I know you guys have probably read enough about starcraft.  I've been
through the archives and seen quite a bit, but I've only seen one other
mention of the specific problem I'm having
(http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00404.html)
and no one replied.  Here's my problem:

I have masquerading going alright.  It's been up and rock solid for a few
months. I've got the forwarding commands set up for starcraft.  I can
connect to battle.net and play a fine game when there are only two players
(me vs 1 other human + however many computer opponents we want).  If there
are any more human players than 2, however, my connection lags into oblivion.

My connection is DSL 384Kb down/128 Kb up, so it's more than wide enough to
handle the data.  In fact, I can play just fine if I hook the game computer
directly to the internet instead of going through the gateway.

Does anyone know what's going on?

My masquerading setup has ranged from the simple:
ipfwadm -F -f
ipfwadm -F -p deny
ipfwadm -F -a accept -m -S 192.168.1.0/24 -D 0.0.0.0/0
ipfwadm -M -s 7200 0 0
ipautofw -A -r tcp 6112 6112 -h 192.168.1.1
ipautofw -A -r udp 6112 6112 -h 192.168.1.1
(192.168.1.1 is the gaming machine, 192.168.1.3 is the gateway).

To the complex, using the setup from
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch/LINUX/TrinityOS.wri
with no luck.

My kernel is 2.0.36, but I've tried 2.0.35 with the ipportfw patches as well.
I've used ipautofw and ipportfw.  No matter what I do, the connection is
laggy for more than two players.

If no one can help with that, then I have another request:

Could anyone out there who has starcraft/battle.net working for games that
are not 1vs1 email me their kernel config file & masq setup scripts?  Don't
spam the list with it, just email me.  If I can figure out what the problem
is, I'll post the results to the list.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For daily digest info, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to