RE: Indirect connection works better
Correction (sorry): Netsh firewall set icmpsetting, REM doesn't change anything, just shows options ... Should be: Netsh firewall set icmpsetting REM doesn't change anything, just shows options (ampersand, not comma) Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of Philip Herlihy Sent: 18 May 2009 20:24 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better Something else I found: Try this in a command prompt (XP SP1+): Netsh firewall show icmpsetting Netsh firewall set icmpsetting, REM doesn't change anything, just shows options. See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875357 Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: Philip Herlihy [mailto:phi...@herlihy.eu.com] Sent: 18 May 2009 20:11 To: 'vnc-list@realvnc.com' Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better Thanks to John, and James, for very interesting pointers. I'll experiment on the affected systems and see what I can demonstrate, but I'd like some feedback on these ideas first, if anyone has any! As I understand it, MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) describes the size of the largest packet to (be expected to) get through the network without being fragmented. Different types of network (e.g. dial-up) work best with different sizes of MTU. The default (if there is one) is 1500, with other sizes down to 1400 being suggested for different situations. Netgear suggest trying 1400 to solve most problems: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1153 This article describes an empirical way of checking what MTU works best in a given situation: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/5793 Now, in the situation I'm most concerned about, I have my machine, my router (on which I can change the MTU at will), the office router (ditto), two wireless access points (neither have an MTU setting) and the destination machine(s). Changing the MTU on the end machines will involve a registry hack after identifying the interface: http://help.expedient.com/broadband/mtu.shtml Am I right in thinking that if I lower the MTU on any one of them, it'll be effective across the entire connection? Which one should I change first? I've also remembered a situation I encountered some years ago when a firewall was found to be blocking ICMP packets. For anyone following this, ICMP is a collection (as I understand it) of control protocols which can be necessary for a TCP connection to tune itself. See: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc758065(WS.10).aspx I found (can't remember the details) that allowing ICMP unblocked this particular jam. See: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2520 Is this likely to be relevant here? I could do with someone who actually knows more than I can find on Google to share some experience! Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of John Serink Sent: 15 May 2009 01:37 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: Re: Indirect connection works better You have an MTU issue. If you have access to the router/gateway you need to put a tcp mssadjust command in the outgoing interface, usually eth0 or something like that where is the max mtu of you internet connection. A more painful alternative is to change the mtu on the individual machine giving you problems. Cheers, John - Original Message - From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com To: vnc-list@realvnc.com vnc-list@realvnc.com Sent: Fri May 15 02:34:03 2009 Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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
RE: Indirect connection works better
Thanks to John, and James, for very interesting pointers. I'll experiment on the affected systems and see what I can demonstrate, but I'd like some feedback on these ideas first, if anyone has any! As I understand it, MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) describes the size of the largest packet to (be expected to) get through the network without being fragmented. Different types of network (e.g. dial-up) work best with different sizes of MTU. The default (if there is one) is 1500, with other sizes down to 1400 being suggested for different situations. Netgear suggest trying 1400 to solve most problems: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1153 This article describes an empirical way of checking what MTU works best in a given situation: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/5793 Now, in the situation I'm most concerned about, I have my machine, my router (on which I can change the MTU at will), the office router (ditto), two wireless access points (neither have an MTU setting) and the destination machine(s). Changing the MTU on the end machines will involve a registry hack after identifying the interface: http://help.expedient.com/broadband/mtu.shtml Am I right in thinking that if I lower the MTU on any one of them, it'll be effective across the entire connection? Which one should I change first? I've also remembered a situation I encountered some years ago when a firewall was found to be blocking ICMP packets. For anyone following this, ICMP is a collection (as I understand it) of control protocols which can be necessary for a TCP connection to tune itself. See: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc758065(WS.10).aspx I found (can't remember the details) that allowing ICMP unblocked this particular jam. See: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2520 Is this likely to be relevant here? I could do with someone who actually knows more than I can find on Google to share some experience! Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of John Serink Sent: 15 May 2009 01:37 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: Re: Indirect connection works better You have an MTU issue. If you have access to the router/gateway you need to put a tcp mssadjust command in the outgoing interface, usually eth0 or something like that where is the max mtu of you internet connection. A more painful alternative is to change the mtu on the individual machine giving you problems. Cheers, John - Original Message - From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com To: vnc-list@realvnc.com vnc-list@realvnc.com Sent: Fri May 15 02:34:03 2009 Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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
RE: Indirect connection works better
