-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 21 May 2004 22:10, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004, Roger Oksanen wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Friday 21 May 2004 16:44, Ole Tange wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:32:08 +0100, Toad wrote:
On Friday 21 May 2004 22:27, Toad wrote:
> > STUN is used to determine whether you are behind NAT. If you are then you
> > need a third party to start connections to others behind NAT. The third
> > party need not be a single server but can be a network of
> > communicating servers (such as all fre
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:39 +0100, dave-kId6I2PxnVtBDgjK7y7TUQ wrote:
>
> >>> and most of the rest are
> >>> behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
> >>
> >> Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the N
On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:57:19 +0100, Toad wrote:
> I have temporarily commented out the above reference to SORBS.
> How do I tell it to use SORBS but to not reject hosts purely on the
> basis that they are in a DSL block?
You cannot. Postfix is binary: Either you accept or you reject on a rule.
Ho
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:39 +0100, dave-kId6I2PxnVtBDgjK7y7TUQ wrote:
>>> and most of the rest are
>>> behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
>>
>> Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT problems? It
>> ought to be fairly simple to encapsulate the TCP-pac
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Roger Oksanen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Friday 21 May 2004 16:44, Ole Tange wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:32:08 +0100, Toad wrote:
> > > and most of the rest are
> > > behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
> >
>
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:37:25PM +0100, Toad wrote:
> In any case, is it fair to say that we will probably need some sort of
> introduction over the network for anything like this to work? i.e. we
> will need a way to send a message to a node we are not directly
> connected to, through the networ
In any case, is it fair to say that we will probably need some sort of
introduction over the network for anything like this to work? i.e. we
will need a way to send a message to a node we are not directly
connected to, through the network?
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:36:16PM +0100, Toad wrote:
> Um
Umm. I was told that most NATs would use the port number to forward
packets from any and all external hosts to the one internal PC that has
used a given port.. is that wrong?
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:48:42PM +0300, Roger Oksanen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fr
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:44:20PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:32:08 +0100, Toad wrote:
>
> > and most of the rest are
> > behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
>
> Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT problems? It
> ought to be fa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 21 May 2004 18:15, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Roger Oksanen wrote:
> > Tunneling packets in UDP when both hosts are behind NAT has the
> > following problems:
> > * Generic NAT tunneling implementations don't work; They require
> > that one host i
Roger Oksanen wrote:
Tunneling packets in UDP when both hosts are behind NAT has the
following problems:
* Generic NAT tunneling implementations don't work; They require
that one host is on a routable address.
Not true in 85% of cases, most NATs will forward UDP packets that come
from a host to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 21 May 2004 16:44, Ole Tange wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:32:08 +0100, Toad wrote:
> > and most of the rest are
> > behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
>
> Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT
>> and most of the rest are
>> behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
>
> Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT problems? It
> ought to be fairly simple to encapsulate the TCP-packets in UDP.
Doesn't STUN involve connections to a centralised server? If s
On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:32:08 +0100, Toad wrote:
> and most of the rest are
> behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT problems? It
ought to be fairly simple to encapsulate the TCP-packets in UDP.
/Ole
__
I just restarted my node which had run perfectly for more than a week. But
for some reason it would not start. The log ended with:
May 21, 2004 2:00:35 PM (freenet.node.Main, main, NORMAL): Starting Freenet (Fred) 0.5
node, build #5082 on JVM Blackdown Java-Linux Team:Java HotSpot(TM) Client
VM:
16 matches
Mail list logo
