Search Results

Search found 324 results on 13 pages for 'rfc 1918'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/13 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • RFC 1918 address on open internet?

    - by longneck
    In trying to diagnose a failover problem with my Cisco ASA 5520 firewalls, I ran a traceroute to www.btfl.com and, much to my surprise, some of the hops came back as RFC 1918 addresses. Just to be clear, this host is not behind my firewall and there is no VPN involved. I have to connect across the open internet to get there. How/why is this possible? asa# traceroute www.btfl.com Tracing the route to 157.56.176.94 1 <redacted> 2 <redacted> 3 <redacted> 4 <redacted> 5 nap-edge-04.inet.qwest.net (67.14.29.170) 0 msec 10 msec 10 msec 6 65.122.166.30 0 msec 0 msec 10 msec 7 207.46.34.23 10 msec 0 msec 10 msec 8 * * * 9 207.46.37.235 30 msec 30 msec 50 msec 10 10.22.112.221 30 msec 10.22.112.219 30 msec 10.22.112.223 30 msec 11 10.175.9.193 30 msec 30 msec 10.175.9.67 30 msec 12 100.94.68.79 40 msec 100.94.70.79 30 msec 100.94.71.73 30 msec 13 100.94.80.39 30 msec 100.94.80.205 40 msec 100.94.80.137 40 msec 14 10.215.80.2 30 msec 10.215.68.16 30 msec 10.175.244.2 30 msec 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * and it does the same thing from my FiOS connection at home: C:\>tracert www.btfl.com Tracing route to www.btfl.com [157.56.176.94] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms myrouter.home [192.168.1.1] 2 8 ms 7 ms 8 ms <redacted> 3 10 ms 13 ms 11 ms <redacted> 4 12 ms 10 ms 10 ms ae2-0.TPA01-BB-RTR2.verizon-gni.net [130.81.199.82] 5 16 ms 16 ms 15 ms 0.ae4.XL2.MIA19.ALTER.NET [152.63.8.117] 6 14 ms 16 ms 16 ms 0.xe-11-0-0.GW1.MIA19.ALTER.NET [152.63.85.94] 7 19 ms 16 ms 16 ms microsoft-gw.customer.alter.net [63.65.188.170] 8 27 ms 33 ms * ge-5-3-0-0.ash-64cb-1a.ntwk.msn.net [207.46.46.177] 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 44 ms 43 ms 43 ms 207.46.37.235 11 42 ms 41 ms 40 ms 10.22.112.225 12 42 ms 43 ms 43 ms 10.175.9.1 13 42 ms 41 ms 42 ms 100.94.68.79 14 40 ms 40 ms 41 ms 100.94.80.193 15 * * * Request timed out.

    Read the article

  • Openswan + xl2tpd connections time out after a while

    - by Halfgaar
    I have a non-NATed Openswan+xl2tpd server (Ubuntu 12.04), to which I connect with a Windows 8 behind NAT. The client loses its connection after a while of doing nothing (between 30 and 60 minutes, but I didn't time it). The client doesn't have enabled that it should kill inactive connections. Nor does it ever go into sleep mode. I also tried setting the kill-after-time to 24 hours, but that didn't help. The NAT router behind which the client located is Debian Linux, and its router is a Cisco which connects us directly to the data center where the server is. None of our other connections, like SSH, get dropped with inactivity (because of cheap routers). I did however try turning on the keepalives in /etc/ipsec.conf: config setup (...snip...) nat_traversal=yes force_keepalive=yes keep_alive=10 but that didn't help. As you can see in the config later, dead peer detection's action is clear. That would be a first suggestion to fix, but I need clear, because people will be connecting from everwhere but the kitchen sink. Besides, as I said, in the test setup I have now, I can't see any device killing its connection. (edit: 'restart' also has the same effect) These are of one time it happened: Jul 18 16:18:06 host xl2tpd[1918]: Maximum retries exceeded for tunnel 49070. Closing. Jul 18 16:18:06 host xl2tpd[1918]: Terminating pppd: sending TERM signal to pid 18359 Jul 18 16:18:06 host xl2tpd[1918]: Connection 4 closed to 89.188.x.y, port 1701 (Timeout) Jul 18 16:18:11 host xl2tpd[1918]: Unable to deliver closing message for tunnel 49070. Destroying anyway. and these on another: Jul 18 17:44:39 host xl2tpd[1918]: udp_xmit failed to 89.188.x.y:1701 with err=-1:Operation not permitted Jul 18 17:44:43 xl2tpd[1918]: last message repeated 4 times Jul 18 17:44:43 host xl2tpd[1918]: Maximum retries exceeded for tunnel 10918. Closing. Jul 18 17:44:43 host xl2tpd[1918]: udp_xmit failed to 89.188.x.y:1701 with err=-1:Operation not permitted Jul 18 17:44:43 host xl2tpd[1918]: Terminating pppd: sending TERM signal to pid 26338 Jul 18 17:44:43 host xl2tpd[1918]: Connection 6 closed to 89.188.x.y, port 1701 (Timeout) Jul 18 17:44:44 host xl2tpd[1918]: udp_xmit failed to 89.188.x.y:1701 with err=-1:Operation not permitted Jul 18 17:44:48 xl2tpd[1918]: last message repeated 3 times Jul 18 17:44:48 host xl2tpd[1918]: Unable to deliver closing message for tunnel 10918. Destroying anyway. Jul 18 17:44:59 host xl2tpd[1918]: Can not find tunnel 10918 (refhim=0) Jul 18 17:44:59 host xl2tpd[1918]: network_thread: unable to find call or tunnel to handle packet. call = 0, tunnel = 10918 Dumping. Jul 18 17:45:09 host xl2tpd[1918]: Can not find tunnel 10918 (refhim=0) Jul 18 17:45:09 host xl2tpd[1918]: network_thread: unable to find call or tunnel to handle packet. call = 0, tunnel = 10918 Dumping. Jul 18 17:45:19 host xl2tpd[1918]: Can not find tunnel 10918 (refhim=0) Jul 18 17:45:19 host xl2tpd[1918]: network_thread: unable to find call or tunnel to handle packet. call = 0, tunnel = 10918 Dumping. Jul 18 17:45:29 host xl2tpd[1918]: Can not find tunnel 10918 (refhim=0) Jul 18 17:45:29 host xl2tpd[1918]: network_thread: unable to find call or tunnel to handle packet. call = 0, tunnel = 10918 Dumping. Jul 18 17:45:39 host xl2tpd[1918]: Can not find tunnel 10918 (refhim=0) Jul 18 17:45:39 host xl2tpd[1918]: network_thread: unable to find call or tunnel to handle packet. call = 0, tunnel = 10918 Dumping. Jul 18 17:45:49 host xl2tpd[1918]: Can not find tunnel 10918 (refhim=0) Jul 18 17:45:49 host xl2tpd[1918]: network_thread: unable to find call or tunnel to handle packet. call = 0, tunnel = 10918 Dumping. Versions: Ubuntu 12.04 Openswan: 2.6.37-1 xl2tpd: 3.1+dfsg-1 kernel: 3.2.0-49-generic configs: /etc/ipsec.conf: version 2.0 # conforms to second version of ipsec.conf specification config setup nat_traversal=yes virtual_private=%v4:10.0.0.0/8,%v4:192.168.0.0/16,%v4:172.16.0.0/12,%v4:!10.152.2.0/24 oe=off protostack=netkey force_keepalive=yes keep_alive=10 conn L2TP-PSK-NAT rightsubnet=vhost:%priv also=L2TP-PSK-noNAT conn L2TP-PSK-noNAT authby=secret pfs=no auto=add keyingtries=2 rekey=no dpddelay=30 dpdtimeout=120 dpdaction=clear ikelifetime=8h keylife=1h type=transport left=%defaultroute leftprotoport=17/1701 right=%any rightprotoport=17/%any /etc/xl2tpd/xl2tpd.conf [global] ipsec saref = no [lns default] ip range = 10.152.2.2-10.152.2.254 local ip = 10.152.2.1 refuse chap = yes refuse pap = yes require authentication = yes ppp debug = no pppoptfile = /etc/ppp/options.xl2tpd length bit = yes /etc/ppp/options.xl2tpd: require-mschap-v2 refuse-mschap ms-dns 10.152.2.1 asyncmap 0 auth crtscts idle 1800 mtu 1200 mru 1200 lock hide-password local #debug name l2tpd proxyarp lcp-echo-interval 30 lcp-echo-failure 4

    Read the article

  • FreeBSD slow transfers - RFC 1323 scaling issue?

