I read from a book, says that two computer A and B:
A: 192.168.26.129/24 gateway 192.168.26.2
B: 192.168.26.3/27 gateway 192.168.26.2
The book say that if B ping A, it can works.
i. So I test it on cisco packet tracker, and it's not working?
ii. But after I change the B to 192.168.26.3/24, and it can work fine, I know that.
iii. Then I test change B to 192.168.26.3/24, it is still work.
What is the difference between step (i) with setp (iii)?
I know it must relative to arp? someone can tell the detial? or did I do something wrong?
You have overlapping IP addressing ranges. 2 possible solutions:
Preferred: Fix the addressing scheme
Enable proxy ARP on the router.
Related
so I encountered a weird issue with deploying bytecodes via a deployer contract. On 1 of 5 deployed contracts via the same compilation round & deployment flow I ended having a different deployedBytecode (but same bytecode) as with my original truffle compiled source. Therefore I can't get it verified. The issue seems that the address of the deployer contract is part of the deployedBytecode (while on my local file it is the null address). The issue is also only for 1 contract, while all 5 contracts share the same code (especially around the deployer address mentioned inside the contract.
So here i.e. is the deployer contract (+ verified source code):
https://polygonscan.com/address/0xd54716865c58d11e7c39c3cf634d9e919c0c6cce#code
I deployed my contract (SignerVaultV1.sol) via that tx:
https://polygonscan.com/tx/0x4d6e3a002b448e675ba6a2374737d4eaf0e18b163a57a66c09109ba332c8c5e3
The bytecode of it is exactly the same as on my local file, but if the deployedBytecodes are compared, 3 changes can be seen: Diff between online vs offline deployedBytecode (I can't post pics yet^^)
The difference in it is the address of the deployer contract (d54716865c58d11e7c39c3cf634d9e919c0c6cce). But like I said, the deployerContract delivered multiple contracts, all are correct, only this one is having that issue and I cant figure it out why.
I personally would like to get that contract verified without having to redeploy it (and maybe rund into the same issue...) I tried already to alter the source code to match the online deployedBytecode, but it seems also a harsh idea :D
Well after testing different ways, I dont honestly why, but sending a verification request via hardhat got it working... I couldn't manually verify or via truffle, but hardhat seems to know the magic for the last contract :)
Originally posted as a reply to: Error: The requested URL "[no URL]", is invalid
I get this error but only with one specific website (which is my own). This must be linked to the website as it is happening on 3 different machines on 3 different networks (personal comp on personal wifi, phone on 4/3g and work pc on work network) and no other sites. Also, it happens no matter what you put after the domain name, weather its a real page or just '/sdjhlgajhsdfg'.
A reply to the other post said that it looks like somthing to do with akamai. As this is my site, i went to the CPanel and disabled the akamai options (over 24 hours ago). i do not need any kind of caching like this as it is a simple html css site with only a hand full of mostly text pages. The most complicated thing on the site is a downloadable pdf which i have actually just taken down.
The error ref number changes every time you refresh the page.
Reference #9.d7c33b8.1478565760.55ccef1
Reference #9.d7c33b8.1478566986.560a7c3
Reference #9.d7c33b8.1478567000.560b460
Any advice would be very much appreciated.
I finally found some time to contact my webserver provider.
I can see that the domain has been removed from the Akamai server.
However, the CNAME which was pointing to Akamai server was causing the
issue. I have removed the CNAME record.
after about half an hour its back up. theres some display issues with the layout, but at lease its displaying the relevant content and not the error.
When you see Invalid URL error, this indicates that the hostname (domain) is not recognized by the Akamai's network (production or staging).
More info at: https://control.akamai.com/search/kb/11327
Hope this helps.
If there is a reverse proxy in before akamai you may get this error.
Client > Reverse Proxy > Akamai > Your API, will give this error.
Let your reverse proxy strip "Host" header and sent by "Client" and try again.
