Hi,
there is no POST capable browser in 1.4.1; whose code are you using ?
You can try my web server if you please (lookup lwHTTPd in this list or
google it/me), however, I don't think your are chasing the bug in the
proper way.
Your browser should not crash... the server should not care about the f
Quoting "Sergio R. Caprile" :
Agreed, although I have not seen a 100M hub! (Maybe I have not
looked). I also have a hub I use sometimes for this purpose as well as
the big but cheap switch that works at 100M.
Interesting working at 10M. When you are not sure of the hardware that
sounds li
Hello,
rather than discussing whose fault this is, might I suggest to improve
how this kind of error might be implemented? Like having a ERR_TEMPORARY
or ERR_CONTENTION flag in the error codes which tells a higher level
that the reported error condition will eventually seize existance
without
Hi all,
My name is Szabolcs Vass and I'm new in this forum. I develop a
microchip based webserver application with STM32F407 controller. My code
uses Your lwip 1.4.1 stack (raw api) generated from STM32CUBE MX. In the
recent day I got a bug which I coludn't resolve. So I want to upload a
Chris,
There is no 10/100 in the definition of "hub"; probably some technical
constraints and technology evolution force that situation. (AFAIK)
However, I *DO* recommend working on 10baseT to develop a driver, speed can
cover up for many mistakes.
And working at 10M on an embedded system won't hur
I've just bought excellent small switch with port mirroring option:
NetGear ProSafe Plus GS105E-200PES
managable via embedded web server.
-Original Message-
Aha... HUB... I missed that point... I 'll search for one.
**
*Fotis Panagiotopoulos
*
*--
*
__
Quoting Fotis Panagiotopoulos :
2 points:
1. Hubs are I think only 10M not 100M, ok if you have speed switching
working in the processor.
2. I use a 'managed switch'. I use an Edgeiron 2402. I bought for £24
on ebay (there are lots there at the moment). A big overkill (with 24
ports!) bu
Hi Sergio,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:20:15AM -0300, Sergio R. Caprile wrote:
> >>* UDP is message oriented, so you have to split your data in datagrams, *
> >>* because a datagram must fit on an IP datagram on an Ethernet frame.*
>
> > No, IP supports fragmentation, and lwIP supports fragmented
Aha... HUB... I missed that point... I 'll search for one.
*Fotis Panagiotopoulos*
*--*
*AMCO S.A.*
25 Amfiaraou st. PO 10442, Athens, Greece
Tel: +30 210 5907000 ext. -34 <%2B30%20210%205907000%20ext.%20-36> | Fax: +30
210 5912711
e-mail: f.pa...@amco.gr | web: http://www.amco.gr
On Fri, Ju
I said I saved (and use) _hubs_; any one will do, they are just repeaters.
I don't particularly know of any affordable switch model, maybe you have
more luck hunting for a hub.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Sergio R. Caprile
wrote:
> Sorry, I saved one or two hubs for this very purpose. I gue
>>* UDP is message oriented, so you have to split your data in datagrams, *
>>* because a datagram must fit on an IP datagram on an Ethernet frame.*
> No, IP supports fragmentation, and lwIP supports fragmented IP packets
> using the IP_FRAG compilation option.
Good point, I'm too used to stacks
Lending??
No I am asking for the brand/model number of the one that you are
successfully using, to search for a new or used one. As you can image
buying lots of switches in the hope that randomly one of them will have
this functionality, is not an good idea :)
*Fotis Panagiotopoulos*
*--*
*AM
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:02:33AM -0300, Sergio R. Caprile wrote:
>
> UDP is message oriented, so you have to split your data in datagrams,
> because a datagram must fit on an IP datagram on an Ethernet frame.
No, IP supports fragmentation, and lwIP supports fragmented IP packets
using th
Can you please be a good lad and describe what you are trying to do ? There
is no built in size restriction, but you can't fit more than an Ethernet
payload on an Ethernet frame, you know that.
TCP is stream oriented, so you can send whatever you want to send and will
flow down the stream in segmen
Please read the wiki and/or the docs, you don't want to call tcp_close() on
the tcp_err() callback.
http://lwip.wikia.com/wiki/Raw/TCP
___
lwip-users mailing list
lwip-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip-users
Sorry, I saved one or two hubs for this very purpose. I guess you are a bit
too far for lending...
You'll have to go hunting down one of these beasts.
Meanwhile, can you double check and/or post your network config ? Maybe you
overlooked a mask or address:
lwIP address, mask, gateway
router address
Hi Simon,
thanks for speedy reply!
I could easily modify ST's driver to return ERR_IF instead. That would
also prove once-for-all that the problem does lie in the driver (or not!).
You say it "shouldn't" be fatal - that's what I thought from looking
through the code. Surely it should only
Mike Fleetwood wrote:
> I am using ST's ethernetif.c driver for STM23F427, which occasionally
> returns ERR_USE. The reason this return code is used, rather than any
> other is explained by ST in the function header:
So STM decided to return "Address in use" (ERR_USE) when they cannot enqueue a
t
Hello,
You will have seen my recent problems with UDP sending.
I am using ST's ethernetif.c driver for STM23F427, which occasionally
returns ERR_USE. The reason this return code is used, rather than any
other is explained by ST in the function header:
* @return ERR_OK if the packet could b
19 matches
Mail list logo
