Robin, >>Y is receiving packets back from a >>different IP address than it sent them to, therefore it is ignoring them.
Y machine is not receving packets from different IP address but from different interface. I meant to say that machien Y receiving SYN ACK from machine X from wireless IP only but the replies comes on wired interface. As Y sent the packates on wireless IP, i think it should get reply on wireless interface only right??? For this i have changed the metric on machine X such that wireless Interface will have high priority but still i machine X replies to machine Y via wired interface only, :-( Am i missing something here. Thanks, Paresh On 7/15/08, paresh masani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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
