Thanks!
And many thanks to all who went through the trouble of finding the source
of this issue and elaborating a workaround. Much apreciated!
On 3 November 2012 23:46, Ryan Stecker wrote:
> Yes, the ports the Steam servers listen on are 27017 through 27019,
> regardless of the port your srcds
Yes, the ports the Steam servers listen on are 27017 through 27019,
regardless of the port your srcds instances are on.
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 8:34 PM, pilger wrote:
> Do I need to block port 27017 to 27019 despite of the port I have assigned
> for the servers?
>
> I, for instance, have a serve
Do I need to block port 27017 to 27019 despite of the port I have assigned
for the servers?
I, for instance, have a server running on port 27027.
On 20 October 2012 23:21, Chris Oryschak wrote:
> Thank you so much for the iptables rules.
> Ever since implementing them I haven't had a single pro
Thank you so much for the iptables rules.
Ever since implementing them I haven't had a single problem with the IP
address changing on any of my servers.
Chris
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Kyle Sanderson wrote:
> Yup.
>
> iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 27017:27019 -j REJEC
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Daniel . wrote:
> Shouldn't it be --dports 27017,27019 ?
If you don't want to have port 27018 closed, yes. Otherwise, no. In
the iptables manpage there is more information about portranges.
--
Idleness is not doing nothing. Idleness is being free to do anything.
Shouldn't it be --dports 27017,27019 ?
2012/10/16 Kyle Sanderson
> Yup.
>
> iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 27017:27019 -j REJECT
> --reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
>
> Huge thanks to Ryan for his Windows rules (and discovering the solution).
> This statement seems to work fin
Yup.
iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp -m multiport --dports 27017:27019 -j REJECT
--reject-with icmp-port-unreachable
Huge thanks to Ryan for his Windows rules (and discovering the solution).
This statement seems to work fine for me. You can probably define it even
more by specifying the process and or
Do you have the iptables rule to accomplish this.
If this has no side effect to the users and forces it UDP every time. I'd
be much happier to go this route as a resolution.
Chris
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Ryan Stecker wrote:
> As a slight correction, it's the TCP connection which doesn
As a slight correction, it's the TCP connection which doesn't respect the
bind IP.
The workaround is to block outgoing TCP connections on port 27017, this
forces the server to use a UDP connection to steam.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:34 AM, martin v wrote:
> This is well know issue. When your m
This is well know issue. When your machines IP is different from the
gameservers IP and when your gameserver lost connection to steam. When
gameserver is connecting to steam servers it sends machines main IP and not
the attached server ip.
The worst part is that when someone joins your server and
I believe Valve have already acknowledged it as an issue in the past.
It happens when the server loses connection to Steam, which causes it
to switch transport protocols - and the UDP one doesn't respect the
bind address.
Other than block the problematic one, forcing it to toggle back to the
other,
Have you tried setting ip in the server
specific config file? server6.cfg in this case. I do this and haven't
seen this issue so far.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Chris Oryschak wrote:
> Sorry forgot the mention my start line. I do use +ip and -port. Below is
> my startline:
>
>
> /usr/bi
Sorry forgot the mention my start line. I do use +ip and -port. Below is
my startline:
/usr/bin/screen -d -m -U -S rb6 /usr/bin/taskset -c 1
/home/XXX/srcds/railbait/orangebox/nemrun -threads 1 -timeout 3 -pidfile
rb6.pid -console -game tf -maxplayers 32 -tickrate 66 +ip 142.54.178.234
-port
You should use option +ip instead of -ip and assing -port. On the
original post, you haven't got that specified on the startline.
-ics
16.10.2012 7:33, Chris Oryschak kirjoitti:
This has been a known issue for quite sometime. Myself along with other
mailing list members have brought it up in
This has been a known issue for quite sometime. Myself along with other
mailing list members have brought it up in the past.
The past week it seems to of gotten a lot worse. Today alone i've had to
fix the problem on two separate occasions.
*The details:*
I have a dedicated server with 4 IP addr
15 matches
Mail list logo
