""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > No wonder you are a bit lost. They aren't using our networking terminology > quite correctly. There's no such thing as a broadcast port and hence you > can't open it. Perhaps what they mean is that you need to get the router to > forward the IP broadcasts to UDP port 42508. Do this with an ip > helper-address on the incoming interface. Tell the router to forward the > packets to a specific address or a broadcast address, depending on your > needs. Make sure you are specific regarding which packets to forward by > using the ip forward-protocol and no ip forward-protocol commands. Otherwise > the router will forward TFTP, DNS, NTP, NetBIOS, DHCP, and TACACS and not > the packets in question. (The app does use UDP I hope? I don't this works > for TCP-based traffic.) > > It doesn't sound like a very well-behaved application. I wonder why it has > to use broadcasts? But, application developers often don't know networking. > Argh. ;-)
CL: off topic, but I finally got my OpNet upgrade installed today. failed several times because...... OpNet demands that the license registration take place over the web, and for some reason their web server and my employer's firewall aboslutely hated eachother. Once I plugged my laptop directly to the 'net, the licences registration went perfectly. CL: I mention this only becasue of your comment about well behaved applications. These days, with unlimited bandwidth, I wonder if it is even worth the fight about well behave apps and security conscious vendors. About the only reason I am even bothering with OpNet is because it has a decent simulation component, and it is my intention to learn how to bang out some bandwidth simulations to show the relative merits of 256K internet access versus full T1 internet access. Last time I did one of these sims ( a couple of years ago ) the software indicated there wasn't much merit at all. I'm curis to see if they OpNet has become a bit more sophisticated and if so, what that might mean for their conclusions. > > Priscilla > > Elijah Savage III wrote: > > > > Ok I am a little lost here but our NT team has rolled out this > > product. > > > > > > > > http://files.ruca.ua.ac.be/pub/security/virus/ca/rolloutig.pdf > > > > > > > > Everything is working but the server can't see the clients > > because in > > the document above it states that router ports need to be open > > to past > > these broadcast, I do not think this is a good idea but my hand > > is being > > pushed to make this happen. But question is how in the heck I > > am gonna > > get routers to past this broadcast port stated in that document. > > > > > > > > Here is the snippet. > > > > > > > > 5) What port number would you like the admin server to poll > > clients on? > > > > In the NameClient section of the ICF file two settings for > > client > > polling by the admin server > > > > exist. These values are Broadcast ports and Pollbroadcast ports > > both > > with the default > > > > value of 42508. For security reasons, it is suggested that you > > change > > these values. In > > > > addition, to perform a free election this port must be opened > > on the > > routers internally for > > > > broadcasts. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=51811&t=51805 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
