Julien Bayle

using udpsend, udpreceive with 127.0.0.1 loopback adress... all is ok.

as soon as I want to use ip adress, it doesn't work (here)

I have 2 computers which have to communicate.

using wireshark ethernet sniffer on the receiver, I can trace the message sent by the emitter.

but max seems to not catch these messages excepted if I use internal loopback adress (=inside the computer only)

a big trick I missed because I'm too bad ...?

is there "a kind of" full-compliance OSC message test under the hood and mine wouldn't be standard ...?

[udpreceive 192.168.0.30] ----- [print received]

hello,
just in case I made a big mistake...

using udpsend, udpreceive with 127.0.0.1 loopback adress... all is ok.
as soon as I want to use ip adress, it doesn't work (here)

I have 2 computers which have to communicate.
using wireshark ethernet sniffer on the receiver, I can trace the message sent by the emitter.
no problem.

any ideas? ways?
a big trick I missed because I'm too bad ...?
is there "a kind of" full-compliance OSC message test under the hood and mine wouldn't be standard ...?

oops, the patch:
[udpreceive 192.168.0.30] ----- [print received]

message-over-networks

Check any firewall settings - I've had a lot of issues with macs (especially on 10.5) that are set up conservatively, and the firewall is blocking MaxMSP.

Als - give [mxj net.maxhole] a quick try (probably the help file is all you need - boot it on both computers). If you can't get maxhole communicating then it's probably a network setup issue, rather than a MaxMSP problem.

wireshark gets messages... it means the network is ok :-(

trying to troubleshoot that... without any success :-(

If it's nothing occurs, ports aren't fowarded, see your router config.

Try in terminal ping 192.168.0.30 .
If it's nothing occurs, ports aren't fowarded, see your router config.


only a basic LAN with a 24bits mask ip range

no router
only a basic LAN with a 24bits mask ip range
ping is ok


For both computers ? ping computer A on your computer B and inverse…

You are in local network ? Are you in automatic ip config ?

Have you indicate the port used to your object udpreceive ? And the ip and the port to your object udpsend ?

For both computers ? ping computer A on your computer B and inverse…
You are in local network ?  Are you in automatic ip config ?
Have you indicate the port used to your object udpreceive ? And the ip and the port to your object udpsend ?
Ad/


port on udpreceive => and this one seems to receive ONLY on the loopback

no problem for network connectivity.
static ips
ip/port on udpsend
port on udpreceive => and this one seems to receive ONLY on the loopback


did you try maxhole? If so - you got nothing?

maxhole are multicast I guess.
it doesn't fit with my emitter :-(


Post your patch, because that should work without any problem

Which port ?
Post your patch, because that should work without any problem


I'm sending basic osc over udp message from one side (I'm sure of this part because I can trace it on the receiver computer with a basic eth sniffer)

one more thing, the message captured are basically osc/udp standard.

instancing udpreceive 9999 in max seems to correctly open the port (netstat -ap UDP shows that) BUT the bind s for the 0.0.0.0 address.

I'm sending basic osc over udp message from one side (I'm sure of this part because I can trace it on the receiver computer with a basic eth sniffer)
one more thing, the message captured are basically osc/udp standard.

one more (so strange) thing:
instancing udpreceive 9999 in max seems to correctly open the port (netstat -ap UDP shows that) BUT the bind s for the 0.0.0.0 address.
nothing for 127. and for my 192.


change the port maybe… plenty of issues with 9999 apparently…

when I change the port in the max object, the previous socket seems to be correctly killed (nothing appears in netstat)

because 0.0.0.0 means, AFAIK, all the network interfaces.

so it should include listening on my 192.

I tested a lot of ports.
when I change the port in the max object, the previous socket seems to be correctly killed (nothing appears in netstat)

as I wrote, it is strange.
because 0.0.0.0 means, AFAIK, all the network interfaces.
so it should include listening on my 192.


I had a DOUBLE persistent route to 0.0.0.0. probably my juniper network connect VPN ssl client :-(

that double route gave problem to bind the port correctly (curious)

I didn't dig much, because it wasn't the purpose :)

no firewall for sure.
I found the problem!
I had a DOUBLE persistent route to 0.0.0.0. probably my juniper network connect VPN ssl client :-(
now it is ok.
it was the problem :)
...thanks christopher!

that double route gave problem to bind the port correctly (curious)
I didn't dig much, because it wasn't the purpose :)


message over networks