James, >>Are you sure that the details you've given below are correct? According to >>what you've specified you have: It is not a correct IP addresses. Its just an example. but i am sure that both the machines are in same network through wired but not throug wireless.
>>Your problem doesn't appear to be anything specific to VNC, since it's a >>more general problem with the setup of your network. You are right. because if i remove wired connection cable then it is connecting successfuly via wireless IP address. I think i need to change my network architecture to make this working. Thanks, Paresh On 7/14/08, James Weatherall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paresh, > > Are you sure that the details you've given below are correct? According to > what you've specified you have: > > Machine X: > Wired IP 148.88.162.134, netmask 255.255.252.0 => subnet 148.88.160.0 > Wireless IP 148.88.163.239, netmask 255.255.192.0 => subnet 148.88.128.0 > > Machine Y: > Wired IP 148.88.172.239, netmask 255.255.252.0 => subnet 148.88.172.0 > > Ignoring the wireless for a moment, machine X and machine Y are on > different > subnets, and so cannot communicate directly as you describe in (3). > > The wireless link has a different netmask, which will cause things to > behave > unreliably - over the wireless link X thinks that Y is on the same subnet, > but Y doesn't think that, and so will try route packets back to X via a > gateway. > > Your problem doesn't appear to be anything specific to VNC, since it's a > more general problem with the setup of your network. > > Cheers, > > -- > Wez @ RealVNC Ltd > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of paresh masani > > Sent: 14 July 2008 11:26 > > To: Seak, Teng-Fong > > Cc: vnc-list@realvnc.com > > Subject: Re: VNC server will not listen on interface that has > > been added after VNC Service started > > > > Hi Seak, > > > > I got the exact output seauence about this problem. Please > > refer the following steps that i performed. Please note that > > wireless packates gone through the firewall. > > > > 1. Machine X has the two interface wired IP: > > 148.88.162.134netmask: > > 255.255.252.0 and Wireless: 148.88.163.239 netmask:255.255.192.0 > > 2. Machine Y has one interface wired IP: > > 148.88.172.239 netmask: > > 255.255.252.0 > > 3. Machne Y tries to take VNC of machine X via > > wired IP then it is working fine. For this the packates will > > not goes even to router also instead communication can be > > taken place via access switch as both machine are in same network. > > 4. Machine Y tries to take VNC of machine X via > > wireless IP then I could see the following situation using > > Ethereal packat tracer: > > - On machine Y I could see the > > packate SYN sent to machine X using wireless IP > > - On machine X i could see that > > packate SYN came from machine Y > > - machine X replied SYN ACK via > > wired connection( not via wireless :-( ) > > - machine Y got the response SYN ACK > > packate from machine X > > - machine Y sending RST packate to > > machine X and this process get repeated 2 times and then VNC > > says connection times out. > > 5. If i removed wired connection cable then it is > > connecting successfuly. > > > > I think here firewall rejecting the packates from machine Y > > towards the wireless as firewall assume that only packates > > going but there is no incoming packate from machine X(because > > machine X replying via wired connection). > > > > Could you please help me on how to make this working. > > > > Thanks, > > Paresh > > > > > > On 6/30/08, Seak, Teng-Fong > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > wrote: > > > > > Well, there was no firewall drawn in your network > > topology in that > > > visio file. Anyway, admitting that you want to enforce security > > > measure, but you shouldn't make your networks like that. > > > > > > Just put two disjoint/mutually exclusive network (addresses) to > > > avoid problem. (Cf some network books.) > > > > > > I've no idea what you mean by "source machine replying > > ..." One > > > thing is sure, your router is lost by your config. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 2:31 PM, paresh masani > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > >>> I really don't know why you have to specified two > > (supposedly) > > > >>>different network addresses for your wired and wireless > > connections. > > > > This has been done intensionally because of security reason. The > > > connection > > > > requests comes from wireless IP will be gone through FireWall and > > > > for > > > Wired > > > > firewall does not needed. > > > > > > > > Here I am not understanding why the source machine is > > > replying(presumably) > > > > via wired IP while the request came from the wireless IP. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Paresh > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/08, Seak, Teng-Fong > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>< > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Oh man, you've totally screwed up the subnet > > addresses (and the > > > >> masks)! I don't have your Visio file any more, and thus I can't > > > >> remember which of your networks has the x.y.5.0 address > > and which > > > >> has the x.y.0.0 address, but the fact that one of your > > subnet masks > > > >> includes the other (and similar network addresses), it's very > > > >> likely that your router lost track of what to do. > > > >> > > > >> Actually, suppose you have the x.y.0.0 for your > > wired connection. > > > >> Using the subnet masks, you have: > > > >> x.y.0.0/255.255.252.0 ==> x.y.0.0 - x.y.3.255 > > x.y.5.0/255.255.192.0 > > > >> ==> x.y.0.0 - x.y.63.255 > > > >> > > > >> You see, your wired connection is a part of your wireless > > > >> connections! You're not supposed to do that (please > > read network > > > >> reference book on this). > > > >> > > > >> I really don't know why you have to specified two > > (supposedly) > > > >> different network addresses for your wired and wireless > > connections. > > > >> I mean, I've setup about 6 wifi routers, and none of > > them needs me > > > >> to do so. Both wired and wireless use the same network > > address and > > > >> network mask. > > > >> > > > >> HTH > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 1:06 PM, paresh masani > > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > Hmmm...You are right. We use different net-masks(255.255.252.0 > > > >> > for wired, 255.255.192.0 for wireless) for both wired and > > > >> > wire-less connections. > > > >> > And also default gateways are different for both. I think the > > > >> > main reason having this problem is because of two different > > > >> > access point. I could see that when I am taking VNC of machine > > > >> > using wire-less IP then > > > destination > > > >> > machine showing incoming request saying SYN_RCVD state but I > > > >> > think it > > > is > > > >> > replying to source machine via wired connection and source > > > >> > machine is rejecting the response as it did not send > > any packat > > > >> > to specified > > > wired > > > >> > IP. > > > >> > What do you say? This might be problem. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > >> > Paresh > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On 6/23/08, Seak, Teng-Fong > > > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>< > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> > > > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I can't give you the answer since you didn't specify the > > > >> >> subnet mask used in your network. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> If I take it as 255.255.0.0, then yes, yours is > > the same as > > > mine. > > > >> >> Well, almost, actually. The computer on which VNC viewer is > > > >> >> running only has wired connection; it has no wireless NIC. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> If I take it as 255.255.255.0, then no, they're different. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Actually, I was talking about logical topology. Not > > > >> >> physical topology. And as a matter of fact, I don't think > > > >> >> having one access point or two access points would > > change anything. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM, paresh masani > > > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> > Thanks for doing testing. Could you please make > > sure that the > > > network > > > >> >> > topology you have tested and my network's topology(attached > > > >> >> > file) > > > is > > > >> >> > same. > > > >> >> > Please check all the three cases and Please let me know if > > > >> >> > real VNC will work in all cases or not. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Thanks, > > > >> >> > Paresh > > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> >> VNC-List mailing list > > > >> >> VNC-List@realvnc.com > > > >> >> To remove yourself from the list visit: > > > >> >> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> VNC-List mailing list > > > >> VNC-List@realvnc.com > > > >> To remove yourself from the list visit: > > > >> http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > VNC-List mailing list > > > VNC-List@realvnc.com > > > To remove yourself from the list visit: > > > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > VNC-List mailing list > > VNC-List@realvnc.com > > To remove yourself from the list visit: > > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list > > > > _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list VNC-List@realvnc.com To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
