Kieran Mansley writes:
>
>
> On 13 Jan 2012, at 08:56, Philippe VENAULT wrote:
>
> > Would you have an idea where it is getting this other IP from ?!
>
> What is the other IP address? Could it be an auto-IP one?
>
> Kieran
>
I have a local network with a PC, my equipment and a switch.
IP
"Philippe VENAULT" wrote:
I have a local network with a PC, my equipment and a switch.
IP Addr switch : 192.168.0.1
IP Addr PC : 192.168.0.2
IP Addr Equipment : 192.168.0.3
Ping from PC to equipment
first request : ARP => the PC searchs who is 192.168.0.3 ?
Reply : ARP => Equipment replys 192
I'm using 1.3.2 and was playing with reducing the size of PBUF_POOL_SIZE to
save RAM. I reduced it from 15 to 13, then I sometimes get processor
exceptions. Things were really quite stable as they were, but I just
can't leave well enough alone I guess. Regardless, I would assume this sort of
Thank you so much for your reply . This does give me my answer.
I now have another question . I know somehow this Send function should be
able to interface with my struct net_device and call the
netdev->hard_start_xmit , But how do I get the struct net_device *netdev
for my eth0 interface for the l
Gisle Vanem writes:
>
> "Philippe VENAULT" wrote:
>
> > I have a local network with a PC, my equipment and a switch.
> > IP Addr switch : 192.168.0.1
> > IP Addr PC : 192.168.0.2
> > IP Addr Equipment : 192.168.0.3
> >
> > Ping from PC to equipment
> >
> > first request : ARP => the PC searc
Good evening,
Is there any reason why I need to fragment the outgoing packet myself? I
guess it has something to do with the memory allocation but I can't put my
finger on it.
If I set TCP_BLOCKS_SIZE in the code below to KB(14) I receive the data I
requested on the client side, however if I set
On 17 Jan 2012, at 14:22, Philippe VENAULT wrote:
>
> No it is not the Mac-Addr of the switch but it's not either the same that I
> have
> configured by software. For example, I configure 00:0a:35:00:01:AA for
> 192.168.0.3 and the reply is 00:0a:35:00:01:2A for 128.232.0.3.
>
> I have try w
On 17 Jan 2012, at 15:38, dipswi...@hackinthebox.nl wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> Is there any reason why I need to fragment the outgoing packet myself? I
> guess it has something to do with the memory allocation but I can't put my
> finger on it.
>
> If I set TCP_BLOCKS_SIZE in the code below to
On 01/17/2012 08:34 PM, Kieran Mansley wrote:
It's not obvious what the problem is. Which version of lwIP?
Thanks for your time! I forgot some essential info yeah, sorry about that.
I'm using LwIP v1.4.0 with a Tripple Speed Ethernet MAC driver modified
for multi-tasking. The system is a Nios
Hello all,
I can provide more details than this (incl. lwip debgs and wireshark
logs) but I wanted to find out first if there is something obvious
before imposing on people to parse my detailed data. I have tried to
search for relevant Q&A's but with no success.
I have a lwip based system r
Ian Wilson wrote:
> This all works for the first connection. The problem is that incoming
> packets are not "detected" by lwip_select for subsequent connections to
> the listener (after closing the first connection of course).
> [..]
> Is this something obvious? If not I will provide some code
11 matches
Mail list logo
