COI Parent unit

Group ABC has following investment pattern:
ABC owns 100% of company A> Company A own 100% of company A1 & A2
ABC owns 20% of company B> Company B own 100% of company B1 & B2
Now which company has to be flagged as parent in 'Accounting technique' assignment?
I have flagged Company A and company B as parent, but still system gives the message at COI execution saying that...
''There is no parent unit in consolidation group combination''. Am I missing something for the parent defintion...
Edited by: Gokul on Aug 5, 2008 8:01 AM

I have question with following scenario...
There are 3 companies A.B,C.
Group 1
                Company A
Group 2
               Company B
               Company C
Company A own 80% of Company B , B own 75% of COmpany C.
1. Am I correct to make Company A, B as parent in respective group?
2. As per your current statement I need to include Company B in 'Group 1' also to generate the MI at Group 1 level. otherwise B's MI would not be generated at group 1 level. Is it correct statement?
3. if so do we need to include everychild under ...means in this example Company B need to be included in 2 groups?)

Similar Messages

COI - change parent unit & first cons. of old parent unit

Hi All,
I need to change the parent company (and run its the first cons. ) after the period of first consolidation of the group but seems this can cause problems. The system donu2019t permit to run First Consolidation of company A in period 06/2009 because the company already was in cons. perimeter since 01/2007 but was not run as First Consolidation because it was the parent companyu2026
In detail:
01/2007 Group1
     Comapany A (parent) : hold 100% of B and hold 100% of C
        Comapany B
        Comapany C
06/2009 Group1
     Comapany C (parent): hold 100% of A
        Comapany A: hold 100% of B
        Comapany B
How can I run the first cons.. of comapany A (under company C) in 06/2009 if period of first cons. is 01/2007 but never run the proper thask because it was the parent?
How can I define unit C as the new parent unit of cons. group. without generate errors?
Thanks in advance.

You need to do the first consolidation of A by parent C in a new cons group, but I can see why this would be a problem because the acct techniques don't give the option of first cons date, only the hierarchy. You may need to rip out these nodes of the hierarchy and transfer into a new (partial) structure with the 6/2009 first cons date. I don't know how to get the Group 0 inserted between two existing hierarchy nodes without the system complaining.
Is there anything you can do with a step acquisition of A by C for 100% in 06/2009, rather than a 1st consolidation? You'll need to manually move some goodwill, but I'd be more concerned with getting good numbers from July onwards.
Out of curiousity, what kind of business is this where you have a company's subsidiary suddenly becoming a company's parent? I've never seen a SPV or Partnership that had this scenario. Do you have a separate reporting requirement for A and C, or could you have the next level parent setup as the parent for both A and C and just consolidate at that level?
- Chris

Duplicate consolidation unit in hierarchy ( where COI is active) in EC-CS

Hi all
I ve a question regarding duplicating(multiple assignments) existing Consolidation unit in the Hierarchy(tcode:CX1X)
There are several groups where One of the COI Cons Unit is now duplicated ex: 1000 cons Unit
Ex: GROUP1
Cons UNit = 1000
Group4
Cons Unit = 1000
Cons Unit = 2000 - PU
Now we are adding new COns Unit along with CU = 1000 in New Hierarchy
Group6 -
( New Group Created and added new cons units: 2001 -2003)
Cons Unit = 1000 - PU
cons Unit = 2001
Cons Unit = 2002
Cons Unit = 2003
With Above Cons Unit - 1000 Triple in 3 Different Groups.
I did tested COI, Then System Posting 3 Different Documents by Group Level. CAUSE of 3 Group Level
>> The fact is The real COI assignment is at "Group4" >>>
Please Advise, if this is normal or i should take care differently?
Your reply is highly appreciated.
Thx
Ramana

Hi Dan
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I agree with you and also I am expecting same in system behaviour. But system is not proposing Full Transfer instead proposed Partial Div, Increased CAP/Red Cap and Step Acq process. this is what I have acheived in the system.
Exicsting Investor CB A PU reduce 100 % Invest -2000 .00 Ttype 140 TP CU B ( take out 100% share) in CG1
CB D PU Increase 100 % Invest 2000.00 Ttype 140 TP CU B in CG2
still i am not able to move full transfer from old CU A - new CU D with INVESTMENTS.
any thoughts please
thanks in advance
Ramana_12

