message over networks


    Aug 23 2010 | 12:45 pm
    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.
    but max seems to not catch these messages excepted if I use internal loopback adress (=inside the computer only)
    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]
    :D

    • Aug 23 2010 | 1:06 pm
      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.
      HTH
      A.
    • Aug 23 2010 | 1:09 pm
      shutted down it, all the same.
      wireshark gets messages... it means the network is ok :-(
    • Aug 23 2010 | 1:32 pm
      trying to troubleshoot that... without any success :-(
    • Aug 23 2010 | 1:57 pm
      Try in terminal ping 192.168.0.30 .
      If it's nothing occurs, ports aren't fowarded, see your router config.
    • Aug 23 2010 | 1:59 pm
      no router
      only a basic LAN with a 24bits mask ip range
      ping is ok
    • Aug 23 2010 | 2:32 pm
      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/
    • Aug 23 2010 | 2:34 pm
      no problem for network connectivity.
      static ips
      ip/port on udpsend
      port on udpreceive => and this one seems to receive ONLY on the loopback
    • Aug 23 2010 | 2:49 pm
      did you try maxhole? If so - you got nothing?
      A.
    • Aug 23 2010 | 2:55 pm
      maxhole are multicast I guess.
      it doesn't fit with my emitter :-(
    • Aug 23 2010 | 2:59 pm
      Which port ?
      Post your patch, because that should work without any problem
    • Aug 23 2010 | 3:09 pm
      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.
      and the patch on the other side is:
      ...
      only that.
      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.
    • Aug 23 2010 | 3:15 pm
      change the port maybe… plenty of issues with 9999 apparently…
    • Aug 23 2010 | 3:23 pm
      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)
      all the same.
      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.
    • Aug 23 2010 | 5:58 pm
      I am not sure where in the network stack Wireshark operates but it may be possible that your system has a firewall that is blocking your port. It wouldn't block a packet sent to the loopback address so I would check for a software firewall. What system are you running the server (udpreceive) on?
    • Aug 23 2010 | 6:06 pm
      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 :)