<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5659" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial>First I want to thank those
who responded to my query regarding NAT'ed networks. I forwarded the info to
Kansas and I don't know whether it helped solve anything. Our last
troubleshooting session revealed that both sites are sending to the bridge but
neither site sees the other's packets on their respective side of the
bridge.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial>We were connected to the
MSP bridge on Wednesday (11/05) at 13:00 - 14:00 MST, each site using unicast.
We confirmed, via wireshark, that video data from my machine (155.101.28.195)
was transmitting to the MSP bridge (141.142.224.41) but Kansas did not see the
data coming from the bridge. This was the same symptom on Kansas' side
(169.147.10.52) NAT'ed from an internal private network. Kansas pretty much
allows all traffic from all bridges based on IP addresses (not just ports). RAT
works just fine. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT
face=Arial>This behavior is the same no matter which bridge or venue we
use. Both systems are running Windows XP, Kansas is using AGtk 3.1 and I'm
running 3.2 beta.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial>So, I was wondering
if someone [maybe Myk at NCSA ;-)] could help us out by monitoring traffic
through their respective bridge to see if anything seems funky. We can park
our two nodes in a venue and use the appropriate bridge so that
the traffic or logs could be checked. Please let me know.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial>Another very strange thing
that Kansas is experiencing on their node is a duplicate entry of their
system in the AG Node Management application. There's one entry that has the
appropriate address with the audio service and video service. Then there's a
second entry that is listed as ":11000" with the audio service and video
service. We have deleted the bogus entry and saved the config file as the system
configuration. When they start up again, the bogus entry returns along with
the appropriate one. It's like the system has a dual identity. The first entry
is associated with the private IP address. If any one has seen this, I could use
some insight. This is actually driving me nuts and if I had any hair, I'd be
pulling at it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial>Thanks for your
time,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=110472119-07112008><FONT face=Arial>Jimmy</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><!--StartFragment --><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN class=moz-txt-tag>-- <BR></SPAN>Jimmy
Miklavcic <BR>Multimedia Specialist <BR></FONT></FONT><A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:Jimmy.Miklavcic@utah.edu"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Jimmy.Miklavcic@utah.edu</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3> <BR><BR>UNIVERSITY OF UTAH <BR>CTR FOR HIGH
PERFORM COMPUTING <BR>155 SOUTH 1452 EAST RM 405 <BR>SALT LAKE CITY, UT
84112-0190 <BR><BR>Office: 801.585.9335 <BR> Fax: 801.585.5366
<BR></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><BR></FONT><A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://www.anotherlanguage.org/"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>http://www.anotherlanguage.org</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3> </FONT><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>