Hi Benny, Thank you! This solution can't be so bad because until now there was nobody who complained this here. But ok, it is weekend :-) Best regards, Helmut -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: pjsip-bounces at lists.pjsip.org [mailto:pjsip-bounces at lists.pjsip.org]Im Auftrag von Benny Prijono Gesendet: Samstag, 7. Juni 2008 13:19 An: pjsip list Betreff: Re: [pjsip] Problems with network addresses in 0.0.0.0/8 On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Helmut Wolf <HelmutWolf1 at gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Benny, > > I'm not sure but I think there is no practical purpose where you can use > this special address so my opinion is always to ignore the address block > 0.0.0.0/8 (0.x.x.x). > I'm not sure either, by think that makes sense. I've just changed (SVN r1996) the interface enumeration function to ignore this IP class, so it shouldn't show up now. Lets leave it this way until someone more knowledgeable complains. :) Thanks Benny > Best regards, > Helmut > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: pjsip-bounces at lists.pjsip.org > [mailto:pjsip-bounces at lists.pjsip.org]Im Auftrag von Benny Prijono > Gesendet: Freitag, 6. Juni 2008 23:44 > An: pjsip list > Betreff: Re: [pjsip] Problems with network addresses in 0.0.0.0/8 > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Helmut Wolf <HelmutWolf1 at gmx.de> wrote: >> Hi Benny, >> >> First I will thank you for helping with my NAT detection problem and the >> deactivation of STUN and ICE at lifetime. >> >> I've tested two USB webcams on Win XP and I've seen that windows creates a >> network device with IP address 0.1.0.5. This address is in 0.0.0.0/8 which >> refers to source hosts on "this" network (RFC 3330). >> In pjsua and stateful proxy the detection of the local network addresses >> returns this address as default address and it binds the ports to this >> address. But using this address doesn't work. In TCPview I've seen that >> other applications doesn't use this address. How can I solve this problem > ? >> > > So am I right to say that, for all practical purposes, basically we > cannot use this address? If the answer is yes, then the solutions is > easy, just need to change enum_ipv4_interface() in ip_helper_win32.c > to filter out this IP class. If the answer is no then the solution > will be a bit difficult, as the interface enumeration function needs > to be more clever (somehow). > > Cheers > Benny > > _______________________________________________ > Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org > > pjsip mailing list > pjsip at lists.pjsip.org > http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org > > pjsip mailing list > pjsip at lists.pjsip.org > http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org > _______________________________________________ Visit our blog: http://blog.pjsip.org pjsip mailing list pjsip at lists.pjsip.org http://lists.pjsip.org/mailman/listinfo/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org
