<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: Re: XP problems
From: Damion Wilson <dwilson,AT,ibl,DOT,bm>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 18:15:43 +0100
In-reply-to: <1045884338.3327.509.camel@bretsony>

That's the one ! I haven't tried it yet myself because my installations don't 
seem to exhibit the startup order problem (yet) but it looks like the proper 
approach.

DKW

On Saturday 22 February 2003 11:04 pm, you wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 16:10, Damion Wilson wrote:
> > There's a fix available for the cipsrvr startup order (it attempts to
> > start before all the dependencies are ready) in the Mailing list
> > archives. I haven't had the chance to integrate it into a release yet.
> > You can also set the service to manual and create a "Run" registry entry
> > to do a cipsrvr start for you as a cheap workaround.
>
> Thanks,  Is this it?
>
>
> Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
>
>  [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\CIPE_Daemon]
>  "Group"="TDI"
> 
> "DependOnService"=hex(7):54,00,63,00,70,00,69,00,70,00,00,00,43,00,49,00,50
>,00,\ 45,00,00,00,00,00
>  "DependOnGroup"=hex(7):00,00
>
>
> Also, where is the stuff entered in the dialog box stored?  I am
> scheming on remote key management from a centralized source.  Assuming
> that it is in a key somewhere I should be able to script the changing of
> the keys via WSH at login , no?  Do I need to bounce the service after
> doing so?
>
>
> I am assuming that each interface on the redhat server needs its own udp
> port.  Is that correct? If so, assuming I have 20 or so interfaces, is
> there a range of ports that should be used to not interfere with
> something else?  What if I had 100? (just wondering about the 100)  What
> is the upper end of the number of interfaces that can be run?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Bret





<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]