COI- Error message-B/S-I/S balance 1.00 USD

Hi,
I have got the following error message while running First consolidation of COI.
Balance sheet/income statement balance 1.00 USD Message no. UCD1011
Balance sheet/income statement balance 1.00 USD
Message no. UCD1011
Diagnosis
The document to be posted is not completely in balance.
Entries involving items of the balance sheet or the income statement must always have a zero balance to ensure that both the balance sheet and the income statement are balanced, respectively. This is not true in this case.
System Response
Entry cannot be posted.
Procedure
Correct the amounts for the balance sheet items and/or income statement items.
I have only values for investment as 1 dollar and equity value as 1 dollar and some other values for B/S accounts only. I have checked in the List of total records for subtotals of subsidiaries and corp for balances. They all have 0 balances.
I have tried correcting values as per message using manual posting adjustment. But system is not allowing me to correct that one dollar balance neither by crediting nor debiting. Because earlier balance is 0 as per messages in document posting also. Which is reconfirming the results of List of total records.
Location of values in COI config, opted for AFD, for Investments and Equity data.
Did any body have had similar experience or can suggest some ideas for trouble shooting to resolve this error !
Another issue is, I have unchecked Display statistical items Box in COI configuration. But still seeing stat items in COI results. Is there any way to turn off this display, besides un-checking the above mentioned box.
Thanks,
KK

KK,
Check the hierarchy and make sure that when a cons unit is in the hierarchy in two places, that there is a split or shared ownership of that cons unit. Otherwise it should only be in the hierarchy in a single place.
Also, where a parent cons unit exists, it is normally in a hierarchy node below the node of its parent cons unit. For example:
*PP-US* top node
AS1000 overall parent
AS1001 sub cons unit 1
    *AUESTP* sub cons unit 2 node
      AS5000 sub cons unit 2 - parent unit to cons unit 3
      AS6000 sub cons unit 3
In the COI log itself, each cons group will include the lower cons units, because by default the belong to that group. So in the above example, AS6001 belongs to PP-US as well as AUESTP and will therefore appear in the log for both. In many cases the documents will only be in the level where the investee is stationed in the hierarchy.
For first consolidation, only purchase method documents occur for the elimination of the investment and corresponding equity. Because balances for equity held cons units are not included in reporting, there is no need for such elimination.
Minority interest is only applicable for purchase method cons units and will not calculate or post for equity held cons units.
I hope this helps.
Edited by: Dan Sullivan on May 13, 2008 3:31 PM
Edited by: Dan Sullivan on May 13, 2008 3:33 PM

COI: manual postings that can be interpreted by COI on divestiture

Hello Experts
I hope you can help. I am using COI functionality at a customer. I need to post a manual journal on posting level 30 against a minority interest item as an example. The journal should be recognised by the activity 'Divestiture' at a later stage when the activity is run. I have tried to create a doc type using Application = Consolidation of Investment and Posting = Manual Posting. The task linked to the doc type when run short dumps. I have also created a doc type where the Application has been set to Other and Posting = Manual Posting. I then changed the Document Field Options so that activity and number were available. The task when joined to the doc type runs and posts but when I divest at a later stage COI activity divest does not take this into account. How can I get COI to recognise that this manual posting is there??
Regards

