Prev: IE8 doesn't connect using Wireless connection
Next: Powerline networking
From: LR on 17 Oct 2009 06:50
On 16/10/2009 22:16, colorpurple wrote:
> RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.1:1900->Loc:1900, OWNER:
> C:\WINSYS\SVCHOST.EXE
> RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.1:1900->Loc:1900, OWNER:
> C:\WINSYS\SVCHOST.EXE
> RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.1:1900->Loc:1900, OWNER:
> C:\WINSYS\SVCHOST.EXE
> RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.186:54605->Loc:2223, OWNER: no owner
> RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.186:54605->Loc:2223, OWNER: no owner
>
>
> On a XP system, public access AP, I am receiving floods of these
> incoming UDP packets. If I block port 1900, I lose my assigned IP and
> cannot reconnect. On another system windows 98SE, if I block port 1900,
> no problem, stay connected.
>
> Anyone know what the purpose of these incoming UDP packets is? They are
> being sent by the gateway/dns server..
Port 1900 is normally used for SSDP.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Service_Discovery_Protocol>
It is part of UPnP and will be included in XP as standard. Your Win 98SE
machine does not have it has standard and it will only be included if
you have perhaps included the "ICS Client" from XP.
You could try disabling the UPnp Service on your XP machine and see if
it will connect to the AP with port 1900 blocked.
I would guess, not certain, that port 54605 is used as an alternative
for M-SEARCH messages.
"SEARCHPORT.UPNP.ORG
OPTIONAL. If a device does not send the SEARCHPORT.UPNP.ORG header
field, it MUST respond to unicast M-SEARCH messages on port 1900. Only
if port 1900 is unavailable MAY a device select a different port to
respond to unicast M-SEARCH messages. If a device sends the
SEARCHPORT.UPNP.ORG header field, its field value MUST be an ASCII
encoded integer, decimal, without leading zeros (leading zeroes, if
present, MUST be ignored by the recipient), in the range 49152-65535
(RFC 4340). The device MUST respond to unicast M-SEARCH messages that
are sent to the advertised port."
<http://www.upnp.org/specs/arch/UPnP-arch-DeviceArchitecture-v1.1.pdf>
From: DevilsPGD on 17 Oct 2009 17:53
In message <hbans2$h9i$1(a)aioe.org> colorpurple <colorpurple_not(a)msn.com>
was claimed to have wrote:

>RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.1:1900->Loc:1900, OWNER:
>C:\WINSYS\SVCHOST.EXE
>RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.1:1900->Loc:1900, OWNER:
>C:\WINSYS\SVCHOST.EXE
>RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.1:1900->Loc:1900, OWNER:
>C:\WINSYS\SVCHOST.EXE
>RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.186:54605->Loc:2223, OWNER: no owner
>RULE:'DNS': PERMIT: In UDP, 172.16.0.186:54605->Loc:2223, OWNER: no owner
>
>
>On a XP system, public access AP, I am receiving floods of these
>incoming UDP packets. If I block port 1900, I lose my assigned IP and
>cannot reconnect. On another system windows 98SE, if I block port 1900,
>no problem, stay connected.
>
>Anyone know what the purpose of these incoming UDP packets is? They are
>being sent by the gateway/dns server..

Port 1900 is uPNP, it shouldn't be required in most cases unless you're
using uPNP, but I've seen weirder things.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: IE8 doesn't connect using Wireless connection
Next: Powerline networking