Triode;169671 Wrote: > Well if the print server is really bridging then it should forward the > arp rather than respond to it... I don't believe this should be the case. An ARP request is basically the translation between OSI layer 3 (network layer, IP address) and layer 2 (data link layer, mac address). My understanding is that the correct response is for a bridge to provide its layer 2 (mac address) as a response to an ARP request, as it effectively being asked to act as a layer 3 bridge at that point. For example (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg0102.mspx): > For unicast traffic, Layer 3 bridging is based on the Address Resolution > Protocol (ARP). ARP is used by TCP/IP nodes to resolve the MAC address > that corresponds to the next-hop address of an outbound IP packet. If > the destination of the outbound IP packet is on the local subnet, the > next-hop address is the destination address and ARP is used to resolve > the MAC address of the destination node. If the destination of the > outbound IP packet is not on the local subnet, the next-hop address is > the default gateway address and ARP is used to resolve the MAC address > of the default gateway (assuming that this is a typical host > configuration).
On the other hand the magic packet is a layer 2 broadcast, which just contains target mac address repeated many times, and the bridge correctly forwards this to the wired network segment using layer 2 bridging. Triode;169671 Wrote: > Is there any way to turn off proxy arp on the print server? Unfortunately not, and AFAIK that would not be correct behaviour for it to operate in that manner (see above). The Squeezebox is basically making a simplifying assumption that there is only one network segment by using a layer 3 query (ARP request) to determine the contents of a layer 2 message (Magic Packet). This works ok on a single segment, but fails in a multi-segment network. The Belkin wireless router (as with most domestic wireless routers i guess) treats its wired and wireless sides as a single segment (effectively acting as a wireless+wired combined hub rather than a bridge), i guess to simplify things for home users. Hence if you do an ARP request on the router's IP address it will give the same MAC address as an answer from either the wired or wireless side. The WGPS606 on the other hand acts as a bridge rather than a hub, and has a wireless side MAC address and a wired side MAC address (two different segments). Thus a Slimserver connected directly to the wireless router's wired hub will wake up as it is on the same segment as the wireless squeezebox, whereas in my configuration the Squeezebox and Slimserver are on different segments and the Squeezebox's simplifying assumption breaks down. Triode;169671 Wrote: > It sounds like this is likely to be quite a rare configuration. Probably. However, I'm presuming the way the Squeezebox implements its wake on lan functionality will fail for anyone using a wireless/ethernet bridge or Homeplug bridges to extend their networks. I haven't tested any Homeplugs to confim they operate in this manner, but i'm assuming each homeplug will have a unique mains-side MAC address and ethernet side MAC, so will operate as a bridge rather than a hub. The reason why i have this network setup is that my wireless router is in the hallway, as that's where the broadband connection is, whereas the Mac Mini hosting the Slimserver software is also used as a desktop machine in the 'office'. Since the Mac Mini (and pretty much every system i know of) only supports WoL on the ethernet port, i was hoping using a wireless/ethernet bridge would allow me to use the WoL feature. My guess is that whatever proportion of Slimbox users have their wireless router in a different room to their desktop running the Slimserver software (and the two not connected via ethernet) have probably given up on getting wake-on-lan to work. I could of course leave the computer on all the time, but I'm trying to do my bit to save the planet. I could also go upstairs and turn the Mac Mini on when i want to listen to music, but it's not exactly the most convenient way of doing things even if it is good exercise ;-) Before creating this thread I did a search of the forum, and there have been a few people trying to get a configuration similar to mine to work (e.g. do a search on "wake-on-lan wireless"), including http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=29110&highlight=wgps606, where someone claimed to have had success with a WGPS606 and WoL (i don't see how...), and another where someone else tried with the WGPS606 (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=89317&highlight=wgps606#post89317) and failed. Interestingly, one of the original threads asking about WoL support in the Squeezebox before it was implemented did mention a possible implementation where the MAC address of the Slimserver could be manually entered (http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=4231&highlight=manually)... -- Creeky ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Creeky's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9566 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31561 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
