You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently debugging an issue potentially with this implementation of SSDP in Golang.
On my current machine, I have no issues with the Minidlna C implementation joining the 239.255.255.250:1900 socket and receiving multicast broadcasts from across subnets.
However, with the same exact interface and calling on this Server in Golang, I only get results for 0.0.0.0:1900 and do not have success with accessing this server like the 239.255.255.250:1900 socket Minidlna has.
Just to be clear, whenever this is ran I only ever get
// Bind the multicast group to the interface
if err := p.JoinGroup(&iface, groupAddr); err != nil {
logger.Debugf("Failed to join multicast group: %v", err)
return err
}
I haven't had a chance to try to compile a change myself with this repo and then re-implement the library in the other application but wanted to see if there was any decision made with the implementation for this as I haven't been having success as is.
Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently debugging an issue potentially with this implementation of SSDP in Golang.
On my current machine, I have no issues with the Minidlna C implementation joining the
239.255.255.250:1900
socket and receiving multicast broadcasts from across subnets.However, with the same exact interface and calling on this Server in Golang, I only get results for
0.0.0.0:1900
and do not have success with accessing this server like the239.255.255.250:1900
socket Minidlna has.Just to be clear, whenever this is ran I only ever get
Looking here:
dms/ssdp/ssdp.go
Lines 95 to 108 in 07c3224
Is there any reason there isn't a JoinGroup used?
e.g.
I haven't had a chance to try to compile a change myself with this repo and then re-implement the library in the other application but wanted to see if there was any decision made with the implementation for this as I haven't been having success as is.
Thanks
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: