Search Results

Search found 3 results on 1 pages for 'srekel'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Ping "replies" from same computer with 'Destination host unreachable' (no route to other computer)

    - by Srekel
    I've got two computers in a LAN behind a wireless router. One has XP with ip 192.168.1.2 This one has W7 with ip 192.168.1.7 If I try to ping the other one from this computer, I get this: C:\Users\Srekel>ping 192.168.1.2 Pinging 192.168.1.2 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.1.7: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.1.7: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.1.7: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.1.7: Destination host unreachable. Ping statistics for 192.168.1.2: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Tracert gives the same result: C:\Users\Srekel>tracert 192.168.1.2 Tracing route to 192.168.1.2 over a maximum of 30 hops 1 Kakburken4 [192.168.1.7] reports: Destination host unreachable. Trace complete. Although I can ping and tracert the router without any problems. I have disabled the firewalls on both computers. The router is set to use DHCP (if that matters). Here is the output from "route". C:\Users\Srekel>route print =========================================================================== Interface List 13...00 25 86 df c6 89 ......TP-LINK Wireless N Adapter 12...e0 cb 4e 26 b9 84 ......Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller #2 11...e0 cb 4e 26 be 94 ......Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller 1...........................Software Loopback Interface 1 16...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Microsoft ISATAP Adapter #2 14...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface =========================================================================== IPv4 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.7 20 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 192.168.1.7 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: None IPv6 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: If Metric Network Destination Gateway 14 58 ::/0 On-link 1 306 ::1/128 On-link 14 58 2001::/32 On-link 14 306 2001:0:5ef5:73ba:881:20c1:3f57:fef8/128 On-link 14 306 fe80::/64 On-link 14 306 fe80::881:20c1:3f57:fef8/128 On-link 1 306 ff00::/8 On-link 14 306 ff00::/8 On-link =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: None I've set up and debugged a few networks in my life but I'm not really an advanced network user, so I'm not sure what might be wrong. Any ideas? Oh, and pinging this computer from the other computer doesn't work either.

    Read the article

  • Ping "replies" from same computer with 'Destination host unreachable' (no route to other computer)

    - by Srekel
    I've got two computers in a LAN behind a wireless router. One has XP with ip 192.168.1.2 This one has W7 with ip 192.168.1.7 If I try to ping the other one from this computer, I get this: C:\Users\Srekel>ping 192.168.1.2 Pinging 192.168.1.2 with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 192.168.1.7: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.1.7: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.1.7: Destination host unreachable. Reply from 192.168.1.7: Destination host unreachable. Ping statistics for 192.168.1.2: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Tracert gives the same result: C:\Users\Srekel>tracert 192.168.1.2 Tracing route to 192.168.1.2 over a maximum of 30 hops 1 Kakburken4 [192.168.1.7] reports: Destination host unreachable. Trace complete. Although I can ping and tracert the router without any problems. I have disabled the firewalls on both computers. The router is set to use DHCP (if that matters). Here is the output from "route". C:\Users\Srekel>route print =========================================================================== Interface List 13...00 25 86 df c6 89 ......TP-LINK Wireless N Adapter 12...e0 cb 4e 26 b9 84 ......Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller #2 11...e0 cb 4e 26 be 94 ......Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller 1...........................Software Loopback Interface 1 16...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Microsoft ISATAP Adapter #2 14...00 00 00 00 00 00 00 e0 Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface =========================================================================== IPv4 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.7 20 127.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.0.0.1 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 127.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 192.168.1.7 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 192.168.1.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 224.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 127.0.0.1 306 255.255.255.255 255.255.255.255 On-link 192.168.1.7 276 =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: None IPv6 Route Table =========================================================================== Active Routes: If Metric Network Destination Gateway 14 58 ::/0 On-link 1 306 ::1/128 On-link 14 58 2001::/32 On-link 14 306 2001:0:5ef5:73ba:881:20c1:3f57:fef8/128 On-link 14 306 fe80::/64 On-link 14 306 fe80::881:20c1:3f57:fef8/128 On-link 1 306 ff00::/8 On-link 14 306 ff00::/8 On-link =========================================================================== Persistent Routes: None I've set up and debugged a few networks in my life but I'm not really an advanced network user, so I'm not sure what might be wrong. Any ideas? Oh, and pinging this computer from the other computer doesn't work either. EDIT: Adding arp output: C:\Users\Srekel>arp -a Interface: 192.168.1.7 --- 0xd Internet Address Physical Address Type 192.168.1.1 00-1f-33-ef-28-01 dynamic 192.168.1.255 ff-ff-ff-ff-ff-ff static 224.0.0.22 01-00-5e-00-00-16 static 224.0.0.252 01-00-5e-00-00-fc static 239.255.255.250 01-00-5e-7f-ff-fa static 255.255.255.255 ff-ff-ff-ff-ff-ff static Adding ipconfig... C:\Users\Srekel>ipconfig /all Windows IP Configuration Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : Kakburken4 Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No Wireless LAN adapter Wireless Network Connection: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : TP-LINK Wireless N Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-25-86-DF-C6-89 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.7(Preferred) Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : 09 April 2010 23:09:45 Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : 10 April 2010 23:09:45 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1 DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Enabled Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 2: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller #2 Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : E0-CB-4E-26-B9-84 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Realtek PCIe GBE Family Controller Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : E0-CB-4E-26-BE-94 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes Tunnel adapter isatap.{74D5C406-894E-4000-8DE7-6AAEBF7C8382}: Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Microsoft ISATAP Adapter #2 Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-E0 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes Tunnel adapter Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-E0 DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 2001:0:5ef5:73ba:881:20c1:3f57:fef8(Preferred) Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::881:20c1:3f57:fef8%14(Preferred) Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : :: NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled

    Read the article

  • When and why can sprintf fail?

    - by Srekel
    I'm using swprintf to build a string into a buffer (using a loop among other things). const int MaxStringLengthPerCharacter = 10 + 1; wchar_t* pTmp = pBuffer; for ( size_t i = 0; i < nNumPlayers ; ++i) { const int nPlayerId = GetPlayer(i); const int nWritten = swprintf(pTmp, MaxStringLengthPerCharacter, TEXT("%d,"), nPlayerId); assert(nWritten >= 0 ); pTmp += nWritten; } *pTaskPlayers = '\0'; If during testing the assert never hits, can I be sure that it will never hit in live code? That is, do I need to check if nWritten < 0 and handle that, or can I safely assume that there won't be a problem? Under which circumstances can it return -1? The documentation more or less just states "If the function fails". In one place I've read that it will fail if it can't match the arguments (i.e. the formatting string to the varargs) but that doesn't worry me. I'm also not worried about buffer overrun in this case - I know the buffer is big enough.

    Read the article

1