I have a strange issue where browsing to my Silverlight 5 website using the host name works perfectly fine but when using the IP address instead it throws this exception: http://iforce.co.nz/i/1ohkll5v.32o.png
I have implemented the clientaccesspolicy return stream in a REST service on my self hosted WCF web service (similar to Cross Domain Exception with WcfSvcHost), and it works perfectly fine when using the hostname. However if I debug that method it never actually gets called in the scenario with the IP address.
Is there some limitation in Silverlight that does not allow you to use the IP address with WCF? I seem to remember that this was working before some time ago.
Another reason of this error is that Silverlight prevents cross-zone acccess, too. Therefore, in the clinet browser, you need to add both addresses (the one with hostname and the one with IP address) to the same Security Zone (either Local Intranet or Trusted Sites) in Internet Explorer.
Although this is an old question—and it will not help you, it might help others.
I had the same issue and lost hours trying to find the answer. The problem for me—in the end—was that I was referencing the WCF service using the machine name. Because of this—Silverlight thought I was referring to a local machine—so Silverlight doesn't even bother making a client policy request.
So just reference the service using an IP address instead of the machine name. Even if that IP address is local. Then check with Fiddler and notice that the Silverlight client will now make a policy request before the first service call.
Related
I built a WCF service that exposes itself for a web application, it accepts an object and prints the data on the clients machine. Works fine on my development machine, and the service is up and running on any machine i install it on. I can enter ip address in clients machine web browser and see it is running. Problem is when i send the object to the clients machine it returns an error, that sounds like it could be because of the clients windows firewall. Where would i start at to deal with this problem ?
There was no endpoint listening at http://192.168.1.168:2202/PrintLabel that could accept the message. This is often caused by an incorrect address or SOAP action. See InnerException, if present, for more details.
And the InnerException: Unable to connect to the remote server
With further research and discussion with people in the community i came to understand that as was mentioned at the bottom of this article.
"Self-hosted HTTP addressing for WCF is not integrated into the Windows firewall. An exception must be added to the firewall configuration to allow inbound connections using a particular URL.
But this SO question led me to a page with how to control Windows Firewall through code to enable my WCF self hosted service to accept an object.
This the link below.
http://www.shafqatahmed.com/2008/01/controlling-win.html
That link was towards the direction i needed, but based on user comments it seemed to have some bugs. A colleague found this link and i believe this technique will be the best solution for this scenario.
I have an app with a self-hosted WCF service.
My WCF service gets published under the URI "net.tcp://localhost:8004/DocumentService". When I run the service on a remote machine and try to discover the service with the new .NET 4 class DiscoveryClient, the found services all have the URI "net.tcp://localhost:8004/DocumentService" too without any information about the actual machine where the service is hosted.
Obviously this is useless if I want to access the service on the remote machine. But I can't find any reference to the actual remote machine (IP address or server name) in the arguments passed to FindProgressChanged.
Is there a way to get the information about the remote machine or do I have to publish my service with the machine name of the remote machine? Or is DiscoveryClient just broken?
I hope this make sense.
I spent a lot of time investigating this problem. Building base addresses in the code was not acceptable for me, as it implies hardcoding transport scheme and port (the latter, of course, can be stored in a separate config section, but then why not just to use the existing section?). I wanted to have an ability to just configure the base address in config as usual. And it turns out that a base address like <add baseAddress="net.tcp://*:8731/"/> will perfectly work. I think the same is true for programmatic configuration.
So, I previously posted about my troubles in moving a working WCF service from my local machine to the development server. The problem was that when moving it over all of the references were by machine name rather than ip. Since i was not accessing it on the domain, I couldn't see the machine name and couldn't access the references. Here was my previous post (.NET WCF service references use server name rather than IP address causing issues when consuming).
I found a solution, but wanted to make sure that this is the proper solution to my issue. And also ask if anyone else had any other input? The solution was to change the IIS site binding. I found the solution at (http://blogs.msdn.com/wenlong/archive/2007/08/02/how-to-change-hostname-in-wsdl-of-an-iis-hosted-service.aspx). The only thing is that I may have to do this for every site as the application that i work with is not hosted and is a web-based solution installed at each site. So i'm possibly going to have to include a script in the build for each site.
I would think that I would be able to make this change in the .config file?
The right way to handle this is to set and explicit host-header in IIS for the Web Site instance. Now, assuming you've only got one host-header applied to the Web Site instance that should be all that you need. However, if you have multiple host-headers configured you will also need to explicitly tell WCF which host to expose itself via. This is done with the configuration element under the element to bind the service to that specific domain.
This is probably a basic networking issue, but I am new to this stuff and just do not know the answer.