That worked for me in a setup like this:
Browser > Caddy Server > Akamai > My API
in akamai i had to add a new property manager entry for the new url/cert then activate it in prod.
I'm in IT support. We have two types of correspondence:
With final users. The usual external communication with them.
With service providers (DBA, etc) Internal communication that can't be seen for the requestors.
For the first one, we use the 'answer to requestor'.
For the service providers, we use a comment and send CC to the service provider. But when they reply, RT considers their reply as correspondence and execute the actions for the 'correspondence' condition.
Then, when i wanna customize the scrips, RT doesn't distinguish between the actions: an email to the user and a replay from the provider (internal CC) are both "on correspondence" for RT, and send them both to the requestor.
I don't realize how to configure RT for send 1 y 2 to different actions.
Have I configurated something wrong? Which must I consider?
Or must I use a custom user scrip?
Thanks a lot!
RT should do what you are expecting, which is send correspondence (replies) to the requestor and send comments only to staff. There are two areas to look at to sort out why this isn't happening:
1) By default, RT's notification scrips use the Cc role to add another requestor. If you want to add a "commenter," you want to use the AdminCc role rather than Cc. This is likely the problem.
2) If that doesn't fix it, make sure you have two email addresses set up, one for correspondence and one for comment, something like support#example.com (correspond address) and support-comment#example.com (comment address). Then make sure you have your /etc/aliases file set up to route correspond with --action correspond and comment with --action comment. An initial example is provided in step 10 in the RT README.
I had 3 Agents (A, B and C). For test purposes, I´ve installed a fourth one (D), but I didnt know that my license was up to 3 Agents only. So, the agent D was created with "Unauthorized with comment: Agent teamcityagentdev4 cannot be authorized because there is not enough licenses" status. Its understandable, but a weird thing happened to another Agent A, that was working well so far. The Agent A status changed to "Disconnected (Agent has unregistered)". Now, I got 2 questions:
1) How can I delete the Agent D ? There is no button "Remove agent" in Agent Summary tab in TC Web UI. I tried to disable this Agent in order to get that button, but its still missing.
2) How can I reconnect the Agent A ? I tried to restart the Agent windows service, but nothing happened.
I also searching in Team City documentation, but I didnt found anything about that.
You just need to stop Agent service on Agent D to get it removed from Agents tab.
Also, you might want to check Agent A's logs to figure out what happened. You can try restarting Agent A's service after stopping Agent D's service
Stop the agent service.
Now in the agents tab you can see that particular agent disconnected. Now a new option(button) appears 'Remove Agent'. Click that and your agent gets deleted/removed.
What is the "official" url I should use if I want to indicate just a resource that fails as soon as possible?
I don't want to use www.example.com since its an actual site that accepts and responds requests and I don't want something that takes forever and fails from a timeout (like typing using a random, private IP address can lead to).
I thought about writing an invalid address or just some random text but I figured it wouldn't look as nice and clear as "www.example.com" is.
If you want an invalid IP, trying using 0.0.0.0.
The first octet of an IP cannot be 0, so 0.0.0.0 to 0.255.255.255 will be invalid.
For more info, see this question: what is a good invalid IP address to use for unit tests?
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5735:
192.0.2.0/24 - This block is assigned as "TEST-NET-1" for use in documentation and example code. It is often used in conjunction with domain names example.com or example.net in vendor and protocol documentation. As described in [RFC5737], addresses within this block do not legitimately appear on the public Internet and can be used without any coordination with IANA or an Internet registry. See[RFC1166].
Use .invalid, as per RFC 6761:
The domain "invalid." and any names falling within ".invalid." are special [...] Users MAY assume that queries for "invalid" names will always return NXDOMAIN responses.
So a request for https://foo.invalid/bar will always fail, assuming well-behaved DNS.
Related question: What is a guaranteed-unresolvable (but valid) URL?
if it's in a browser then about: is fairly useless - but it would be better if your service returned the correct HTTP status code - e.g. 200 = good, 404 = not found, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_status_codes