similar to: [Bug 795] New: RELATED doesn't accommodate multicast UDP solicitation resulting in unicast reply

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com AssignedTo|pablo at netfilter.org |netfilter-buglog at lists.netf

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

Rowland Penny wrote: > On 29/10/15 09:19, Viktor Trojanovic wrote: >> In a book I'm reading on Samba4, the author explains that network >> browsing doesn't work for Samba AD DCs... > The book is partially correct, nmbd shouldn't be run on a DC, but > there is a netbios server built into the samba binary but it doesn't > contain the browsing code. If you

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

I tried to close everything I had open and filter as best as I could.. but left random lines in just in case it helps. 172.16.5.230 is my local machine and *.33.235 is the server. This is a slow save.. 13:48:39.852340 (60) 001F5B35DB28 Broadcast UDP - Other Ports 172.16.5.93 172.16.5.255 00:04:53.922946 293.922946 13:48:39.852605 (60) 001F5B35DB28 USC-IANA

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

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

https://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

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795 Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo at netfilter.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Pablo Neira Ayuso

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

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole > punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my > network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because > one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT [...]. This type of NAT > will stop any UDP hole

On 11 November 2015 at 21:57, David Nicol <davidnicol at gmail.com> wrote: > it is entirely possible to write code that uses threads on Win32 and forks > on POSIX by abstracting the communication bits generically. Signalling could > work over pipes on both. > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365152(v=vs.85).aspx Hum... yes of course, but I

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

Hi Guus, Unfortunately, I often notice that even with the advanced UDP hole punching mechanisms that tinc uses, I still come across cases on my network where two nodes behind NATs cannot talk to each other because one of the nodes is behind a "strict" NAT that won't use consistent source ports for UDP packets that are sent to different destination addresses. More formally, this

On 12 November 2015 at 21:29, Guus Sliepen <guus at tinc-vpn.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 09:04:20PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: >> According to an online NAT check service, around 50% of NATs in the >> wild have this problem, making this a very real issue: >> http://nattest.net.in.tum.de/results.php > > Are you referring to port restricted NAT in the

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.4 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.4 Problems Corrected: 1. The error message: Error: No appropriate chain for zone <z1> to zone <z2> has been changed to one that is more self-explanatory: Error: No policy defined for zone <z1> to zone <z2> 2. When only an

fauno <fauno at kiwwwi.com.ar> writes: > Etienne Dechamps <etienne at edechamps.fr> writes: >> (I realize that this means UPnP support could possibly be achieved >> simply by suggesting that the user spawn some standalone UPnP client >> process in the background from the tinc-up hook. That's not very >> user-friendly, though. Especially on Windows.) >

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=917 Summary: Kernel OOPS on Kernel 3.14.2 Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P5 Component: NAT AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

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

Hi, I hope this hasn't already been discussed to death, but I didn't find the answer through Google. In short, my question is: how can I advertise a Samba server through UPnP/Network Discovery? I'm currently using Samba 3.2.6, but should be able to upgrade if needed. I am trying to build an IPv6-only network, for now just for testing purposes. The problem I am having is that