I have written a wcf service and client. I can use one of the http bindings and get the service to work correctly when I put my machine's network IP address as the endpoint address and run the client and server from the same machine. Now, I want to be able to connect to this service from a different machine over the internet. Clearly it does not work when I use my network IP address in this scenario, but simply putting in my router's broadband IP address does not seem to be doing the trick, either. Am I just missing a firewall port that I need to open up, or am I trying to do something that should not be possible?
If you want users from the internet to be able to connect to your service, you'll have to consider a few points:
binding: the lowest common denominator is the basicHttpBinding which is SOAP 1.1 with basically no additional features available - just like ASMX webservices. Just about anyone can connect to that. For more advanced clients, you might also want to expose a wsHttpBinding endpoint on your service
security: how (if at all) do you want to secure access to your web service? Do you have username/password credentials that callers must supply? Check out the WCF Security Guidance for a whole slew of information bits on the various security scenarios
authenticating your service: typically, you should strive to make your service authenticate itself to the rest of the world - this requires a server certificate and enables secured communication (messages signed + encrypted) on the wire
make sure your service endpoint(s) is reachable from the internet, through all firewalls and proxies and everything :-)
Hope that helps a bit!
You need to set up port forwarding on your router. Perhaps someone on ServerFault or SuperUser would be able to help you. Or even a google search now that you know what it's called. The instructions will be different depending on the router. The port you need to forward will be the port you've picked in the WCF config file.
I host WCF services through IIS, but it took me ages to work out how. At the moment I put the files on the webserver and enable websharing on the root folder. Then you can assign them to an appropriate Application Pool in IIS, and add a service reference to any client projects using the URL of the wsdl.
I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it but its the only way I've worked out so far.
Here's the simple solution.
I am assuming that you have made a working WCF application and hosted over the IIS.
The next thing to do is to browse the application from the IIS. It will give you url in the address bar something like:
http://localhost/myservice/service.svc
Next go to www.whatismyip.com. this will give you your system's WAN IP (say, 45.34.56.200).
Replace the URL you got in step 2 with: http://45.34.56.200/myservice/service.svc
Now you can use this URL any where in this world to consume your service.
I found a good Article and it is working fine for me, on the following the Main steps:
1-First you should create WCF Service.
2-add application on IIS and give alias for your virtual directory and set path from your local drive.
3-Make sure your default app pool set to .NET CLR V4.0.
4-test your WCF service is running successfully on localhost.
5-To access the same via LAN (Local Area Network) you must disable Firewall for you Private network.
6- try to use ngrok.com, you will get Temp URL to use via internet to access your LocalHost anywhere.
Then Everything will be fine.
For More Information Check the following Link:
https://www.codeproject.com/Tips/813650/Host-WCF-on-LocalHost-and-access-via-Internet
I have a Web application and a WCF service hosted on the same Windows 2003 development server. They each have their own IIS website node responding to drs.displayscreen.web and drs.displayscreen.service host headers respectively. The hosts file contains entries for both headers pointing back to 127.0.0.1. The web site has a service reference to drs.displayscreen.service.
Both applications work perfectly when their application pool uses the 'Network Service' account.
I need to perform some COM processing under the hood on the service so I want to run the applications under a customised identity. Both sites run on a new application pool.
When I change the application pool identity to use a new windows account created for the purpose, I get the following (inner) exception:
[EndpointNotFoundException: Could not connect to http://drs.displayscreen.service/Handler.svc. TCP error code 10060: A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond 192.168.98.2:8080. ]
192.168.98.2:8080 is the address of a DNS server that is no longer in use. It is not referenced anywhere in the solution. It is not referenced by ipconfig at all.
I have made sure that the new account is a member of IIS_WPG and I have run aspnet_regiis -ga . I have also given the account explicit permission to read the hosts file.
Why does the application attempt to use the defunct DNS server to resolve the temporary url (drs.displayscreen.service) instead of the hosts file entry? It has to be a permission of some sort because it does not have this problem when running under the network service account. Help!!
Well, it appears that the answer might involve a bug in the .Net framework. I found a blog posting that clued me in to the fact that the MS .Net implementation of SocketCache.GetSocket might cache invalid sockets and another one that suggests a workaround/hack in the form of an explicit don't-use-proxies configuration setting.
We don't actually use a proxy server in the environment where this problem cropped up but it appears that SocketCache.GetSocket is overridden or behaves differently when the don't-use-proxies setting is in place. Strangely, removing the setting causes the problem to come back so obviously the SocketCache is not repaired when a valid ip/hostname is discovered and successfully used. According to the author of the first post mentioned above, the bug does not exist in Mono. :)