|
Posted by Skybuck Flying on February 9, 2008, 4:56 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Hello,
I have two computers directly connected via a UTP cable (for ethernet).
Both computers have wake on lan enabled.
Both computers use windows xp.
Both windows xp are told to not turn off the power for the nic/network
device.
Last night I shutdown the computers, I checked the nic leds on the back and
they were still burning.
Yesterday I also did some tests and then it was working.
This morning I check the computers and the leds of the nics are not burning
anymore ?!?!
It seems after a while they were shutdown ?
Can this be prevented ?
Maybe with some network/nic options ?
I have asus a8n32-sli with nvidia and marvel ethernet controllers and
3COMC2000 nic for older pc.
There is one setting which looks interesting which I haven't tried yet:
It says:
"Wake From Shutdown" Value: Off
Maybe I should put this to On ?
Sounds logical... but I need confirmation.
What exactly is "Wake from shutdown" ?
Bye,
Skybuck.
|
 
| |
Posted by Skybuck Flying on February 9, 2008, 5:01 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Ok,
I love answering my own questions, I SHARE THE FOLLOWING LINK WITH
YOOOOOUUUUUU:
http://209.167.114.38/support/techsupport/tsbs/all/-TSB001290.htm
It says for the marvel adapter (which happens to be my lan adapter) "it's
necessary to enable both settings":
1. WakeONLAN in motherboard bios (done that)
2. Wake from shutdown in adapter/driver/nic settings (did not do that) ;)
So I shall put it to on.
Don't know yet about 3COMC2000 nic in other pc... maybe it has similiar
options.
Today before I go to sleep I will check it out , put everything on ON, then
go to sleep.
And then I will try again the next morning ! ;)
Also I still need to find out a trick to wake up my internet computer from
the internet.
It's nic was on... but ofcourse the subnet directed broadcast didn't go past
the router.
But that's stuff/matter/subject for another discussion/thread :) actually
one already going on on tcp/ip newsgroup.
Bye,
Skybuck.
|
|
Posted by Skybuck Flying on February 10, 2008, 6:33 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Anyway, the local area connection is now active even while the other
computer is off.
Civilization 3 Conquest can now no longer host games properly because the pc
is now multi-homed and civ3 does not select the correct interface/local
address. So icmp port unreachable is sent back to clients trying to join the
game.
Bye,
Skybuck.
|
|
Posted by glen herrmannsfeldt on February 11, 2008, 5:50 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Civilization 3 Conquest can now no longer host games properly because the pc
> is now multi-homed and civ3 does not select the correct interface/local
> address. So icmp port unreachable is sent back to clients trying to join the
> game.
That would seem either a defect in civ3 or the IP implementation.
(Possibly a NAT implementation error.)
A TCP connection is defined by the quad (source address, source port,
destination address, destination port). Routing should get it out
the right path even with the other address.
It is usual for UDP to accept packets sent to any interface.
If a program binds to a specific interface when it isn't required,
I would consider it a defect.
-- glen
|
|
Posted by Vernon Schryver on February 11, 2008, 11:13 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>It is usual for UDP to accept packets sent to any interface.
>If a program binds to a specific interface when it isn't required,
>I would consider it a defect.
On the contrary, in servers for UDP based applications, failing
to bind to specific network interfaces is generally a serious bug,
or least evidence that the application is a toy.
When the server answers a request, it must send with the same source
IP address and port number as the client used for its destination IP
address and port number. Otherwise the response is quite likely to be
discarded by firewalls near near either end of the path. In many
UNIX-like TCP/IP implementations, the only way for an application to
know the destination IP address of a received UDP datagram is to receive
it on an socket bound to a specific IP address and so network interface.
Even in socket implementations with extensions that tell the application
the destination addresses of received UDP datagrams, the application
generally wants to have bound the socket from which it sends the response
to control the source address of the response. Binding a socket for
every response wastes CPU cycles, which argues for having outgoing
sockets bound to specific interfaces. Those bound sockets for sending
responses may as well be used for receiving requests.
Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: Ethernet connection sensitive to cable length | May 3, 2008, 12:37 pm |
| Can you connect two gigabit fibre NICs together? | August 6, 2006, 6:57 am |
| Want direct dialup access to my LAN | June 8, 2008, 4:16 pm |
| Direct connect Gigabit/Fast Ethernet | March 14, 2006, 9:43 pm |
| Connect to ethernet LAN through dial-up direct to a computer on the LAN? | May 29, 2008, 3:39 pm |
| Why doesn't a hub work for WAN sharing? | February 21, 2006, 10:27 pm |
| how does auto-mdix work | August 22, 2005, 6:56 pm |
| STOP what you’re doing - It doesn’t work! YCK5 | July 28, 2006, 5:28 pm |
| STOP what you’re doing - It doesn’t work! H7J8 | July 29, 2006, 1:34 pm |
| Please explain why an RJ45 splitter won't work | March 28, 2008, 2:03 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map