Something else I found: Try this in a command prompt (XP SP1+): Netsh firewall show icmpsetting Netsh firewall set icmpsetting, REM doesn't change anything, just shows options. See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875357 Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: Philip Herlihy [mailto:phi...@herlihy.eu.com] Sent: 18 May 2009 20:11 To: 'vnc-list@realvnc.com' Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better Thanks to John, and James, for very interesting pointers. I'll experiment on the affected systems and see what I can demonstrate, but I'd like some feedback on these ideas first, if anyone has any! As I understand it, MTU (Maximum Transmission Unit) describes the size of the largest packet to (be expected to) get through the network without being fragmented. Different types of network (e.g. dial-up) work best with different sizes of MTU. The default (if there is one) is 1500, with other sizes down to 1400 being suggested for different situations. Netgear suggest trying 1400 to solve most problems: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1153 This article describes an empirical way of checking what MTU works best in a given situation: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/5793 Now, in the situation I'm most concerned about, I have my machine, my router (on which I can change the MTU at will), the office router (ditto), two wireless access points (neither have an MTU setting) and the destination machine(s). Changing the MTU on the end machines will involve a registry hack after identifying the interface: http://help.expedient.com/broadband/mtu.shtml Am I right in thinking that if I lower the MTU on any one of them, it'll be effective across the entire connection? Which one should I change first? I've also remembered a situation I encountered some years ago when a firewall was found to be blocking ICMP packets. For anyone following this, ICMP is a collection (as I understand it) of control protocols which can be necessary for a TCP connection to tune itself. See: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc758065(WS.10).aspx I found (can't remember the details) that allowing ICMP unblocked this particular jam. See: http://www.dslreports.com/faq/2520 Is this likely to be relevant here? I could do with someone who actually knows more than I can find on Google to share some experience! Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of John Serink Sent: 15 May 2009 01:37 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: Re: Indirect connection works better You have an MTU issue. If you have access to the router/gateway you need to put a tcp mssadjust command in the outgoing interface, usually eth0 or something like that where is the max mtu of you internet connection. A more painful alternative is to change the mtu on the individual machine giving you problems. Cheers, John - Original Message - From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com To: vnc-list@realvnc.com vnc-list@realvnc.com Sent: Fri May 15 02:34:03 2009 Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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
Re: Indirect connection works better
I understand what you are talking about; but, do not follow how one would go about fixing the issue. Dale On May 14, 2009, at 7:36 PM, John Serink wrote: You have an MTU issue. If you have access to the router/gateway you need to put a tcp mssadjust command in the outgoing interface, usually eth0 or something like that where is the max mtu of you internet connection. A more painful alternative is to change the mtu on the individual machine giving you problems. Cheers, John - Original Message - From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com To: vnc-list@realvnc.com vnc-list@realvnc.com Sent: Fri May 15 02:34:03 2009 Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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 Dale Eshelman eshelm...@gmail.com ShopToEarn (Dist ID 105985) http://www.ShopToEarn.net/DaleEshelman MonaVie (Distr ID 1316953) http://www.monavie.com/Web/US/en/product_overview.dhtml ___ VNC-List mailing list VNC-List@realvnc.com To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
RE: Indirect connection works better
Hi Philip, Some Wi-Fi routers have trouble handling large numbers of small network packets, such as are produced when moving the mouse around in the VNC session, and that in turn can upset the Windows TCP stack and lead to the sort of behaviour you're seeing. You can enable the Pointer event rate-limiting feature in the VNC Viewer to work around this problem. Cheers, -- Wez @ RealVNC Ltd -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list- boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of Philip Herlihy Sent: 14 May 2009 15:34 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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
RE: Indirect connection works better
Thanks, Wez - however, in response to guidance you gave me once before I already have that setting enabled. What puzzles me is that either route is using the same links, so it's hard to understand what the difference might be. Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of James Weatherall Sent: 14 May 2009 16:21 To: 'Philip Herlihy'; vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better Hi Philip, Some Wi-Fi routers have trouble handling large numbers of small network packets, such as are produced when moving the mouse around in the VNC session, and that in turn can upset the Windows TCP stack and lead to the sort of behaviour you're seeing. You can enable the Pointer event rate-limiting feature in the VNC Viewer to work around this problem. Cheers, -- Wez @ RealVNC Ltd -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list- boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of Philip Herlihy Sent: 14 May 2009 15:34 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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
RE: Indirect connection works better
