So it would appear that port forwarding/masquerading will work fine if you are just requesting and inserting things. However, your node will not form part of the useful cache since it will assign its reserved internal IP in the "source node" of an outgoing message (and give inform.php that address as well). I suspect that this will be equivalent to a transient nodes functioning in that the useful IP of that node will never get stored on anyone elses node.
This seems like something that could be resolved as a config option. Rather than have the address automatically determined, it could just take the address of the outside firewall from a supplied config option. I think that was what Oskar was saying. Hopefully this will be implemented in 0.3 since I am uncertain whether my 486 firewall can handle the higher CPU load of the new crypto code but I know that my internal Athlon will happily crunch on it. I suspect that I will not be alone in not being able to run a 0.3 node on my firewall due to lack of CPU power (or the fact that it may be a grey box on which s/w cannot be run). Mike > > From: "lists" <lists at ceequdee.com> > Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:10:31 +0100 > > If you're running it on the router you're not really behind it so yes it > would be a matter of just opening a port... I'm behind a grey box with > flashing lights on it and my node believes that its IP address is > 192.168.0.3 :-( > > Port forwarding is only half the solution. I have a hole in my firewall at > 19114 forwarded to 192.168.0.3:19114 but no node trying to reach me will > ever get this far if my node doesn't put the router's (genuine, internet > visible) IP address in outgoing messages instead of 192.168.0.3 > > Degs > > Mike wrote: > > Well, I have freenet node v.0.2 running on my shitty router box > (previously a 486/33, now a 486/66 > > with 32 MB RAM) and it seems to be running just fine. I am not sure how it > will hold up with more > > freenet popularity (it should be fine if freenet scales like it should) or > with all the crypto > > coming in v.0.3. > > I read Oskar's response to your problem and wasn't sure if he was saying > that port forwarding would > > work or not. I don't see why forwarding your incoming freenet port to your > internal box wouldn't > > work (port 19114 in most cases). You can do this by intalling the port > forwarding IPChains module > > ... assuming that your router is running linux. Other connection ports > should be masqueraded > > properly provided they were initiated by the internal node. I may be > forced to try it if v.0.3 > > proves to be too much for my shitty box. > > > > Mike > _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
