On 06/03/2014 05:43 AM, Liam Proven issued this missive:
On 3 June 2014 00:02, Rick Stevens ricks@alldigital.com wrote:
If you don't specify the server's IP address to the client, then the client will probably be trying to connect over the OTHER network, and no, that won't work.
Success!
It was the firewall in the end; Synergy's error message is misleading. It says "no route to host", but there is a route, it's just that nobody's able to listen.
Procedure, in case it helps anyone:
[1] I moved the 2nd machine onto a different network port, getting it on the same subnet. No difference.
[2] I investigated why I had this 2nd network interface, virbr0:
http://nixcraft.com/showthread.php/15760-Remove-Virtual-Interface
So I got rid of it:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-kvm-disable-virbr0-nat-interface/
No difference. Rebooted, still no difference.
[3] I checked out that there _was_ a route. There was. No hops, 2 machines on same 10.x.y.z subnet. I even added a hostname to /etc/hosts. No difference.
[4] So then I thought the "no route to host" message must be spurious, and finally Googled it.
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/42001/synergy-no-route-to-host-but...
And this post is correct. Although there are no firewall rules visible in the GUI, they _are_ there and the port _was_ being blocked.
Open the port and it worked instantly.
I explained that a long time ago. The default firewall blocks everything except what you put in the config and I had told you what needed to be opened.
The virbr0 thing shouldn't have had an effect anyway. It's used for bonjour and its ilk.
Regardless, glad you got it to work anyway. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - I doubt, therefore I might be. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------