    - by Trey
    I think I may be having an issue with window scaling (RFC 1323) and am hoping that someone can enlighten me on what's going on. Server: FreeBSD 9, apache22, serving a static 100MB zip file. 192.168.18.30 Client: Mac OS X 10.6, Firefox 192.168.17.47 Network: Only a switch between them - the subnet is 192.168.16/22 (In this test, I also have dummynet filtering simulating an 80ms ping time on all IP traffic. I've seen nearly identical traces with a "real" setup, with real internet traffic/latency also) Questions: Does this look normal? Is packet #2 specifying a window size of 65535 and a scale of 512? Is packet #5 then shrinking the window size so it can use the 512 scale and still keep the overall calculated window size near 64K? Why is the window scale so high? Here are the first 6 packets from wireshark. For packets 5 and 6 I've included the details showing the window size and scaling factor being used for the data transfer. Code: No. Time Source Destination Protocol Length Info 108 6.699922 192.168.17.47 192.168.18.30 TCP 78 49190 http [SYN] Seq=0 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=8 TSval=945617489 TSecr=0 SACK_PERM=1 115 6.781971 192.168.18.30 192.168.17.47 TCP 74 http 49190 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=65535 Len=0 MSS=1460 WS=512 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=2617517338 TSecr=945617489 116 6.782218 192.168.17.47 192.168.18.30 TCP 66 49190 http [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=524280 Len=0 TSval=945617490 TSecr=2617517338 117 6.782220 192.168.17.47 192.168.18.30 HTTP 490 GET /utils/speedtest/large.file.zip HTTP/1.1 118 6.867070 192.168.18.30 192.168.17.47 TCP 375 [TCP segment of a reassembled PDU] Details: Transmission Control Protocol, Src Port: http (80), Dst Port: 49190 (49190), Seq: 1, Ack: 425, Len: 309 Source port: http (80) Destination port: 49190 (49190) [Stream index: 4] Sequence number: 1 (relative sequence number) [Next sequence number: 310 (relative sequence number)] Acknowledgement number: 425 (relative ack number) Header length: 32 bytes Flags: 0x018 (PSH, ACK) Window size value: 130 [Calculated window size: 66560] [Window size scaling factor: 512] Checksum: 0xd182 [validation disabled] Options: (12 bytes) No-Operation (NOP) No-Operation (NOP) Timestamps: TSval 2617517423, TSecr 945617490 [SEQ/ACK analysis] TCP segment data (309 bytes) Note: originally posted http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=32552

    Read the article

  • Isn't NAT a MUST when a LAN uses rfc 1918 private IPs?

    - by aks
    Isn't NAT a MUST when a LAN uses rfc 1918 private IPs? Can an organization assign its hosts with private IPs and still communicate with the external world without NAT? how can an internal host with a private IP (say 10.1.1.1) communicate with external world without NAT? I mean, how can the reply/response packet from the external world reach the original source as the packet with Dest IP = 10.1.1.1 will get lost as it can not be routed as many organizations can use the same IP. Why doesn't rfc 1918 (Address Allocation for Private Internets) make any mention of NAT?

    Read the article

  • RFC Repository of programming RFC's with ability to direct-link sections or even lines?

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    Forgive me if this is the wrong place to ask this, I feel like the question is slightly off-topic even though it is also about programming. I am inputting todo-tasks for my WebDAV-project into my issue tracker, as I read through the relevant RFC's, and it would be nice to be able to add a link in my issue text directly to the relevant text, instead of just a link to the RFC file with a section number in the issue text, and then I have to use the find function to find it. For instance, a link like this: http://ieft.org/rfc2518.txt#1000 <-- line 1000 http://ieft.org/rfc2518.txt#9.8.3 <-- section 9.8.3 Neither of these two works, since they just post the full text files, so my question is this: Does anyone know of hosted versions of the RFC documents that contains such links?