KK,
Check the hierarchy and make sure that when a cons unit is in the hierarchy in two places, that there is a split or shared ownership of that cons unit. Otherwise it should only be in the hierarchy in a single place.
Also, where a parent cons unit exists, it is normally in a hierarchy node below the node of its parent cons unit. For example:
*PP-US* top node
AS1000 overall parent
AS1001 sub cons unit 1
    *AUESTP* sub cons unit 2 node
      AS5000 sub cons unit 2 - parent unit to cons unit 3
      AS6000 sub cons unit 3
In the COI log itself, each cons group will include the lower cons units, because by default the belong to that group. So in the above example, AS6001 belongs to PP-US as well as AUESTP and will therefore appear in the log for both. In many cases the documents will only be in the level where the investee is stationed in the hierarchy.
For first consolidation, only purchase method documents occur for the elimination of the investment and corresponding equity. Because balances for equity held cons units are not included in reporting, there is no need for such elimination.
Minority interest is only applicable for purchase method cons units and will not calculate or post for equity held cons units.
I hope this helps.
Edited by: Dan Sullivan on May 13, 2008 3:31 PM
Edited by: Dan Sullivan on May 13, 2008 3:33 PM

Insertion using objects and update using queries in a single unit of work

HI All,
I have a set of objects that i want to insert and then perform some update queries ( direct queries ) on the inserted data in the same transaction. but when i register the objects and execute the update SQL's on the same data in a same unit of work, the update statements are executed first and then the inserts are happening, I've also tried with child unit of work and parent unit of work but the result is the same.
Can any one suggest a way to do object insertion and sql updates in a single transaction, Thanks in advance
Regards,
Sai Krishna

The UnitOfWork is an abstraction for the physical database query. By default nothing is actually written into the database until the UnitOfWork commits. This means making updates to new objects involves modifying them in-memory and then the updated values will be included in the INSERT during commit.
If you are having difficulty finding the newly created objects you can enable the query conforming capabilities to have modified and new objects included in query comparisons without requiring them to first be written to the database.
Doug

Merger of two Consolidation Unit

Hi,
I am working on a project where I need to Merge Two Consolidation Unit of the same Consolidation Group.
For Example, Consolidation Group A1 & A2 is under Consolidation Group ABC. Now we need to Merge Cons. Unit A1 into Cons. Unit A2 under the same Cons. Group ABC. How to handle this in SEM - BCS?
I cannot use Consolidation Group Changes as this is not transferring but it is merging of two Cons. Unit.
Your input is highly apprecialbe.
Regards,
Viral Joshi

Hi HI COLLET Thibaud ,
Thanks for the reply and sorry for my late reply. I was gathering information that you asked from the client. Now picture is more clear.
Ex.
Consoildation Unit: A & Consoildation Unit: B. Both are under Consolidation Group AB
Parent Unit : C
Now Consoildation Unit: A is getting transferred to Consoildation Unit: B. Business wants to transfer Balance Sheet as on Date. There is no Goodwill. Everything is getting transferred at Book Value.
Now for Share Capital purchase, there are two options suggested. One is to buy share of Consoildation Unit: A by Cash and second is to buy share of Consoildation Unit: A by issuing Shares of Consoildation Unit: B.
If we go for option 1 of purchasing through Cash, then there will be impact only on Cash Outflow from Consoildation Unit: B and Share Capital Reduction from Consoildation Unit: A. This will happen becasue Consoildation Unit: B will pay Cash to Consoildation Unit: A and Consoildation Unit: A in turn will pay for Share Capital and reduce its Share Capital. But if we go for option 2 of issuing shares of Consoildation Unit: B, then there will be change in the Share Capital of Consoildation Unit: B and reduction in the Share Capital of Consoildation Unit: A. In any case, there will be reduction in Share Capital of Consoildation Unit: A.
So what do you suggest in this scenario? What will be the BCS impact if we go for option1 or option2. Just to remind, we are transferring everything including Share Capital in FI. But I am wondering the steps and impact on BCS...
Your input is highly appreciable and definately will be rewarded with points !!!
Thanks..
Best Regards,
Viral Joshi

