Note: Some operations may not perform well or function at all on a remote connection

[raymondjpg 16]

This message now comes up whenever I start Media Browser Classic.

 

What does it mean? It comes up on MB Classic installed on the same PC as the Server, as well as on other PCs on my LAN.

 

If I understood what it meant, is there some fix? Or if not, having noted the message, some way to turn it off?

[ebr 16169]

Are you pointing to the server using its public IP address instead of the internal one or a machine name?

[Haubrija 1]

This has recently been happening to me as well, but I believe it is server related, not MBC related.  When I go to bring up the server after I receive this message, the Server configuration won't come up even though it appears to be running.  I'll post logs next time I'm in front of my HTPC.

[inzombyac 69]

I see this every time on my clients which are set to the server's local IP since MBC implemented MB Connect connections.  Assumed that it was part of that implementation and have been ignoring it.  I went into the config and changed the local IP to 127.0.0.1 on the server and it went away.  My lan doesn't use 192.168.*.*.  How is MBC determining what is local vs. remote?

[ebr 16169]

It has to make a guess based on IP ranges.  If you use a machine name it should realize it is local easily.

[raymondjpg 16]

Are you pointing to the server using its public IP address instead of the internal one or a machine name?

 

Neither, as far as I can tell. This is an extract from MBCommonXml.config on both the PC hosting the server, and another not hosting the server on the LAN:

 

<Settings>

  <FindServerAutomatically>True</FindServerAutomatically>

  <ShowServerSelection>False</ShowServerSelection>

  <ServerAddress>

  </ServerAddress>

  <ServerPort>8096</ServerPort>

  <LastServerMacAddress>D2-50-99-38-D8-62</LastServerMacAddress>

 

 

I see this every time on my clients which are set to the server's local IP since MBC implemented MB Connect connections.  Assumed that it was part of that implementation and have been ignoring it.  I went into the config and changed the local IP to 127.0.0.1 on the server and it went away.  My lan doesn't use 192.168.*.*.  How is MBC determining what is local vs. remote?

 

 

My LAN doesn't use 192.168.*.* either. Where would I find this in MB config? Also, where are you changing the "local IP to 127.0.0.1 on the server"?

[ebr 16169]

What IP address range are you using?

[raymondjpg 16]

What IP address range are you using?

 

10.1.1.*. Or should I be more specific?

[ebr 16169]

No, that's fine.  Is that a globally recognized local IP range?  I can add it to be recognized if so.

[raymondjpg 16]

No, that's fine.  Is that a globally recognized local IP range?  I can add it to be recognized if so.

 

It is not used as widely as 192.168.*.* but I would say it is globally recognised. My LAN Address range 10.*.*.* originated with D-Link routers some time ago, and I find it much easier to type and to implement on a LAN than 192.168.*.*.

[inzombyac 69]

I'm also using a 10.*.*.* range.  Would it make sense to recognize the same IP range as the server instead?  This way people can use whatever IP range they want.

[techywarrior 689]

Ebr, I thought this was discussed a long time ago and all the official ranges were added. 10.*.*.* is most definitely a restricted IP range (I believe Apple uses it for all their network gear)

 

Restricted for local use:

10.0.0.0/8

172.16.0.0/12

192.168.0.0/16

[ebr 16169]

Yes, we did discuss it and I am (or was) using the same logic as the server.  10.0 is recognized.  10.1 is not.

[raymondjpg 16]

Yes, we did discuss it and I am (or was) using the same logic as the server.  10.0 is recognized.  10.1 is not.

 

Following up on your question "Is that [10.1.1.*] a globally recognized local IP range?" I found many references to routers having factory default 10.1.1.* Ip addresses, also this from a dslreports thread from 2001:

 

One oft-overlooked piece of advice when choosing private IP addressing schemes is that certain routers (Cisco is the most common offender) do not like having 0's in the address block, because if you follow the rules to the letter, 0 is supposed to be interpreted as the network address. Now, most home routers tend to not care too much, but if you want to err on the side of caution, pick 10.1.1.x or 192.168.1.x for your block.

 

I am no expert when it comes to networking, and this is only one quote from about 14 years ago, but it suggests to me that 10.1.1.* could well have been adopted for local addresses by quite a few users as an alternative to 192.168.1.*, and as such could be regarded as globally recognised.

 

[bigjohn 753]

Yes, we did discuss it and I am (or was) using the same logic as the server.  10.0 is recognized.  10.1 is not.

 

Everything in the 10.*.*.* range should be considered a local address.

 

Private (non-routable) IP address spaces designated by IETF are

10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255  (CIDR notation 10.0.0.0/8)

172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255  (CIDR notation 172.16.0.0/12)

192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255  (CIDR notation 192.168.0.0/16)

[techywarrior 689]

Lol John...you basically copy/pasted my response (#12 above)

[bigjohn 753]

Lol John...you basically copy/pasted my response (#12 above)

 

I assumed that not everyone would understand CIDR notation.

[ebr 16169]

The dev release that went up today will recognize any 10.* address as local.

[raymondjpg 16]

The dev release that went up today will recognize any 10.* address as local.

 

Thank you.

[ebr 16169]

Thank you.

 

Does that mean you installed and tested it and it is working?

[raymondjpg 16]

Does that mean you installed and tested it and it is working?

 

Yes. The message no longer appears on startup, but i haven't fully tested the dev release yet for functionality.