This account is temporarily suspended for promotional content. The suspension period ends on Mar 30 '14 at 9:55.

Pat

1 reputation

bio	website
	location
	age
visits	member for	8 months
	seen	7 hours ago
stats	profile views	124

	1 reputation	bio	website		visits	member for	8 months
3 badges		location			seen	7 hours ago

summary answers questions tags badges favorites bounties reputation activity

36 Actions

suggestions reviews revisions comments badges posts accepts all

Mar 28	answered	DHCP Issue with PXE and Android Devices
Mar 26	revised	Network booting from PXE added 7 characters in body
Mar 26	revised	Network booting from PXE added 17 characters in body
Mar 25	answered	Network booting from PXE
Mar 25	answered	How to get windows 2008server r2 DHCP to hand out an IP to a PXE-booting client
Mar 23	comment	strange routing table after PXE boot WinPE if you can ping the gateway/dhcp server and cannot ping the iSCCI server being on the same net then forget about a routing table problem or a net driver issue.
Mar 22	comment	strange routing table after PXE boot WinPE you said you couldn't ping... I haven said the DHCP IP; I've mentioned the client IP assigned by the DHCP server and the default gateway also provided with the DHCP answer. If you can ping then forget about a faulty driver.
Mar 22	comment	Cisco and HP backups to Spiceworks TFTP occasionally creating .tmp files please understand, those tmp you find shouldn't be there, they really talk about some issue on the TFTP code, then you cannot consider they are valid, then if they are left there you should erase them and that's it. Try to see if they are related to the lack of ack on the last transferred TFTP block, try to see if there's a TFTP log giving some tip to pinpoint the issue, try to see if your TFTP code needs to be upgraded.
Mar 21	comment	Cisco and HP backups to Spiceworks TFTP occasionally creating .tmp files I'd would not do that move; the tmp could be left after an aborted transfer; you should just erase the tmp but you should never assume the tmp is the file correctly received.
Mar 21	answered	Cisco and HP backups to Spiceworks TFTP occasionally creating .tmp files
Mar 21	answered	Workstation receiving a PXE-E51 when trying to load WDS
Mar 21	answered	strange routing table after PXE boot WinPE
Feb 26	comment	Is it possible to capture packets of a Router? If your protocol is TCP based Internet will recover from a dropped packet. If you are based on UDP, of course not. The new info about the two clients is a bit confusing; Routers do not know about Client A-B they just know about IP traffic. What you describe of a Client A unplugged and re-logged on a different IP and failing sounds more of a higher level problem rather than an IP packet not reaching destiny. You should first try to see if it is your application failing, or the net.
Feb 25	answered	Is it possible to capture packets of a Router?
Feb 16	comment	Why would you use IPv6 internally? @growse sorry no time for answering kindergarten questions... just go and ask for help to the ones that just upvoted you.
Feb 16	comment	Why would you use IPv6 internally? @growse It does protect your "real" IP by hiding it; just see the Log of an Apache server on a public IP and you'll see what I'm talking about. Do you have an idea how many people today get connected to internet protected ONLY by a NAT layer??? before you challenge me you better GET THE BOOKS.
Feb 15	comment	Why would you use IPv6 internally? @growse let's put it in a different way; can you tell me that NAT does not have security implications??? Of course it does have security implications. if you think other way you and your upvoter fellas get the books.
Feb 15	answered	Why would you use IPv6 internally?
Feb 15	comment	Why would you use IPv6 internally? Chris S concepts on NAT are way wrong; one of the best features of NAT besides the artificial expansion of IPv4 schema is SECURITY. NAT is the layer that hides the real IP of a host that if directly connected to Internet can be the target of all the imaginable attacks. Happily talking about getting rid of NAT without encouraging extra security measures is just plain ignorance.
Feb 14	comment	Why couldn't MAC addresses be used instead of IPv4\|6 for networking? I read it on your profile, but if you do not know about networking I wonder how you dare giving this kind of answers when you definitely cannot tell the difference between L3 and L1/2 addressing schema?? you will be convinced my answers are not spam... they never were.