Outsourcing Machinemanager's IP Obtain Method

Everybody knows that issue, when running the pServer on a local instance with one or more adapters:
Cert runs on e.g. 192.168.178.20,
GlobalManager connects to the IP of Cert,
MachineManager, the bitch it is, obtains its IP from the binding system, which in this case (if automatically being set) will choose the adapter with the lowest or suitable matrix (e.g. WLAN adapter with a different IP than the local ethernet adapter with its local IP (192.168.178.20)),
and this will stop all continuing processes from linking properly with each module.

There should be a possibility changing this, as either outsourcing it to a dll file or having a bypass/fix applying directly on that crappy network protocol binding system, which does not exist anymore on windows 10, or narrowed down af.

Did anyone achieved there anything?

A temp, but also an unsatisfying, fix for this is either using the dynamic IP (public) of the adapter, or simply disabling the corresponding adapter before booting the server - and reactivating it.

Here is the solution for your problem

in server.cfg go to the module that you want it to connect with ip you would like, and just add this.

Code:

---

Certification_ip_bind "THE IP HERE"

---

Example:
https://image.prntscr.com/image/Dx9H...48Zu0VJa4Q.png

Hope this helped,
Greetings.

Those two lines were added to the cfg file as a standard (you have them, if you get those files stock, unedited, etc). Sadly it won't work for this case. :/

It is still an annoyance that the machine manager tries to obtain the IP otherwise than being told to.

ForceBindIP

But will not work with the released one, you need old ForceBindIP. I have it on my PC, contact me if you want it.

Would you mind elaborating the difference between the "new and old" ForceBindIP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blapanda

Would you mind elaborating the difference between the "new and old" ForceBindIP?

---

clean your inbox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blapanda

Would you mind elaborating the difference between the "new and old" ForceBindIP?

---

I don't know, its something with the Silkroad files that makes the problem with new forcebindip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NourAyman

clean your inbox.

---

Feel free to msg me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nooway

I don't know, its something with the Silkroad files that makes the problem with new forcebindip.

---

Ok then. Left a pm.

Small update:
ForceBindIP application (officially provided and offered by r1ch.net) does not do the job. Having it at the server's root folder, at system32 or any other related dll-injecting instance, won't do the trick, even by actually forcing a specific IP on boot with its inject cmd.

Just as mirror.
Attachment 162082

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blapanda

... Small update:
ForceBindIP application (officially provided and offered by r1ch.net) does not do the job. Having it at the server's root folder, at system32 or any other related dll-injecting instance, won't do the trick, even by actually forcing a specific IP on boot with its inject cmd.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by minastirr

Just as mirror.
Attachment 162082

---

Did you even read the topic? o:

not sure what u're after but i think it's this part here :D hf :P
https://i.imgur.com/tmA3zca.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x30unlimited

not sure what u're after but i think it's this part here :D hf :P
https://i.imgur.com/tmA3zca.png

---

That seems valuable, going to give it a try, when I return home. Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blapanda

That seems valuable, going to give it a try, when I return home. Thank you!

---

btw original credits go to chern0byl ;) it's in one of his tools that i've found out about the "%d.%d.%d.%d" string <3