[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 To:  "Norman H. Azadian" <norman at azadian dot ch>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] azureus problem?
 Date:  Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:07:51 -0500
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:13:22 +0100, Norman H. Azadian <norman at azadian dot ch> wrote:
> If port 6969 has to be forwarded for BT, then how come the NAT wizard
> doesn't include a rule for it?  Besides that, how is it possible that I'm
> running more-or-less OK now without that port?

6969 is outbound only, unless you run the tracker yourself.  

Inbound you should only need 6881-6889, or 6881-6999 (the former
should suffice).

With those NAT'ed are you seeing dropped traffic?