    Read the article

  • Proggraming a VPN, Authontication stage - RFC not clear enough

    - by John
    I have a custom build of a unix OS. My task: Adding an IPSec to the OS. I am working on Phase I, done sending the first 2 packets. what I am trying to do now is making the Identefication Payload. I've been reading RFC 2409 (Apendix B) which discuss the keying materials (SKEYID, SKEYID_d, SKEYID_a, SKEYID_e and the IV making). Now, I use SHA1 for authontication and thus I use HMAC-SHA1 & my encryption algorithem is AES 256bit. The real problem is that the RFC is not clear enough of what should I do regarding the PRF. It says: "Use of negotiated PRFs may require the PRF output to be expanded due to the PRF feedback mechanism employed by this document." I use SHA1, does it mean I do not negotiate a PRF? In my opinion, AES is the only algorithm that needs expention (a fixed length of 256bit), so, do i need to expand only the SKEYID_e? If you happen to know a clearer, though relible, source then the RFC please post a link. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Routing RFC1918 addresses through dd-wrt via a switch

    - by espenfjo
    I am a bit stuck with an experiment of mine. I have a network looking somewhat like this. | Internet | | ---- |Switch| ---- | | Server w/pub IP | DD-WRT router 192.168.1.1 | | RFC1918 clients 192.168.1.0/24 What I want is for the RFC1918 clients to speak directly with each others. On the server with the public IP I have this route: 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 scope link and can see that packets are infact reaching the dd-wrt router for 192.168.1.1, even though if I get no answer. Trying to reach one of the RFC1918 clients from the public IP server will get no result, as the dd-wrt router is not announcing that network on to its external interface (arp who-has 192.168.1.107 tell xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, but no answer). The router being an WLAN dd-wrt router has of course a load of routes, VLANs and interfaces: xxx.xxx.xxx.1 dev vlan2 scope link 192.168.1.0/24 dev br0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.244 84.215.64.0/18 dev vlan2 proto kernel scope link src xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx 169.254.0.0/16 dev br0 proto kernel scope link src 169.254.255.1 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link 0.0.0.0 via xxx.xxx.xxx.1 dev vlan2 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx being the public IP, and xxx.xxx.xxx.1 being the default route for the public IP. I am not sure where to continue with this. I would recon that I both need routing on the dd-wrt router, as well as some iptables magic? Why do something this complex? Why not ;) Also, do not mind that "Internet" can get RFC1918 traffic, it wont go outside of the walls. EDIT 1: Following the tip from stew I do indeed get the correct ARP flowing. And adding an iptables rule for allowing traffic from that specific public IPd machine I get traffic between the systems! Oddly enough though, the speed I get from Server w/pub IP - RFC1918 clients are the same as if the traffic were routed out onto the Internet and back. Edit 2: Ok, disconnecting the external Internet connection will still give the same, crappy transfer speed. So it has to be something else. Edit 3: Ok, I guess there are other reasons for this crappy speed. Case closed. :)

    Read the article

  • Future SAP RFC SDK

    - by Elmex
    Is the SAP RFC SDK (wdtfuncs.ocx, wdtlog.ocx respectively Interop.SAPFunctionsOCX.dll, Interop.SAPLogonCtrl.dll) an acceptable / recommended way to connect (Microsoft) applications via RFCs with SAP ? Will there be a support and maintenance of the SDK in the future (especially in ECC 6.0) ? Are there people who use these controls in .NET applications ?

    Read the article

  • RFC quoted-string definition

    - by Jacco
    Hello, In RFCs there are references to quoted-string now I understand that this means a string contained in quotes. However, I'm unable to find the definition of what exactly is a valid quoted string. /"[^"]"/ = a correctly quoted string. /'[^']'/ = is this also a correctly quoted string? In other words, are both ' and " allowed as quotes when an RFC specifies quoted-string? Bonus points: In what document is this specified?

    Read the article

  • How do you comment on an RFC?

    - by Greg Beech
    I have some comments about the OAuth draft RFC (specifically about some errors it contains), but I'm not sure what the accepted way is to make them. There's an email address at the bottom, so do I simply send mail there with the comments, or is there some IETF tool I should know about for tracking comments/issues?

