eq client not found

[nFiniteFx]

I'm using my desktop with RH 8.0 to run ShowEQ and I'm using my laptop with Win XP Home to run EQ. They are both connected to a Netgear MR314 Wireless Router. I didn't have any problems installing ShowEQ. But when i opened ShowEQ by typing

# showeq eth0 --ip-address=192.168.0.3 (Laptop IP)

It wouldn't synchronize with my desktop which is running EQ at the same time. So basically I get just a ShowEQ with just question marks and empty boxes and also I also did try to open the map of the zone I'm currently in. What's wrong? I also tried using the MAC Address. I didn't change my QT. I did a custom install of RH 8.0 (with everything installed). Could someone tell me what to do? Thanks.

[Cryonic]

Wireless router? you mean both your EQ and SEQ boxes are connecting via 802.11b? Good luck getting it to work. All the wireless drivers I've dealt with can't be put in promiscuous mode without being patched and recompiled.

If the machines are hooked to the router on the wired side, then this applies to you:

ROUTERS ARE SWITCHES, SWITCHES DO NOT WORK WITH SHOWEQ.

read the FAQ that is linked to on the front page of this site.

[nFiniteFx]

So what kind of network will work? Thanks.

[MisterSpock]

This might help:

http://seq.sourceforge.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2572

[htw]

Funny how people make the blanket statement it won't work with a switch. Works fine with a switch, as long as the EQ machine itself is not the "router".. ala winxp ICS.

In his case, with both machines hooked to the router itself, then yes it would work fine. 1 route add on the windows box, and ip forwarding + one SNAT rule on the linux machine, and bingo you can sniff it fine.

It would actually work fine in the first case also, but would require an aliased (or virtual) interface on the win machine (or 2 physical adapters, even if only one is used).

With proper configuration & slight manual manipulation of the routing tables (can use a batch file or whatever to automate it), then this "you can't use showeq because you use a switch" would go away.

Specifically, in the author's case, assuming:

Router = 10.0.0.1
Windows (with EQ) = 10.0.0.20
Linux (with seq) = 10.0.0.50

Linux & Windows machines both have gateway IP set to the router (10.0.0.1).

Find out what network your EQ server is, in this example, I will use 199.108.3.x (covers eqworld-40 thru eqworld-46, with approproate eqzone-xx IP's).

On Windows, open command shell and run:
route add 199.108.3.0 mask 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.50

On Linux, make sure you have IP forwarding enabled, appropriate iptables rules in place to allow forwarding, and as root run:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -d 199.108.3.0/24 -j SNAT --to-source 10.0.0.50

Of course, alternatively, you could set up an IP Alias on your linux machine on it's own subnet, and route the windows machine thru that, with only the physical interface having the router as a gateway. *shrug*

Simpler yet, in his case, route everything through the linux box and use NAT behind the router (who cares if it's done by both router & linux, won't hurt anything in this case).

I suppose my point is, there are plenty of alternatives for people who use switches, to still use showeq.

HTW

[high_jeeves]

As has been stated before. While it is possible to get it working with a switch (or a router, or a ShowEQ machine in another country, or whatever you want to do), it is neither as efficient, or as reliable as using a hub. (Since all data must traverse the switch 2x, you also add lag, sometimes in non-trivial amounts). It is not a method supported by the members of these forums, we'll direct the millions of switch related questions to you.


--Jeeves

[htw]

Thanks, Jeeves. Your argumentative nature and negative attitude are well known on these forums, and to be honest, I see less "support" by you than a dozen or so others. Either way, that's not really an issue, you do as you please.

As far as being not as "efficient" as a hub? Right. Traverse 2x on EQ game data, perhaps add an entire 700 to 900 MICROseconds to the round trip ping time. That's why I mentioned it in the first place, instead of the latter options, which would cause all network data for the system in question to traverse 2x.

Not as "reliable"? Laugh. Either you do not understand network systems and how they work, or you just threw that in in an attempt to be more offensive. I assume the latter, of course.

In closing, if you and others like you, wish to refer any questions to me, please do so. At least I will attempt to answer them. I never understood what is so hard about people not jumping into a thread they have no business in, just to make negative and inflammatory posts. Perhaps one day I will, but in the meantime, it does get a little annoying having to scan the left column for the poster's name, so I can tell which comments not to waste my time with reading.

Happy Holidays.

HTW

[high_jeeves]

Well, in rereading my post, I'm not sure what exactly you took such great offense to... sorry if challenging your post brings up such ire in you. But, let me give you a brief forum history lesson:

Now that there is a post saying: look, this is how easy it is to make it work with a switch. There will be people posting because they cant get it working with a switch, and pointing to this thread saying "see, it should work fine." Now, if history repeats itself, you will be gone by then.. leaving the rest of us to support the product as we see fit.

As for the efficiency, your assumption assumes that EQ is the lone actor on the network. In the past, people have experienced lag/loss when hopping their traffic all over their network.

As for reliability, anything that requires more configuration, particularly by and end user that isnt familiar with routing, etc, is less reliable to that end user. This doesnt have anything to do with networking, it simply has to do with usability.

Oh, and if you read the whole thread, you will find that this person is using wireless, which significantly effects both efficiency, and network-reliability.

The bottom line remains the same: We support using either a hub, or the linux box as a router (with 2 network cards). Any other network configuration is not supported by the ACTIVE members of this forum. If you are buying new equipment, go buy a $10 hub, and there will be no worries.


--Jeeves

[S_B_R]

Who's taking bets that the next post (if there is one) from the original author of this thread will read something like:
I took your advise and went out and bought a Linksys hub. I still can't seem to get showeq working correctly. for some reason it still can't see the packets???