similar to: Networkbrowsing with different subnetmasks

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 >

Now, TOSHARG-NetworkBrowsing.xml translate to Japanese finished(3.4.0 base). And some typo/question found. <indexterm><primary>NetBIOS</primary></indexterm> <indexterm><primary>NetBIOS</primary></indexterm> <indexterm><primary>phasing out NetBIOS</primary></indexterm> <indexterm><primary>n security

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]

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

I''m triying to setup a pseudo bridge with wonder shapper and reverse arp. I readed the advance routing howto but as I''m not a experienced linux user it doens''t have enought information on how to do it. Basicly I don''t know how to route with linux! My box is got 2 interfaces, eth0 and eth1 . I''m runing Mandrake 9.2 . I already installed wonder shapper.

Signed-off-by: Julien Viard de Galbert <jviarddegalbert at online.net> --- efi/udp.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/efi/udp.c b/efi/udp.c index 1088f47..b0f13ad 100644 --- a/efi/udp.c +++ b/efi/udp.c @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ void core_udp_connect(struct pxe_pvt_inode *socket, uint32_t ip, } else { udata.UseDefaultAddress = FALSE;

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:02 PM, <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> wrote: > from: Jeff Sloan <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> > > Update UEFI PXE proxyDHCP handling. > > This patch is based on commit ID 8a00e49 > > Modify two files to specify valid ip addresses. These files are efi/pxe.c > and efi/udp.c. 1) In commit 2e266c35, I proposed using UseDefaultAddress. As I

Hello all, I am using MSDOS client together with Samba version 3.020 running on a freebsd server version 4.8. I can write fromout this client with 1 Mbyte/min as maximum speed using GHOST. The CPU load from the freebsd server is nearly zero. When using Windows as system i can copy with a speed of 150Mbyte /min to the same Samba server. What must i check or change to get approx. the same speed

from: Jeff Sloan <jeff_sloan at selinc.com> Update UEFI PXE proxyDHCP handling. This patch is based on commit ID 8a00e49 Modify two files to specify valid ip addresses. These files are efi/pxe.c and efi/udp.c. In efi/pxe.c: In net_parse_dhcp function. If ProxyOffer has been received, start with DhcpAck packet since it is the most complete. This requires a minimum of changes to the

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jason Matthews > <jason.david.matthews at gmail.com> wrote: > > The setup I was using was in a chassis. Slot 8 of the chassis is the > client > > machine. It goes through Switch 1 (a Brocade switch) to the top of rack > > (BNT). The mirror is in the

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Jason Matthews <jason.david.matthews at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jason Matthews >> <jason.david.matthews at gmail.com> wrote: >> > The setup I was using was in a chassis. Slot 8 of the chassis is the >>

I tried the efi-fixes-2-for-mfleming, but it doesn't look like it's getting much further. It looks like it's now storing the local port but is still bailing out after the jiffies loop. Here are the pcaps from that: http://ge.tt/4O5N9Az/v/0 I played around with the udp4_cb function and it looked like it was coming back with token->Status == 512, which (if I read the spec right)

Package: xcp-xapi Version: 1.3.2-13 Severity: critical I get this bug when installing XCP and configuring the network portion of it. When I issue the following command: xe pif-reconfigure-ip uuid=$PIF_UUID mode=static IP=10.0.0.10 netmask=255.255.255.240 gateway=10.0.0.1 DNS=10.5.1.2,10.5.1.3 My network interface looks like this (Broken): eth2 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:50:ec:24:c7:43

Hello, I have been searching for answers now more then a week, but I cannot find a proper solution. Please help me with this: Scenario: Two differnet subnetted networks (1 and 2) connected by a cipe tunnel between two linux Samba boxes over the internet. On network one (1) is a Windows NT PDC installed which currently is the DMB for it's domain (1). On network two (2) one of the linux

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 >