tags 422098 + pending thanks On 5/4/07, David Purdy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This sounds like maybe it's not NAT/firewall related after all, but > > let me know the answer to the question above to make sure, and if > > it's not then I'll investigate further. > > > > Both peers are in the same subnet, connected by a network switch. There is no > firewalling/proxies/nat/iptables etc between them. [snip] > Maybe you can reproduce this problem by running the tracker on the same server > as btlaunchmany.
It turned out not to be a NAT problem after all. The recent addition of encryption to bittornado (in 0.3.18) has a bug that causes the btlaunchmany programs to drop all incoming connections. (Actually btlaunchmany sends bad data on incoming connections, which causes the connecting peer to drop the connection, but the result is the same.) That is why running btlaunchmany first didn't work (btlaunchmany receives the connection), but running it second does work (btlaunchmany sends the connection). Whether seeding or not makes no difference. I found the fix in the upstream CVS, and it will be included in the next release. http://cvs.degreez.net/viewcvs.cgi/bittornado/BitTornado/BT1/Encrypter.py.diff?r1=1.51&r2=1.52 Thanks, Cameron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