Please create Parenting structure for scrolling

- similar to what we have in Adobe After Effects.
Thanks
- Roland

Vishal,
If you structure your data with two columns, the first being the Node name and the second being the Parent node name (see your information below), the iBrowser applet will make a nice data driven tree with all of the SelectionEvent or navigational capabilities you want.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Rowsets DateCreated="2007-05-02T07:37:37" EndDate="2007-05-02T16:59:53" StartDate="2007-05-02T16:59:53" Version="11.5.3">
<Rowset><Columns><Column Description="" MaxRange="1" MinRange="0" Name="NAME" SQLDataType="1" SourceColumn="NAME"/><Column Description="" MaxRange="1" MinRange="0" Name="PARENT" SQLDataType="1" SourceColumn="PARENT"/></Columns>
<Row><NAME>Parent</NAME><PARENT></PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>Child</NAME><PARENT>Parent</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>Supporting Views</NAME><PARENT>Child</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>Calculation Views</NAME><PARENT>Child</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>Unit Operation Views</NAME><PARENT>Child</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>Personal Views</NAME><PARENT>Child</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>Raw eInfotree Table Views</NAME><PARENT>Supporting Views</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>Background Calculations</NAME><PARENT>Supporting Views</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>QC Data Views</NAME><PARENT>Supporting Views</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>Cell Culture Views</NAME><PARENT>Unit Operation Views</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>Purification Views</NAME><PARENT>Unit Operation Views</PARENT></Row>
<Row><NAME>MFR Views</NAME><PARENT>Unit Operation Views</PARENT></Row>
</Rowset>
</Rowsets>
Regards,
Jeremy

Reclassification of MI at posting level 30

Hi Experts
I need some help to clarify the behaviour of a stantard reclasification at posting level 30, we have the following group hierarchy (G1-G3
are groups and C1-C6 are companies)
G1
u2514u2500u2500C1 <---Parent Unit
u2514u2500u2500C2
u2514u2500u2500G2
     u2514u2500u2500C3 <---Parent Unit
     u2514u2500u2500C4
     u2514u2500u2500G3
         u2514u2500u2500C5 <---Parent Unit
      u2514u2500u2500C6
C1 has investments in C2 and C3
C3 has investments in C4 and C5
C5 has investments in C6
We use consolidation of investments and make additional reclasifications reading the posting level 30 information generated from the COI
task for the following purpose:
Most of the Minority Interest that comes from the Equity Accounts needs to be generated with group shares, but only 2 equity accounts need
to generate MI with direct shares, but the accounting technique can only be assigned only per method and per company, not for each account.
For that we created a standard reclasification that cancels the postings that affect those two equity accounts against the MI account and
Example:
C1 has 90% share in C3
C2 has 80% share in C5
C5 has 100% share in C6
At G1 level the group share for C6 is 72%
C6's equity is composed of
Common stock (CS)           5000.00 <----direct share (this according to local GAAP)
Reserve     (RS)               2000.00 <----group share
Retained Earnings (RE)           3000.00 <----group share
The postings for MI for each group are:
Document Type: I1
Group     Company          Account          Amount
G2     C6          CS          -1000.00
G2     C6          RS           -400.00
G2     C6          RE           -600.00
G2     C6          MI           2000.00
G1     C6          CS           -400.00
G1     C6          RS           -160.00
G1     C6          RE           -240.00
G1     C6          MI            800.00
The reclassification we want is for canceling the postings for the CS account to the MI account considering that the postings that generate
the MI with group share are those that are located at upper level groups (in this example there is no MI at G3 group):
Group     Company          Account          Amount
G2     C6          CS           1000.00 <---Step 1 in method
G2     C6          MI          -1000.00 <---Step 1 in method
G1     C6          CS            400.00 <---Step 2 in method
G1     C6          MI           -400.00 <---Step 2 in method
The configuration for each step in the Reclassification method is the following
Step 1:
               Trigger               Source               Target
Item               CS               CS               MI
Company               C6               ---               ---
Cons Group          G2               G2               G2
Document Type          I1               ---               ---
Step 2:
               Trigger               Source               Target
Item               CS               CS               MI
Company               C6               ---               ---
Cons Group          G1               G1               G1
Document Type          I1               ---               ---
The group is important in the postings because we want to check in the consolidated financial statement the effects of MI in different
groups but when we do a reclassification the log show us that for the same step 1 the task generated a reclassification for group G1 and G2
first generating the correct reclassification in G2 but cancelling it in G1, so the postings look like this:
Group     Company          Account          Amount
G2     C6          CS           1000.00 <---Correct (Step 1)
G2     C6          MI          -1000.00 <---Correct (Step 1)
G1     C6          CS          -1000.00 <---Unexpected (Step 1)
G1     C6          MI           1000.00 <---Unexpected (Step 1)
G1     C6          CS            400.00 <---Correct (Step 2)
G1     C6          MI           -400.00 <---Correct (Step 2)
From G1 perspective the total MI is without the adjustment we want but from G2 perspective the MI is correct.
We decided to change step 1 to the following configuration for the purpose of correcting at least G1:
Step 1:
               Trigger               Source               Target
Item               CS               CS               MI
Company               C6               ---               ---
Cons Group          G2               G1               G1
Document Type          I1               ---               ---
It generates the following postings:
Group     Company          Account          Amount
G1     C6          CS           1000.00 <---Step 1 in method (not the group we expect)
G1     C6          MI          -1000.00 <---Step 1 in method (not the group we expect)
G1     C6          CS            400.00 <---Step 2 in method
G1     C6          MI           -400.00 <---Step 2 in method
This at least solves the problem from G1 perspective but for G2 we don't have a posting
Any lead on how to solve this problem is highly appreciated
Best Regards
Paul
Edited by: Paul Heredia on Oct 28, 2011 2:31 PM

