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
With those NAT'ed are you seeing dropped traffic?