Brian Warner <[email protected]> writes: > On 2/2/11 8:44 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> Most of the nodes on VolunteerGrid2 are set up behind routers with >> port-forwarding to the nodes. With the exception of one 6+ year old >> router, it is working we haven't experienced any problems. (The >> router in question is scheduled for replacement.) >> >> By 'it is working', do you mean that tahoe client nodes which are >> behind the same nat as one of the servers can store shares on those >> servers? If so, is the NAT box doing NAT on those packets even though >> they arrive on the internal vs external interface, or is tub.locations >> configured as I asked, or something else? > > For reference, in NAT-plus-port-forwarding environments, you should > probably set your tub.location to something like > "127.0.0.1:55555,externalip.example.org:55555" (assuming a 1:1 inbound > port-forwarding). Everybody will try both ports, but internal hosts will > succeed with the first hint, and external hosts will succeed with the > second. Foolscap tries all hints in parallel, starts SSL on any that > finish TCP, starts foolscap negotiation on any that finish SSL, and uses > the first one that finishes foolscap negotiation (and drops any that > don't). So multiple hints are the Right Way to handle funky > split-horizon things like that.
Thanks. I set to rfc1918adddress:port,dyndns-name:port and things seemed to work. I am boggled by 127.0.0.1, but I'm trying to get other clients behind the same NAT to work, not other clients on the same box.
pgpzLMlBtMacZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
