On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 11:42:32AM -0400, Derek Glidden wrote:
> Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> >
> > The problem with all of these approaches is that it is very hard to tell
> > when it is OK for there to be private network addresses and when it is
> > not. It is basically either looking at the Interfaces available and
> > making a guess, or asking the user.
<>
> The problem came about in that the real Freenet node would advertise
> itself as the non-routable address of the actual machine. Setting the
> "nodeAddress" parameter to the Firewall external IP had the unexpected
> side-effect of causing the Freenet node to try to contact the Firewall's
> external IP (which doesn't work) for some kind of traffic or other (I
> don't remember what exactly and I believe it was tagged as a real bug in
> the Freenet code someplace).
This isn't quite related. Your problem is simply a bug: somebody thought
that the "nodeAddress" setting would make a good address for clients
(the web interface you see is a client) to connect to. It is easy to see
why somebody would assume this, but, for the reasons you have described
it is not the right thing to do.
I have a hard time justifying making myself recheckout and and sniff
through the changes in the old code to fix these sort of bugs, I was
sort of hoping somebody would do it.
This is where somebody slaps me with a trout named "Bugtracking"...
<>
--
'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?'
'Here,' Montag touched his head.
'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded.
Oskar Sandberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