Hi
I'm using this same thread to ask an important related question with the expectation of closing this thread, about the behaviour of a reclassification with a Posting Level 30, and Consolidation of investments application in the document type, why the reclassification task behaves like this when executing it at G1 level, if this is an unexpected behaviour I could send an OSS note to SAP, if this is expected, please explain why
Group
Company
Account
Amount
Comments
G2
C6
CS
1000.00
Expected from Step 1
G2
C6
MI
-1000.00
Expected from Step 1
G1
C6
CS
-1000.00
Unexpected and it is cancelling Step 1 at G1
G1
C6
MI
1000.00
Unexpected and it is cancelling Step 1 at G1
G1
C6
CS
400.00
Expected from Step 2
G1
C6
MI
-400.00
Expected from Step
One remark, for the unexpected postings there is no trigger value but strangely it generates a document...
We don't want to do this manually because it would require too much analysis and manual postings
Thanks in advance
Message was edited by: Paul Heredia (Just adding an important remark after the example)

Cons hierarchy restructuring -- Move a group with its subgroups to another

We need to restructure the consolidation hierarchy as per management decision.
Need to move a consolidation group along with the sub groups and units under it to another group that is in parallel (at the same level in the hierarchy) with the group that needs to be moved.
e.g. Cons Group CG10 (with parent unit CU11) is the top group and CG20, CG30 and CG40(with parent units CU21, CU31 and CU41 respectively) are under it and groupos CG41 and CG42 are under CG4.
We now need to move group CG40 along with its units and sub groups under CG20. The parent unit CU41 is currently 100 % owned by CU11 and will need to be transferred to CU21.
Please suggest the best way to handle this.
Do we need to create a new group along with new sub groups under CG20??
Or it's Ok to create just one new group for CG40 and move the subgroups CG41 and CG42 as they are.
Please advice ASAP.

You can't move a cons group within a fiscal year, so you may need to create a CG40b, CG41b, CG42b (i.e., new version of the groups).
If it's the end of the year, it may be possible but probably not advisable to try and move the groups themselves, but I assume the system would complain. I've never tried it myself, and don't know how the transfer would work if the old groups were gone.
I would create CG41b, CG42b. Set the divestiture date for the units in the CG4x groups, add the units and first consolidation dates to the CG4xb groups, set accounting techniques, etc.
Create an organization change number with sender CG41 and receiving CG41b. Ensure you have the prepration for consolidation group change tasks configured in your task hierarchy. I've always had two tasks, one for 02/12 (before elims), and another for 22 (after elims but before CoI).
In the additional financial data, create total transfer activity for the units in question, referencing the Org Change number created earlier.
Execute the consolidation as early as possible during the close, even if it's just preliminary data, and have the business verify the postings seem reasonable.
Hope that helps,
Chris