    Read the article

  • Future of the SAP RFC SDK

    - by Elmex
    Is the SAP RFC SDK (wdtfuncs.ocx, wdtlog.ocx respectively Interop.SAPFunctionsOCX.dll, Interop.SAPLogonCtrl.dll) an acceptable / recommended way to connect (Microsoft) applications via RFCs with SAP ? Will there be a support and maintenance of the SDK in the future (especially in ECC 6.0) ? Are there people who use these controls in .NET applications ?

    Read the article

  • Details of RFC 2326 10.12

    - by VSC
    I am using RFC 2326 10.12 and I want to make sure I am correct. The examples confuse me. From what I understand, the header described consists of four bytes. [$][channel#][MSByte of length][LSByte of length]{data...} Is this the common convention?

    Read the article

  • Is quoted-printable enough to make a mail compliant with the line-length-restriction posed in RFC 2822?

    - by Mnementh
    In RFC 2822 (defining E-Mail) is defined, that no line SHOULD be longer than 78 chars (excluding CRLF) and MUST not longer than 998 characters. With quoted-printable longer lines will be broken into more lines, ending each with a '=' until the real linebreak is reached. Conforms a mail to the standard, if it contains lines longer than 78 (or 998) characters but is encoded with quoted-printable? There are arguments, that this isn't compliant, because the receiving mail-client has longer lines after decoding the quoted-printable message.

    Read the article

  • IBus icon is missing at startup?

    - by quanta
    After some installing, tweaking, ... the IBus icon is missing at startup, although it's working fine: $ ps -ef | grep [i]bus quanta 1918 1890 0 09:54 ? 00:00:01 /usr/bin/ibus-daemon --xim quanta 1946 1918 0 09:54 ? 00:00:00 /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/ibus/ibus-gconf quanta 1948 1918 0 09:54 ? 00:00:00 /usr/bin/python /usr/share/ibus/ui/gtk/main.py quanta 1951 1 0 09:54 ? 00:00:00 /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/ibus/ibus-x11 --kill-daemon quanta 1987 1918 0 09:54 ? 00:00:00 /usr/lib/ibus-unikey/ibus-engine-unikey --ibus I can make it appear by restarting the ibus-daemon: $ ibus-daemon -x -r -d I also have tried to add the IBus to the System tray whitelist but nothing changes. How can I troubleshoot this issue?

    Read the article

  • Debugging OWB generated SAP ABAP code executed through RFC

    - by Anil Menon
    Within OWB if you need to execute ABAP code using RFC you will have to use the SAP Function Module RFC_ABAP_INSTALL_AND_RUN. This function module is specified during the creation of the SAP source location. Usually in a Production environment a copy of this function module is used due to security restrictions. When you execute the mapping by using this Function Module you can’t see the actual ABAP code that is passed on to the SAP system. In case you want to take a look at the code that will be executed on the SAP system you need to use a custom Function Module in SAP. The easiest way to do this is to make a copy of the Function Module RFC_ABAP_INSTALL_AND_RUN and call it say Z_TEST_FM. Then edit the code of the Function Module in SAP as below FUNCTION Z_TEST_FM . DATA: BEGIN OF listobj OCCURS 20. INCLUDE STRUCTURE abaplist. DATA: END OF listobj. DATA: begin_of_line(72). DATA: line_end_char(1). DATA: line_length type I. DATA: lin(72). loop at program. append program-line to WRITES. endloop. ENDFUNCTION. Within OWB edit the SAP Location and use Z_TEST_FM as the “Execution Function Module” instead of  RFC_ABAP_INSTALL_AND_RUN. Then register this location. The Mapping you want to debug will have to be deployed. After deployment you can right click the mapping and click on “Start”.   After clicking start the “Input Parameters” screen will be displayed. You can make changes here if you need to. Check that the parameter BACKGROUND is set to “TRUE”. After Clicking “OK” the log for the execution will be displayed. The execution of Mappings will always fail when you use the above function module. Clicking on the icon “I” (information) the ABAP code will be displayed.   The ABAP code displayed is the code that is passed through the Function Module. You can also find the code by going through the log files on the server which hosts the OWB repository. The logs will be located under <OWB_HOME>/owb/log. Patch #12951045 is recommended while using the SAP Connector with OWB 11.2.0.2. For recommended patches for other releases please check with Oracle Support at http://support.oracle.com

    Read the article

  • Why Illegal cookies are send by Browser and received by web servers (rfc 2109, 2965)?

