Just switched from Plex… but might be going back lol. Http:/localhost :8097 works on my PC where my JF server is hosted. But I can’t connect on any other devices on the same network. What I have tried:

  • enabled private connections in Windows Defender. Then tried public too.

  • went to settings and binded address to 0.0.0.0

  • changed my port from 8096 to 8097 just to see if a different port would work.

  • Made an inbound rule for port 8097 in advanced firewall settings.

Not sure what’s going on here. On Plex it was easy to discover other devices on the same network. I have JF localhost connected to my Cloudflare Tunnel and I have access on all of my devices that way… but I rather just use my internal ip when I’m at home. Any help?

UPDATE: Literally been at this for hours, and as soon as I post the question on Lemmy…I figured it out. 🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️

On Windows, I had to go to settings > networks and internet > and select private network. Don’t know how it was on public. Smh. I’ll leave this here just in case anyone else has the same issue.

  • dutchkimble@lemy.lolEnglish
    501·
    1 year ago

    If we pull in a team effort we can all collectively try 1 to 255 for the last octet and download all the money from this man’s bank account and split it between us what say?

      • deur@feddit.nlEnglish
        102·
        1 year ago

        We’ll mark you down as having tested 255 then, 1 down, 254 to go!

        • VonReposti@feddit.dkEnglish
          15·
          1 year ago

          The 192.168.x.x IP range doesn’t allow for subnet masks greater than 255.255.255.0. How that’s enforced I can’t remember, but I’m 99% sure he isn’t using larger subnets.

          • aard@kyu.deEnglish
            71·
            1 year ago

            The 192.168.x.x IP range doesn’t allow for subnet masks greater than 255.255.255.0

            This is nonsense. In that space you get a /16, and you can do with it whatever you want.

            • VonReposti@feddit.dkEnglish
              15·
              1 year ago

              No it’s not. 192.168.x.x is a reserved class C range which per specification is limited to 255.255.255.0

              • aard@kyu.deEnglish
                42·
                1 year ago

                Stop sprouting that kind of bullshit.

                Class based networking has been obsolete for 3 decades now - and RfC 1519 was quickly implemented, so pretty much by the mid 90s any device looking up network masks by classes could be considered some broken legacy device.

                RfC 1918 - which allocates the private IP ranges - came 2.5 years after the introduction of CIDR, specifies the networks in bit notation, and only references what the equivalent networks were in class notation as reference for people who have been asleep for a few years.

                • VonReposti@feddit.dkEnglish
                  26·
                  1 year ago

                  You know, I would have looked it up and checked if there were holes on my knowledge but you being a dick about it makes me not want to.

                  Next time, don’t assume the worst in people and you might actually succeed in convincing them.

                  • aard@kyu.deEnglish
                    24·
                    1 year ago

                    If you’re younger than ~40 you shouldn’t even know the term ‘network class’, unless you’re really into history of computer networks. If you learned that term in some kind of school I’d question the rest of what they’ve been teaching as well.

                    If you’re older than 40 you should’ve stopped using class based concepts at least two decades ago.

          • SoaringDE@feddit.deEnglish
            21·
            1 year ago

            The .x.x literally shows that you can fit a /16 (255.255.0.0) in there. 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0

            • VonReposti@feddit.dkEnglish
              14·
              1 year ago

              No, that’s a placeholder a set. It’s a class C range which is limited to 254 hosts.