AM Subject: Re: [PATCH] Updated udp.c to use real client ip and subnetmask values if on local subnet >On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 27, 2015 12:30 PM, "Patrick Masotta" <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > I think these changes wou...

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:32 PM, <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> wrote: > from: Jeff Sloan <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> > > Based on commit: 9314e330 1) I don't see this commit ID. 2) Did you try commit ID 5186539 without this patch? If so, what did you observe? I believe I asked you to try a more current commit but never heard a response. -- -Gene

>>> I owe you the exact contents of the failing packets/buffers <<< I have seen the capture but I couldn't find anything wrong there; When you get a minute please assemble the rest of info; so far it's not clear what the symptoms really are. >>> but I am headed out the door to see if a doctor can keep me alive... (I think I have bubonic plague.) As soon as I

>>> What uEFI specification version does your system claim to be compliant with?? I'd like to read over the spec for the call to verify things. -- -Gene <<< I've tried to find the relationship between UseDefaultAddress and DHP relays but I couldn't find anything. The use of DHCP relays should be really transparent... Best, Patrick

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> > What uEFI specification version does your system claim to be compliant > with? I'd like to read over the spec for the call to verify things. > -- > -Gene > <<< > > I've tried to find the relationship between UseDefaultAddress and DHP relays >

>>> As noted in the reply to Matt Fleming's initial EFI networking implementation, I think some systems go stupid on UseDefaultAddress and AllowPromiscuous as true.? I just tested and saw no negative results from killing the codelines setting AllowPromiscuous in efi/udp.c on my machines. -- -Gene <<< This is good; BTW what was the rationale at the time for

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> > > As noted in the reply to Matt Fleming's initial EFI networking > implementation, I think some systems go stupid on UseDefaultAddress > and AllowPromiscuous as true. I just tested and saw no negative > results from killing the codelines setting AllowPromiscuous in >

>>>> > > This is good; BTW what was the rationale at the time for > taking AllowPromiscuous=1 ?? That's the point of the aforementioned reply.? It seems unnecessary, confusing and actually breaks some VM use. -- -Gene <<<< Agreed; have you already patched this code in your repo? files involved? Best, Patrick

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> > > > > This is good; BTW what was the rationale at the time for > > taking > AllowPromiscuous=1 ?? > > That's the point of the aforementioned reply. It seems unnecessary, > confusing and actually breaks some VM use. > > -- > -Gene >

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: > >> What about the observed symptoms? Have you performed an inline packet > > Jeff, there's specific code that creates specific responses that if > you had mentioned what you saw, I'd expect we could have

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> > > Jeff, > Patrick: Could you try my code from my github repo branch > efi-multinic? It's derived from > Patrick's code and I finally see good > responses with a VMware VM's e1000e NIC > (never saw ANYTHING good from > it until > now). > >

>>> Pseudo code:? Using the most recently used handle (the one holding Pxebc by default), attempt to create a service binding.? If unsuccessful, hunt for a handle that provides the target service binding and matches the MAC address. Best case, it's 1 binding attempt.? Worst case it's about N+1. -- -Gene <<< I see; on fail you fall back getting all handles

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> > Pseudo code: Using the most recently used handle (the one holding > Pxebc by default), attempt to create a service binding. If unsuccessful, > hunt for a handle that provides the target service > binding and matches the MAC address. > > Best case, it's 1 binding

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> > Jeff, Patrick: Could you try my code from my github repo branch > efi-multinic? It's derived from Patrick's code and I finally see good > responses with a VMware VM's e1000e NIC (never saw ANYTHING good from > it until now). > >

>>> > I think these changes would solve the thing. > > ... > -EFI_SERVICE_BINDING *sbp; > +EFI_SERVICE_BINDING *sbp =NULL; > ... > > -? ? if (status != EFI_SUCCESS) > +? ? if (status != EFI_SUCCESS || sbp == NULL) >? ? ? ? goto free_binding; > ... The presumption was that we'd see an error rather than non-error from LibLocateHandle()