    - by Artyom
    Hello, According to RFC 2109, 2965 cookie's value can be either HTTP token or quoted string, and token can't include non-ASCII characters. Cookie's RFC 2109 and RFC2965 HTTP's RFC 2068 token definition: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#page-16 However I had found that Firefox browser (3.0.6) sends cookies with utf-8 string as-is and three web servers I tested (apache2, lighttpd, nginx) pass this string as-is to the application. For example, raw request from browser: $ nc -l -p 8080 GET /hello HTTP/1.1 Host: localhost:8080 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.9) Gecko/2009050519 Firefox/2.0.0.13 (Debian-3.0.6-1) Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 Accept-Language: en-us,en;q=0.5 Accept-Encoding: gzip,deflate Accept-Charset: windows-1255,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7 Keep-Alive: 300 Connection: keep-alive Cookie: wikipp=1234; wikipp_username=?????? Cache-Control: max-age=0 And raw response of apache, nginx and lighttpd HTTP_COOKIE CGI variable: wikipp=1234; wikipp_username=?????? What do I miss? Can somebody explain me?

    Read the article

  • Is there a common X-Header for RFC 2821 "MAIL FROM"? Should it be DKIM signed?

    - by makerofthings7
    w.r.t. the difference between RFC2821 MAIL From and RFC2822 FROM I'm considering having my MTA add a header specifying what was sent in the MAIL FROM portion of the envelope. The RFC2821 header is used for receiving email bouncebacks, and is the header that is checked in SPF and some SenderID configurations. The goal is to make it easier for diagnostics and debugging by having this low level information in the email header. What is an acceptable name for this SMTP header? Should this header be signed by DKIM? Is there any reason why it shouldn't be signed?

    Read the article

  • How to implement RFC 3393 (Ipdv packet delay varation) in C?

    - by sagar
    Hello , I am building an Ethernet Application in which i will be sending packets from one side and receiving it on the other side. I want to calculate delay in packets at the receiver side as in RFC 3393. So I have to put a timestamps in the packet at the sender side and then take the timestamps at the receiver side as soon as i receive the packet . Subtracting the values i will get the difference in timestamps and then subtracting this value with subsequent difference i will get One way ipdv delay . Both the clocks are not synchronized . So any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • BGP Dual-As support, any RFC?

    - by Saran
    Generally most of routers like cisco and junos allow a router to have dual-As to be configured via a "local-as" command which overrides the global as-number configured in "router bgp ". Also local-as prepending may or may not happen based on configurations; for example "no-prepend" in cisco. Now my question is, is there any RFC which which standardises this Dual-As support?? Which provides guidelines on whether or not to prepend the "local-as" to As-Path attributes in the Bgp updates ?