Error in consolidation monitor

Hi gurus
Actually I`m cuztomizing the Consolidation of investments but Iam new in this part, I have a issue quen I carry out the task of COI, the following message is showing.
*There is no parent unit in group combination [ Cons Group G001 ]
Message no. UCF6687
Diagnosis
The parent indicator has not been set in any of the groups [ Cons Group G001 ]. This causes consolidation of investments to use erroneous group shares.
Procedure
Set the parent indicator for at least one characteristic with the role "consolidation unit".*
I tryed in master data of consolidation units but I don`t know where
Could you help me please, I will asign points
cheers

You can find parent unit checkbox in following path...
UCWB>Masterdata> Consolidation Unit> Accounting tecniques> expand the hierarchy on the right side.. you will see in the 3rd column the parent unit checkbox.
Edited by: Mani on Feb 20, 2008 6:03 AM

Transfer from one consolidation sub-group to another

Hi,
I wish to transfer a consolidation unit from one sub-group to another. To do this, I know that i need to divest the entity in one sub-group and post first consolidation in another group.
For this, i change the divestiture period in the master of consolidation unit. What are the further steps for posting first acquisition? Should i change the organizational hierarchy (by dragging the consolidation unit from old sub-group to new??
Specifically, the organization structure consists of the following Sub - Groups
CG1
CU - 1000 - Parent Unit
CU - 1100
    CG2
    CU- 2200 - Parent Unit
    CU - 2300
    CU - 2400
            CG3
            CU - 3000 Parent Unit
            CU - 2100
Currently CU 2100 is a 100% subsidiary of CU 3000. .For CG3, consolidation happens at 3000 level and then the results are passed on to CG2. In CG2, the parent unit is 2200 and then the results are passed on to CG1.
In this month, CU-3000 sold it's investments in CU 2100 to CU 2400 (at a profit). There was no goodwill during acquisition of 2100 by 3000.....
I wish to know how i can tackle this in BCS..
Regards,
Shreepati
Edited by: Shreepati Shenoy on Mar 21, 2011 7:34 AM

Thank you for your response!
I read about this in the forum. But i am unable to understand how consolidation unit 2100 can be part of CG3 (with divestiture period) and CG2 (for new acquisition). I tried doing the following in our system -
1) Enter a divestiture period (current period) for CU 2100 in CG3
2) In AFD - I entered First Consolidation data for CU 2400 (which acquired CU 2100 at a profit)u2026
3) When I execute Consolidation Group Changes u2013 Entries are posted only in CG3 (at PL02, 12, 22)..No impact can be seen in CG2..
4) When I execute COI, I get an error which says that investment in 2100 exceeds 100% (i.e. it is 200%)
I tried to drag and drop CU 2100 from CG3 to CG2. However this does not help either (as CU 2100 appears in CG2 only)
Please help me understand if I am going wrong somewhere..

Logical Database PNPCE and inherited Sub Area

Hi,
I have asked this in the HR forum but no response......
I have a report using Logical Database PNPCE to find some values from a couple of info types. When I select a unit (from the 'OrgStructure' button at the top of the screen), say 111, and all its sub-units with no selections in the selection screen, I get one person displayed. This is correct and this person is in a sub-unit 3 levels down (unit 333).
I then added a selection to only display people in units with Personnel SubArea 'OTEC'. Now I get no results output. When I look in PPOME, I can see that unit 333 has Personnel SubArea 'OTEC' but it is inherited from '111'.
In PP01, unit 111 has an Account Assignment entry (Info Type 1008) but 333 does not.
Does anyone know how to report on this?
Is there a flag somewhere that tells the LDB to check for inherited units?
If not, any ideas if there is a function out there to find the superior unit for these sub-units?
Thanks.