Thanks, Wez, In fact both routes use WiFi for the last leg, but your point about MTU is an interesting one. How do I assess the real and imaginary MTUs? (Offline for 24 hours from now, but still interested!) Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: James Weatherall [mailto:j...@realvnc.com] Sent: 14 May 2009 17:24 To: 'Philip Herlihy'; vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better Hi Philip, Sorry to hear that. The difference you've highlighted is that the target machine is on Wi-Fi, not cable, which can cause issues. You might also check, for instance, what the target computer thinks the MTU of the Wi-Fi network is, and compare that to what it really is - if it's smaller than the server thinks it is then the connection is likely to stall as soon as a significant amount of data gets transferred. Regards, -- Wez @ RealVNC Ltd -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list- boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of Philip Herlihy Sent: 14 May 2009 17:09 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better Thanks, Wez - however, in response to guidance you gave me once before I already have that setting enabled. What puzzles me is that either route is using the same links, so it's hard to understand what the difference might be. Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list- boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of James Weatherall Sent: 14 May 2009 16:21 To: 'Philip Herlihy'; vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better Hi Philip, Some Wi-Fi routers have trouble handling large numbers of small network packets, such as are produced when moving the mouse around in the VNC session, and that in turn can upset the Windows TCP stack and lead to the sort of behaviour you're seeing. You can enable the Pointer event rate-limiting feature in the VNC Viewer to work around this problem. Cheers, -- Wez @ RealVNC Ltd -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list- boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of Philip Herlihy Sent: 14 May 2009 15:34 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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
RE: Indirect connection works better
Have tried lowering resolution, but to no avail. Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of Dale Eshelman Sent: 14 May 2009 17:25 To: 'Philip Herlihy'; vnc-list@realvnc.com; james.weather...@realvnc.com Cc: dean.eshel...@gmail.com Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better I find this interesting. I have seen this issue and did not know how to fix it. I do now. The other issue I have seen is the screen saver stays on and the page does not refresh after connect. I have found adjusting to a lower resolution manually rather than the let the server decide option fixes this as well. Dale --- On Thu, 5/14/09, James Weatherall j...@realvnc.com wrote: From: James Weatherall j...@realvnc.com Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better To: 'Philip Herlihy' phi...@herlihy.eu.com, vnc-list@realvnc.com Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 10:20 AM Hi Philip, Some Wi-Fi routers have trouble handling large numbers of small network packets, such as are produced when moving the mouse around in the VNC session, and that in turn can upset the Windows TCP stack and lead to the sort of behaviour you're seeing. You can enable the Pointer event rate-limiting feature in the VNC Viewer to work around this problem. Cheers, -- Wez @ RealVNC Ltd -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list- boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of Philip Herlihy Sent: 14 May 2009 15:34 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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
RE: Indirect connection works better
Hi Philip, Sorry to hear that. The difference you've highlighted is that the target machine is on Wi-Fi, not cable, which can cause issues. You might also check, for instance, what the target computer thinks the MTU of the Wi-Fi network is, and compare that to what it really is - if it's smaller than the server thinks it is then the connection is likely to stall as soon as a significant amount of data gets transferred. Regards, -- Wez @ RealVNC Ltd -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list- boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of Philip Herlihy Sent: 14 May 2009 17:09 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better Thanks, Wez - however, in response to guidance you gave me once before I already have that setting enabled. What puzzles me is that either route is using the same links, so it's hard to understand what the difference might be. Philip Herlihy -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list- boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of James Weatherall Sent: 14 May 2009 16:21 To: 'Philip Herlihy'; vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: RE: Indirect connection works better Hi Philip, Some Wi-Fi routers have trouble handling large numbers of small network packets, such as are produced when moving the mouse around in the VNC session, and that in turn can upset the Windows TCP stack and lead to the sort of behaviour you're seeing. You can enable the Pointer event rate-limiting feature in the VNC Viewer to work around this problem. Cheers, -- Wez @ RealVNC Ltd -Original Message- From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com [mailto:vnc-list- boun...@realvnc.com] On Behalf Of Philip Herlihy Sent: 14 May 2009 15:34 To: vnc-list@realvnc.com Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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
Re: Indirect connection works better
You have an MTU issue. If you have access to the router/gateway you need to put a tcp mssadjust command in the outgoing interface, usually eth0 or something like that where is the max mtu of you internet connection. A more painful alternative is to change the mtu on the individual machine giving you problems. Cheers, John - Original Message - From: vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com vnc-list-boun...@realvnc.com To: vnc-list@realvnc.com vnc-list@realvnc.com Sent: Fri May 15 02:34:03 2009 Subject: Indirect connection works better Recent came across a situation again which has puzzled me in the past. I'm trying to connect to a machine running VNC Free edition in an office. I can make the connection (having set up port forwarding on the router) but it hangs, with only the top third of the screen visible after several minutes. Further attempts produced the same result. That office has a workstation used as a simple workstation. Unlike the target machine, which is wirelessly connected, this one is connected to the router by cable. I can connect reliably to the fileserver PC. I found that within my remote session I could start a new session from the fileserver PC to the target PC, and this worked well. Now that's using the same links, but in two jumps instead of one. What's going on? Phil, London ___ 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
