Jump to content

4.267 - Looking for Sessions on Port 2400


Gibsonm
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was working with @BadgerDog and we discovered a quirk.

 

The Host settings were to host of Port 2300 (the default).

 

I as a Client had a screen saying "looking for sessions on Port 2400":

 

SS_09_48_39.thumb.jpg.e816f3ee3899840402505d7b05506bc4.jpg

 

Should anyone intending to Host change it to "2400" going for forward??

 

As it was changing the Host to use Port 2400 made no difference, in terms of the Client being able to find the session.

 

The Client doesn't not have an option to specify the port to search on.

 

This happens using both the "8 user cap" executable and the "server" executable.

 

@Nike-Ajax @Major duck This may have implications for your Kanium session, although it wasn't an issue for TGIF.

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

 

With @BadgerDog still Hosting in 4.267 I started a 4.265 Client in the hope that I could at least join but with the usual "flashing name" at his end to indicate I had an incompatible version.

 

My machine just "looked for sessions" (albeit without the "on Port 2400" message).

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think port 2400 is for discovering sessions and initiating the host-client handshake, where they will negotiate which port actually to use for the game session (typically that would be 2300, but it could be another one depending on the local conditions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE: Its working now (i.e. I could join a session hosted by him).

 

What's changed?

 

It appears that in the last seven days Windows (God bless em) rolled out some sort of update to the their firewall package forcing rules to be applied.

 

@BadgerDog was not previously running the Windows Firewall and last week he could Host, this week he couldn't.

 

Going in and editing the Windows Firewall to allow both inbound and outbound traffic for SB Pro PE now means he can host again.

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sean said:

Depending on how you do the firewall exception, the windows firewall will have to be checked and exceptions reapplied every time there is a new exe.

 

Yes, I'm comfortable with that process.

 

The gotcha for the wider audience, I think, is that it appears that post the Windows update this week, the Windows firewall maybe activated without the user knowing.

 

Certainly pre this week (both pre 4.267 and pre the Windows update) @BadgerDog did not need to add the new .exe to the exceptions list because he wasn't running the Windows Firewall.

 

Now in order to get it running, he did need to add it (even though he did not consciously choose to activate the Windows Firewall).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...