[Plugin] [CLOSED] WOL-PowerManager (1 Viewer)

[GJC]

I got it to work. I needed to check the "use IP adress instead of Domain" option.

 

[GJC]

I still can't get WOL to work if I'm connected to my local LAN through a wireless access point. Everything is on the same subnet and it works if I run a small test utility to send WOL packets.

What port(s) and address(es) does WOL Power Manager send the WOL packet to?

 

[Lehmden]

Hi.
@Guzzi
An really important option is missing in 0.4.0... "use IP adress instead of Domain". Without this WPM often did not work (depends on the type of router used in local network) This part of code seems to be missing.
The only thing working for me is display if server is online. If yes, I got a correct message, if not I got an error.

 

[GJC]

Hi Guzzi,

I had a look at the source code and it doesn't look like you are specifying a port number for the WOL. Standard ports are ports 7 and 9. To make my laptop send a WOL over the wireless, I need to configure my router to forward those ports. The router won't let me specify port 0, which is what you appear to have for the Connect command: WOLClient.Connect(IPAddress.Broadcast, 0);

I tried to build the trunk code that you have in svn (so that I could test out specifying a port) but it won't build. The Utilities class is missing some methods.

Can you please respond to this post and possibly add either port 7 or 9 to your Connect statement? I'm currently using v 0300 of the plug-in.

Thanks!

 

[Guzzi]

Hi.
@Guzzi
An really important option is missing in 0.4.0... "use IP adress instead of Domain". Without this WPM often did not work (depends on the type of router used in local network) This part of code seems to be missing.
The only thing working for me is display if server is online. If yes, I got a correct message, if not I got an error.

True - same here. But I idn't change any content, behaviour or features - just changed compatibility code so it can be used with MP1.3.x - as requested above ;-)

 

[Guzzi]

Hi Guzzi,

I had a look at the source code and it doesn't look like you are specifying a port number for the WOL. Standard ports are ports 7 and 9. To make my laptop send a WOL over the wireless, I need to configure my router to forward those ports. The router won't let me specify port 0, which is what you appear to have for the Connect command: WOLClient.Connect(IPAddress.Broadcast, 0);

I tried to build the trunk code that you have in svn (so that I could test out specifying a port) but it won't build. The Utilities class is missing some methods.

Can you please respond to this post and possibly add either port 7 or 9 to your Connect statement? I'm currently using v 0300 of the plug-in.

Thanks!

... it's not my plugin and code and I don't have access to svn - I just fixed/(re)added the code missing in svn locally to be able to compile.
Attached a version that allows you to specify the connect port (still uses 0 as default) and IP instead of DNS name.

 

[GJC]

Thanks Guzzi,

It turns out that port forwarding is only useful if I'm trying to wake up my server from the internet, not from my intranet. Sorry for the trouble, but ports 7 or 9 are still standard WOL ports so it doesn't hurt to support them.

I'm suspecting that my issue is with the IP address that the plugin is using to broadcast. My broadcast address is 10.0.0.255 for my subnet and I find that if I broadcast to 255.255.255.255 (which is what IPAddress.Broadcast is) then my WOL doesn't work over the wi-fi. Broadcasting to 10.0.0.255 works great.

Could you possibly add a configuration setting for the broadcast address? It can actually be calculated based on the subnet of the local LAN, but for a quick test it's probably easier to simply make it configurable.

If you prefer, perhaps you could provide a zip of the source code so that I can tinker until I find a solution, then I can send you the fix.

 

[Guzzi]

Here is source that compiles here. But would be better, if Seppi fixes the svn...
WHen you discover, what settings are required and it is possible to set automatic, it should be done this way. Better avoiding too many settings that confuses ppl...

 

[GJC]

Thanks Guzzi, I'll have a look at the code this weekend and see what I can come up with. If I can create a generalized fix then I'll certainly pass it along.

 

[Guzzi]

Thanks, sure that'll help others too !