There was never any problem with Remote Utilities.
In summary, my modem was providing Wi-Fi in addition to the Wi-Fi from my router connected to the modem. I had my ISP bridge the modem and the direct access connection worked.
A few months ago I had RU direct connection working with no problem at all.
Between now and then I changed my cable, telephone, and Internet package. The old package did not include Wi-Fi; the new one did without my realizing it. And, I was too lazy to research this other network I noticed, and not smart enough to realize this other layer 1 segment could be the source of my direct connection problem.
But this software was well worth the time and effort to get it working. I have a strong preference for Remote Utilities over [censored] . I love this product and this company.
This is going to be an invaluable tool for a couple of commercial travelers who often need information (and sometimes functionality) from their unattended office machine. Additionally, it will save me much time and effort by allowing me to remotely support these fellows with their IT tasks instead of having to travel significant distance to their office.
Maybe a Google search will find this post and help others fix their direct connection problem or find a tremendous tool.
Conrad just spent a significant amount of time in a remote session with me trying to fix this. We couldn't find the problem. At this point, it seems that my ISP is providing me Internet access behind a shared connection.
Is there anybody here able to use a RU direct connection with eastlink.ca? If so, are you in Nova Scotia, Canada?
I was successful a few months ago with an earlier version of RU but maybe eastlink.ca has changed something.
A counter argument is that such a change would adversely affect the gamers. And there are a lot of gamers.
I haven't gotten in touch with Eastlink yet, but will post any information I get.
Again, appreciation and thanks to our favorite RU staff member.
Many people using direct connection and my being the only one having a problem is definitive and reassuring. The fix should be easy when I find it.
All my machines have Bitdefender Total Security 2017 installed.
I'll try reducing my environment to a minimum (no router, Bitdefender uninstalled, Windows Firewall and Defender disabled) again, on another machine, and keep looking for the problem with 126.96.36.199 installed.
Benny, you were correct and I was wrong. I tried the PowerShell Test-NetConnection cmdlet again with the domain name and it came back TcpTestSucceeded: false; with the IP address it came back with TcpTestSucceeded: true. I was obviously wrong when I said that I had already tried it.
I'm still working on my direct connection problem.
Would someone please verify that they have been successful in using a direct connection with RU version 188.8.131.52.
1. By bypassing my router, I meant that I connected the cable from my modem directly to my computer (disconnecting the cables between my ISP and my router, and my router and computer).
2. Yes, in my original test, both the Host and the Viewer were on the same subnet. However, I cannot even log on with a direct connection; it isn't just WOL I can't get to work.
3. WOL does work over the Internet I believe.
4. After I went to bed I remembered that I forgot to mention above that Windows firewall was turned off too, as was Windows Defender. (I realize that Windows firewall is automatically turned on when one turns off Bitdefender.)
5. Summary of Test-NetConnection test run on Host machine:
The Host was running correctly as confirmed by a previous successful Internet-ID connection The Router was physically disconnected from host All Bitdefender firewall and all Bitdefender anti-malware settings turned off All Windows Firewall settings turned off Windows Defender settings turned off No other defensive software nor VPN software running Powershell Test-NetConnection test on Host returns success for ping and failure on TCP
This morning I think I try to find a copy of the RU version I had running a few months ago and try that. I think I've narrowed the possible explanations down to my having repeated the same error over and over again or a version 6.6 bug.