New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reverse proxy not working #3

Closed
abijoshi opened this Issue May 24, 2012 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@abijoshi

abijoshi commented May 24, 2012

on DMZ network machine, command used is:
PortFusion ] 1080 [

output -->

CORSIS PortFusion ( ]-[ayabusa 1.0.4 )
(c) 2012 Cetin Set. All rights reserved.

Windows - x86 [Wed May 16 02:02:18 2012]

(zeroCopy,False)
(capabilities,1)
PortFusion.exe: socket: failed (Address family not supported by protocol family
{WSAEAFNOSUPPORT))

Client side:
PortFusion 8000 localhost - 1080 [ 5001

CORSIS PortFusion ( ]-[ayabusa 1.0.4 )

(c) 2012 Cetin Set. All rights reserved.

Windows - x86 [Wed May 16 02:02:18 2012]

(zeroCopy,False)
(capabilities,1)
Silence [HM:1080]
Silence [HM:1080]

On 0.9.3 I fired the following commands (which worked):
DMZ - PortFusionHost.exe 1080
SUP - PortFusionClient.exe 1080 ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆ 5001=localhost:8000

Microsoft tells:
WSAEAFNOSUPPORT
10047
Address family not supported by protocol family.
An address incompatible with the requested protocol was used. All sockets are created with an associated address family (that is, AF_INET for Internet Protocols) and a generic protocol type (that is, SOCK_STREAM). This error is returned if an incorrect protocol is explicitly requested in the socket call, or if an address of the wrong family is used for a socket, for example, in sendto.

Could you please help us here?

@cetinsert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cetinsert

cetinsert May 24, 2012

Member

Are you using Windows XP?

Member

cetinsert commented May 24, 2012

Are you using Windows XP?

@cetinsert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cetinsert

cetinsert May 24, 2012

Member

Please download and try the next version I am working on (http://portfusion.sourceforge.net/z/sip/PortFusion.exe) with the following command line:

PortFusion ] 0.0.0.0:1080 [

This should now force IPv4 and hopefully work.

Member

cetinsert commented May 24, 2012

Please download and try the next version I am working on (http://portfusion.sourceforge.net/z/sip/PortFusion.exe) with the following command line:

PortFusion ] 0.0.0.0:1080 [

This should now force IPv4 and hopefully work.

@ghost ghost assigned cetinsert May 24, 2012

@cetinsert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cetinsert

cetinsert May 24, 2012

Member

PortFusion 1.0 up to 1.0.4 have been using IPv6 by default and required a dual stack IP implementation on the OS.

Windows XP was known to be a special case here as the only widespread OS with no dual stack IP support. The new PortFusion's XP support was admittedly broken as it did contain hardcoded references to AF_INET6 –the address family for IPv6.

Initially I had planned making IPv4-only binaries available for XP users on demand but last week I received a feature request for binding to specific IPs which helped me figure out a way to handle IPv4 natively by identifying the correct address family of an IP address.

I made the commit bringing IPv4 support on equal footing with IPv6 just yesterday.

http://portfusion.sourceforge.net/z/sip/PortFusion.exe is a build I just made several hours ago and supports syntax extensions for binding to specific IPs. These extensions turned out to be also useful for forcing the correct address family for IPv4 even when listening to all IPs:

PortFusion ] 0.0.0.0:1080 [

Please test and tell me whether this solves the WSAEAFNOSUPPORT problem and I will make sure to find a way to drop 0.0.0.0 from the command line by the next release.

I do really thank you for your very detailed bug report, continued role in improving PortFusion and comparing its latest iterations with 0.9.3!


1.1 will feature

  • syntax extensions for binding to specifc IPs and / or using specific address families
  • true neutrality towards IPv4 vs IPv6 and (hopefully) first-class support for Windows XP
  • self-contained Main.hs which can be loaded and tested interactively with GHCi

see all changes

Member

cetinsert commented May 24, 2012

PortFusion 1.0 up to 1.0.4 have been using IPv6 by default and required a dual stack IP implementation on the OS.

Windows XP was known to be a special case here as the only widespread OS with no dual stack IP support. The new PortFusion's XP support was admittedly broken as it did contain hardcoded references to AF_INET6 –the address family for IPv6.

Initially I had planned making IPv4-only binaries available for XP users on demand but last week I received a feature request for binding to specific IPs which helped me figure out a way to handle IPv4 natively by identifying the correct address family of an IP address.

I made the commit bringing IPv4 support on equal footing with IPv6 just yesterday.

http://portfusion.sourceforge.net/z/sip/PortFusion.exe is a build I just made several hours ago and supports syntax extensions for binding to specific IPs. These extensions turned out to be also useful for forcing the correct address family for IPv4 even when listening to all IPs:

PortFusion ] 0.0.0.0:1080 [

Please test and tell me whether this solves the WSAEAFNOSUPPORT problem and I will make sure to find a way to drop 0.0.0.0 from the command line by the next release.

I do really thank you for your very detailed bug report, continued role in improving PortFusion and comparing its latest iterations with 0.9.3!


1.1 will feature

  • syntax extensions for binding to specifc IPs and / or using specific address families
  • true neutrality towards IPv4 vs IPv6 and (hopefully) first-class support for Windows XP
  • self-contained Main.hs which can be loaded and tested interactively with GHCi

see all changes

@cetinsert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cetinsert

cetinsert May 24, 2012

Member

Just read relevant parts from Jun-ichiro-itojun Hagino's IPv6 Network Programming and found and implemented several pieces of advice from his book that should now make the usual syntax

PortFusion ] 1080 [

work without triggering WSAEAFNOSUPPORT.

Please download and test: http://portfusion.sf.net/z/sip2/PortFusion.exe

Looking forward to hearing from you on this!

Member

cetinsert commented May 24, 2012

Just read relevant parts from Jun-ichiro-itojun Hagino's IPv6 Network Programming and found and implemented several pieces of advice from his book that should now make the usual syntax

PortFusion ] 1080 [

work without triggering WSAEAFNOSUPPORT.

Please download and test: http://portfusion.sf.net/z/sip2/PortFusion.exe

Looking forward to hearing from you on this!

@tt2012

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tt2012

tt2012 May 24, 2012

Hi,

I've tested your latest version provided in sip2 and it works now :)

Output:
Listen :^: 1080
Accept :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:28103)
Receive ((:-<-:) 5001) :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆
:28103)
Listen :^: 5001
Accept :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:5001) (Just ◆◆.◆◆◆.◆◆.◆:42958)
Establish ::: FusionLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:28103) (Just 5001) (Just ◆◆.◆◆◆.◆◆.◆
:42958)
Accept :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:29195)
Receive ((:-<-:) 5001) :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆
:29195)
Terminate ::: FusionLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:28103) (Just 5001) (Just ◆◆.◆◆◆.◆◆.◆
:42958)
Close :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:28103)
Close :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:5001) (Just ◆◆.◆◆◆.◆◆.◆:42958)
Accept :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:5001) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:53549)

Thanks for your help!

Kind regards,
Tobias

tt2012 commented May 24, 2012

Hi,

I've tested your latest version provided in sip2 and it works now :)

Output:
Listen :^: 1080
Accept :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:28103)
Receive ((:-<-:) 5001) :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆
:28103)
Listen :^: 5001
Accept :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:5001) (Just ◆◆.◆◆◆.◆◆.◆:42958)
Establish ::: FusionLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:28103) (Just 5001) (Just ◆◆.◆◆◆.◆◆.◆
:42958)
Accept :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:29195)
Receive ((:-<-:) 5001) :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆
:29195)
Terminate ::: FusionLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:28103) (Just 5001) (Just ◆◆.◆◆◆.◆◆.◆
:42958)
Close :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:1080) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:28103)
Close :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:5001) (Just ◆◆.◆◆◆.◆◆.◆:42958)
Accept :.: PeerLink (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆:5001) (Just ◆◆◆.◆◆.◆◆◆.◆:53549)

Thanks for your help!

Kind regards,
Tobias

@tt2012

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tt2012

tt2012 May 24, 2012

Please tell us once you've released a new "official" version :)

tt2012 commented May 24, 2012

Please tell us once you've released a new "official" version :)

@cetinsert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cetinsert

cetinsert May 24, 2012

Member

I am glad it helped. The sip2 is almost official. It just does not support binding the same port to different IPs. I will try fix that remaning issue and release 1.1.0 by the end of the week.

By the way I saw a plural we mentioned in both your tt2012 and abijoshi's posts. May I inquire what kind of a group you constitute :)?

Member

cetinsert commented May 24, 2012

I am glad it helped. The sip2 is almost official. It just does not support binding the same port to different IPs. I will try fix that remaning issue and release 1.1.0 by the end of the week.

By the way I saw a plural we mentioned in both your tt2012 and abijoshi's posts. May I inquire what kind of a group you constitute :)?

@cetinsert cetinsert closed this May 24, 2012

@cetinsert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cetinsert

cetinsert May 24, 2012

Member

Security advice: please carefully strip any messages you post online of all IP addresses!

Member

cetinsert commented May 24, 2012

Security advice: please carefully strip any messages you post online of all IP addresses!

@cetinsert

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cetinsert

cetinsert May 28, 2012

Member

1.1 has just been released!

Member

cetinsert commented May 28, 2012

1.1 has just been released!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment