Thanks to Dave and Bob. I downloaded this wonderful book. I will be
looking for a paper copy though, as I like reading a peper copy more
than reading infront of the tube.

73 - VU3RDD

In article ,
Tom Ring wrote:

What client are you using? Are you behind some sort of NAT gateway or
other firewall?

TorrentStorm, behind a NAT, but that has never been an issue before.

The documentation at BitTorrent.com points out that downloads may not
work, or may be quite slow, if you're behind a NAT and don't arrange
for port forwarding of inbound connections from your peers. In this
situation, you can end up being unable to exchange data with some or
all of the peer sites you try to connect with.

As I understand it, this shouldn't affect the seeder I'm running,
since it already has a complete copy of the file and doesn't insist on
a tit-for-tat exchange of data. However, it's possible that there may
still be some issues, with some NATs or firewalls.

Both my tracker, and my seeder clients, use the BitTorrent 4.01
reference implementation, and neither is behind a NAT. I've been able
to transfer successfully from a system here at work which *is* behind
a NAT, and the transfer went quite efficiently. So, it's possible
that the problem lies at your end, although that's not a certainty.

My system _does_ react rather strongly, in defense, against systems
which appear to be trying to port-scan it for vulnerabilities or
trojans... it'll slap down a hard IP filter against such systems and
will appear to "vanish" from the net.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave Platt wrote:

In article ,
Tom Ring wrote:


What client are you using? Are you behind some sort of NAT gateway or
other firewall?


TorrentStorm, behind a NAT, but that has never been an issue before.


The documentation at BitTorrent.com points out that downloads may not
work, or may be quite slow, if you're behind a NAT and don't arrange
for port forwarding of inbound connections from your peers. In this
situation, you can end up being unable to exchange data with some or
all of the peer sites you try to connect with.

As I understand it, this shouldn't affect the seeder I'm running,
since it already has a complete copy of the file and doesn't insist on
a tit-for-tat exchange of data. However, it's possible that there may
still be some issues, with some NATs or firewalls.

Both my tracker, and my seeder clients, use the BitTorrent 4.01
reference implementation, and neither is behind a NAT. I've been able
to transfer successfully from a system here at work which *is* behind
a NAT, and the transfer went quite efficiently. So, it's possible
that the problem lies at your end, although that's not a certainty.

My system _does_ react rather strongly, in defense, against systems
which appear to be trying to port-scan it for vulnerabilities or
trojans... it'll slap down a hard IP filter against such systems and
will appear to "vanish" from the net.


Thanks for the response. I don't think I have a problem with the
network side, since I forward the torrent port to that box, and my ACL
allows that port to see all public addresses. I have a Cisco IOS DSL
router running the latest release, so I have a bit more flexibility than
most. I'll give it another shot tonight.

tom
K0TAR

In article ,
Tom Ring wrote:

Thanks for the response. I don't think I have a problem with the
network side, since I forward the torrent port to that box, and my ACL
allows that port to see all public addresses. I have a Cisco IOS DSL
router running the latest release, so I have a bit more flexibility than
most. I'll give it another shot tonight.

OK, good luck - please let me know how it goes.

You might want to check to make sure that you forward both the torrent
management port, and the full range of torrent-client ports. Since
I'm running two seeders, they're on two different ports on my system
and might be trying to talk to different ports in your client's range.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave Platt wrote:

In article ,
Tom Ring wrote:


Thanks for the response. I don't think I have a problem with the
network side, since I forward the torrent port to that box, and my ACL
allows that port to see all public addresses. I have a Cisco IOS DSL
router running the latest release, so I have a bit more flexibility than
most. I'll give it another shot tonight.


OK, good luck - please let me know how it goes.

You might want to check to make sure that you forward both the torrent
management port, and the full range of torrent-client ports. Since
I'm running two seeders, they're on two different ports on my system
and might be trying to talk to different ports in your client's range.


Good point. Thanks.

tom
K0TAR

Dave Platt wrote:

In article ,

OK, good luck - please let me know how it goes.

You might want to check to make sure that you forward both the torrent
management port, and the full range of torrent-client ports. Since
I'm running two seeders, they're on two different ports on my system
and might be trying to talk to different ports in your client's range.


No go, and I added extra ports - 6882-6889.

Your end is trying to connect on nonstandard ports back to my end. They
are not ports listed on any of the torrent pages I've looked at,
assuming your end is 195.23.xxx.xxx. It tried from 6882 on your end to
2471, 2523, and 2546 on my end. 6882 is fine, but as a destination.

tom
K0TAR

In article ,
Tom Ring wrote:

No go, and I added extra ports - 6882-6889.

Hmmm...

Your end is trying to connect on nonstandard ports back to my end. They
are not ports listed on any of the torrent pages I've looked at,
assuming your end is 195.23.xxx.xxx. It tried from 6882 on your end to
2471, 2523, and 2546 on my end. 6882 is fine, but as a destination.

Nope, that's somebody else - the IP range looks like it's in Portugal.
It _could_ be someone else who is fetching the torrent and is trying
to peer with you (there's one active downloader for each of the two,
at the moment), or it could be J. Random Nastyguy portscanning your
system looking for trojans and etc.

I'm really not sure why you're having the problem. I do see that the
4.01 BitTorrent tracker has some logic which tries to figure out
whether the system asking for the download is behind a NAT, although
I'm not sure what it does with the information. I'll try restarting
the tracker and turning that feature off... maybe it'll make a
difference.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave Platt wrote:

In article ,
Tom Ring wrote:


No go, and I added extra ports - 6882-6889.


Hmmm...


Your end is trying to connect on nonstandard ports back to my end. They
are not ports listed on any of the torrent pages I've looked at,
assuming your end is 195.23.xxx.xxx. It tried from 6882 on your end to
2471, 2523, and 2546 on my end. 6882 is fine, but as a destination.


Nope, that's somebody else - the IP range looks like it's in Portugal.
It _could_ be someone else who is fetching the torrent and is trying
to peer with you (there's one active downloader for each of the two,
at the moment), or it could be J. Random Nastyguy portscanning your
system looking for trojans and etc.

J Random Nastyguy gets caught and reported on my net. Like the .kr I
nailed tonight trying to ssh2 in. It would be easier to just block the
whole of the far east, and I may do that someday soon.


I'm really not sure why you're having the problem. I do see that the
4.01 BitTorrent tracker has some logic which tries to figure out
whether the system asking for the download is behind a NAT, although
I'm not sure what it does with the information. I'll try restarting
the tracker and turning that feature off... maybe it'll make a
difference.


Well no matter, I'll live without it. Sounded good though.

tom
K0TAR

In article ,
Tom Ring wrote:

J Random Nastyguy gets caught and reported on my net. Like the .kr I
nailed tonight trying to ssh2 in. It would be easier to just block the
whole of the far east, and I may do that someday soon.

It's sure tempting. I've already got fairly hard email blocks against
most of the far east. For a couple of my domains, I've even
programmed by DNS servers not to respond to queries from those
areas... just too darned much spam.

Well no matter, I'll live without it. Sounded good though.

I've turned off the NAT-check filter, and noticed that the number of
downloaders jumped up suddenly from 2 to 4. You might want to give it
another try and see if it works this time. My tracker may have
"noticed" that you were behind a NAT, and decided to snub you...
that won't happen now.

Another thing to check, is to see what happens to *outbound*
connections from your system, to port 6881 on other peoples' systems.
I can see that my own downloader (which has a complete copy) initiated
an outbound connection from its port 2723 to someone else's 6881. It's
conceivable that your downloader tried to "connect out" to someone
else's 6881, did so from a dynamically-assigned port number, and that
your firewall rules are blocking the SYN/ACK connection responses back
from the other downloader's 6881.

If that still won't work, then you might want to check at
http://www.r-bonomi.com/radio/ - you can probably get a copy via HTTP
from there.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

The smart ones will just come at you though a western proxy... frown

Warmest regards,
John

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..
Dave Platt wrote:

In article ,
Tom Ring wrote:


No go, and I added extra ports - 6882-6889.


Hmmm...


Your end is trying to connect on nonstandard ports back to my end. They
are not ports listed on any of the torrent pages I've looked at, assuming
your end is 195.23.xxx.xxx. It tried from 6882 on your end to 2471,
2523, and 2546 on my end. 6882 is fine, but as a destination.


Nope, that's somebody else - the IP range looks like it's in Portugal.
It _could_ be someone else who is fetching the torrent and is trying
to peer with you (there's one active downloader for each of the two,
at the moment), or it could be J. Random Nastyguy portscanning your
system looking for trojans and etc.

J Random Nastyguy gets caught and reported on my net. Like the .kr I
nailed tonight trying to ssh2 in. It would be easier to just block the
whole of the far east, and I may do that someday soon.


I'm really not sure why you're having the problem. I do see that the
4.01 BitTorrent tracker has some logic which tries to figure out
whether the system asking for the download is behind a NAT, although
I'm not sure what it does with the information. I'll try restarting
the tracker and turning that feature off... maybe it'll make a
difference.


Well no matter, I'll live without it. Sounded good though.

tom
K0TAR