Thanks,
I am aware of that FM but how do I find the parent unit in a clever fashion?
The structure could have multiple levels e.g.
Unit 1 - Unit 2a - Unit3a......
- Unit 2b
- Unit 2c
Unit 1 is the parent and all the below units inherit from it.
The LDB is looping through an internal table with a list of the units. It finds Unit 1 but not the rest.
So, when the LDB is looking for Unit 3a, how does it know that Unit 1 is the parent?
If I use that FM, I think I would have to look for all units above it and see if there is an Info Type 1008 exists. Seems like a lot of processing for something that should be simple?
Kroc.

Risk Management interactive reports drill up error

Hi,
I have been working with Risk Management 10 in SAP GRC recently. I noticed that when using the Risk Manager Interactive Reports in the Report section (Heat Map and Overview Report), I have received an error when trying to drill back up to the parent organizational unit after I have drilled down to the child sub organization.
Our current workaround is to click on the <All> unit, close the window, and then reopen the window and drill back down to the parent unit. While this workaround has been successful when using the reports so far, it is difficult to communicate this error to other users when they attempt to use the reports.
Are there any fixes to this error, or any plans to fix? Otherwise, is there a feature that needs to be adjusted in Risk Management? Thanks.

Bump

IChat-initiated Screen Sharing across Internet

For those of us supporting Aged Parental Units and their Macs, iChat Screensharing is the Killer App to end all killer apps. And when it doesn't work, it's really frustrating.
One thing that makes iChat Screensharing preferable to Timbuktu or generic VNC shareware is that I don't have to walk the "computer illiterate" (can they retire that cute phrase in 2009?) through configuring port-mapping on his NAT router. "All" I have to do is talk the user through:
1. getting an AIM i.d.
2. configuring iChat to use that AIM i.d.
3. finding System Preferences > Sharing, and enabling Screen Sharing
+(have I forgotten anything?)+
At that point I should be able to ask to share the other person's screen. The really big piece of magic, *contacting someone who is behind a NAT router*, is handled; I presume by some clever sleight-of-hand by the AOL server which the AIM client is logged into.
Okay: I can't get it to work for my father. He's running 10.5.6. I can screen-share using the iChat interface when I'm on the same LAN as he, but not from outside.
His firewall is off. His router is an Airport Extreme, to which he's connected by ethernet cable. The Airport Extreme configuration is about as vanilla as it gets.
Can anyone spot something I've forgotten to do, or ask a followup, or suggest the next troubleshooting strategy?
Thanks,
Chap

Hi,
It is somewhat of a feature that Getting iChat to work depends on the devices used at each end.
iChat has to be able to identify very clearly where it is in relation to the Internet for it work/connect in Video and Audio chats.
As far as we can tell Video and Audio chats will work if you Port Forward certain ports Or allow them via other methods such as Port Triggering, DMZ or UPnP.
We know the ports through using Application like Little Snitch and also Apple have published them.
For Tiger and Earlier http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1507?viewlocale=en_US
For iChat 4 in Leopard http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2282?viewlocale=en_US
What the second one does not tell you is that you need some of the Info from the first if using Bonjour or Jabber IDs as well as AIM.
It also fails to say anything about the Screen Sharing.
AS I have said before the Testing that some of the Regular posters have done show that Screen Sharing seems to be a Random port, separate from the Audio component of that connection.
As you will see from the two links the title includes the mention of NAT (Network Address Translation)
Port Forwarding, Port Triggering and DMZ all rely heavily on NAT being done in the routing device.
UPnP seem less reliant on NAT to get through any routing device.
If you have a modem that routes it is likely that it is issuing IP addresses to the computers (DHCP)
IF you then add a router that also does DHCP then the computers get two IPs (Although they can only display one)
iChat can not cope with this.
It is possible to get a router as well as a non routing modem to pass the Public IP to the computer which would exclude the need to open any ports (As they would All be open)
An Base Station can be behind a Routing Modem and set to Not be a router (Just a wireless access point) which would also preclude the need to Set Port Mapping Protocol in it.
We are in the land of "Ifs, Buts and Maybes" when we try and cover all the possibilities that people may have when dealing with a certain lack of information.
7:23 PM Tuesday; December 30, 2008

COI Parent unit

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for