search for: subnetmasks

Dear all, I have a workgroup withonly windows 200 workstations in it and one Samba version 2.212 The network is bridged with a subnet mask 255.255.255.240 >From the WAN side you get: Internet > Modem/router > first NIC > firewall and out to LAN via second NIC Because the second NIC has no IP address the browsing is done by the first NIC avoiding that the information is not going

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

>>> 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: Jeff

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 4:10 PM, <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> wrote: > Gene, > > I am very sorry. I did try the patch you suggested and had the same issue. > Then, I grabbed the latest patch on Patrick's git repo. That's the commit > that I listed. It was posted two days ago. > > I just noticed this on Patrick's repo: This branch is 6 commits ahead, 2 >

Gene, I am very sorry. I did try the patch you suggested and had the same issue. Then, I grabbed the latest patch on Patrick's git repo. That's the commit that I listed. It was posted two days ago. I just noticed this on Patrick's repo: This branch is 6 commits ahead, 2 commits behind geneC:master Jeff Sloan Software Engineer - Computing Systems Schweitzer Engineering

Jeff Sloan Software Engineer - Computing Systems Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc. (509) 336-2098 jeff_sloan at selinc.com From: 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]

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()