Some ideas:
- is the IP address used during the ping the same as the address used in the
URL when it works? Maybe the symbolic name resolves to a different IP.
- does the source machine (the client machine) use several network
interfaces? Maybe the source binding is different for symbolic vs
mechanism I can use to avoid
fake messages from clients ?
- Original Message -
From: Florin Vancea fvan...@maxiq.ro
To: ICS support mailing twsocket@elists.org
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [twsocket] NIC list
Anyone capturing the session ID will capture
Anyone capturing the session ID will capture the IP you send, too.
If you are concerned about security, use https with your cookies.
- Original Message -
From: scconsulting scconsult...@free.fr
To: ICS support mailing twsocket@elists.org
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:14 PM
Subject:
Isn't the translation state based on the remote peer IP address, too? Then
the same translation created for A-S and B-S would not work when you try to
connect directly A with B.
- Original Message -
From: wayne forrest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ICS support mailing twsocket@elists.org
Sent:
Do you use symbolic names for the target host?
What are your DNS settings on both machines?
Maybe the DNS on the second machine is having a hard time resolving the name
(i.e. a dead or not available DNS server specified first).
- Original Message -
From: Ionut Muntean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
server. The ping
time between the server and the 2 PC's is under 0.3 ms...
10x for the quick response.
/ Ionut
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Florin Vancea
Sent: 6 decembrie 2005 05:19 PM
To: ICS support mailing
Subject: Re
Maybe this helps:
Sometimes a VPN is limiting the MTU and the machines at some (both?) ends
have to do fragment/defragment. This does not work in all configurations or
may impact in other ways your model.
Try to specify a lower MTU than the default, either at endpoints or at the
VPN endnodes