    Read the article

  • "RFC 2833 RTP Event" Consecutive Events and the E "End" Bit

    - by brian_d
    Hello, I can send out a RFC 2833 dtmf event as outlined at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2833.txt When I do set the E "End" bit, but leave it as 0, I get the following behaviour: If for example keys 7874556332111111145855885#3 were pressed, then ALL events would be sent and show up in a program like wireshark, however only 87456321458585#3 would sound. So the first key (which I figure could be a separate issue) and any repeats of an event (ie 11111) are failing to sound. In section 3.9, figure 2 of the above linked document, they give a 911 example. Here all but the last event have the E bit set. When I set the bit for all numbers, I never get an event to sound. I have thought of a couple possible thing but do not know if they are the reason: 1) figure 2 shows payload types of 96 and 97 sent. I have not nor know how to exactly. In section 3.8, codes 96 and 97 are described as "the dynamic payload types 96 and 97 have been assigned for the redundancy mechanism and the telephone event payload respectively" 2) In section 3.5, "E:", "A sender MAY delay setting the end bit until retransmitting the last packet for a tone, rather than on its first transmission" Does anyone have an idea of how to actually do this? I have also fiddled around with timestamp intervals and the RTP marker. Any help is greatly appreciated. Here is a sample wireshark event capture of the relevant areas: 6590 31.159045000 xx.x.x.xxx --.--.---.-- RTP EVENT Payload type=RTP Event, DTMF Pound # (end) Real-Time Transport Protocol Stream setup by SDP (frame 6225) Setup frame: 6225 Setup Method: SDP 10.. .... = Version: RFC 1889 Version (2) ..0. .... = Padding: False ...0 .... = Extension: False .... 0000 = Contributing source identifiers count: 0 0... .... = Marker: False Payload type: telephone-event (101) Sequence number: 0 Extended sequence number: 65536 Timestamp: 0 Synchronization Source identifier: 0x15f27104 (368210180) RFC 2833 RTP Event Event ID: DTMF Pound # (11) 1... .... = End of Event: True .0.. .... = Reserved: False ..00 0000 = Volume: 0 Event Duration: 2048

    Read the article

  • Which software could I use to setup a 4in6 IP tunnel (RFC 2473) on GNU/Linux

    - by Mildred
    Here is my problem. I have a server A that has two IP addresses. One public IPv4 and one IPv6. Server B has only one IPv6 address. I want to host most of my services on server B (because I have more disk space on it, I can control it better) but I need the IPv4 of the server A. I would like to set up a 4in6 tunnel (RFC 2473) between A and B so that I can transfer the traffic from the IPv4 address in A to B. If needed, I can request another IPv4 address on the server A, but I'd prefer not to. My question is: which software use to do the 4in6 tunnelling? I suppose OpenVPN can do the thing, but is there any implementation of the 4in6 protocol on Linux? A little more challenging: the IPv4 address comes from a venet interface, which cannot be bridged. How could I transfer ownership of this address I don't use on server A to the server B? Thank you

    Read the article

  • ADSL with RFC 2684 Bridging

    - by Axel Isouard
    My new ADSL line is now enabled, I can finally use my Netgear DM111Pv2 to use to the Internet. My ISP has told me a big surprise : I don't need to use a login and a password to connect to the Internet, then I must use the RFC 2684 bridging mode. It works pretty fine on the ADSL modem's side, but I've spent one night trying to figure out how to connect to the Internet through this modem. I only have a Fonera 2.0n and a computer running Gentoo Linux. I've been trying to use the br2684ctl utility with brctl on my Gentoo, first I've configured my kernel in that way : CONFIG_PPP=y CONFIG_PPP_BSDCOMP=y CONFIG_PPP_DEFLATE=y # CONFIG_PPP_FILTER is not set CONFIG_PPP_MPPE=y # CONFIG_PPP_MULTILINK is not set CONFIG_PPPOATM=y CONFIG_PPPOE=y CONFIG_PPP_ASYNC=y CONFIG_PPP_SYNC_TTY=y [...] CONFIG_ATM=y CONFIG_ATM_CLIP=y CONFIG_ATM_CLIP_NO_ICMP=y CONFIG_ATM_LANE=y CONFIG_ATM_MPOA=y CONFIG_ATM_BR2684=y # CONFIG_ATM_BR2684_IPFILTER is not set And I still get these messages : cirus nais # br2684ctl -b -c 0 -e 0 -a 8.35 br2684ctl[8041]: Interface "nas0" created sucessfully br2684ctl[8041]: Communicating over ATM 0.8.35, encapsulation: LLC br2684ctl[8041]: Fatal: failed to connect on socket; No such device The brctl utility keeps telling me "Invalid argument" each time I try to add the nas0 interface into my bridge, I'm honestly hoping I'm doing wrong. I've been following this README carefully and this tutorial on setting up a PPPoE connection with Gentoo, but the PPPoE interface just tries to start, and nothing special related to PPP happens, I can't see the interface when I do ifconfig. So, I'm asking you if there's something huge I've been missing since the beginning ! Maybe I should wait to buy a new router fully supporting the RFC2684 bridging mode, but I'm more interested in setting up this mode on my Fonera 2.0n and even my Raspberry Pi !

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >