Well, it does appear that I was doing something stupid here.  I had azureus 
set up with a maximum upload rate of 20KByte/sec on my 1200/200 ADSL line. 
  Furthermore, I was up/downloading dozens of things at once on this skinny 
pipe.  I was trying so many at once because a lot of them had very few 
seeds, and I was worried that they'd go away.

Anyway, now that my up/download counts have dropped to reasonable levels, 
the problem has gone away.  Furthermore, I've reduced the upload rate to a 
more reasonable 16KByte/sec, and the network feels better already.  Now, 
for example, I have much more reliable access to the internet from my other 
machines.

So I think this problem had nothing to do with m0n0wall, and you can all 
breathe out now. :-)

NHA
---
Norman H. Azadian    Taegerishalde 13    CH-3110 Muensingen    Switzerland
norman at azadian dot ch      tel: +41 31 721 7855      fax: +41 31 55 898 55


Norman H. Azadian wrote:
> Yeah, I'm seeing lots of dropped packets.  For example:
> 
>       08:42:58.717542      LAN      192.168.3.10, port 37136      
> 67.122.163.158, port 6883      TCP
>     08:42:58.380437     WAN     209.183.217.75, port 10414     
> 80.238.228.22, port 33448     UDP
>     08:42:55.338442     LAN     192.168.3.10, port 37136     
> 67.122.163.158, port 6883     TCP
>     08:42:53.712726     WAN     209.183.217.75, port 10414     
> 80.238.228.22, port 33448     UDP
>     08:42:48.719304     WAN     209.183.217.75, port 10414     
> 80.238.228.22, port 33448     UDP
>     08:42:43.705816     WAN     209.183.217.75, port 10414     
> 80.238.228.22, port 33448     UDP
>     08:42:39.395738     WAN     209.183.217.75, port 10414     
> 80.238.228.22, port 33448     UDP
>     08:42:28.014150     WAN     84.217.62.107, port 64409     
> 192.168.3.10, port 49999     TCP
>     08:41:52.884339     LAN     192.168.3.10, port 37149     
> 69.178.97.13, port 6883     TCP
> 
> 
> Here's my NAT config:
> 
> WAN      TCP           22 (SSH)      WS      22 (SSH)      SSH      
> WAN     TCP         80 (HTTP)     web     80 (HTTP)     web server
> WAN     TCP         110 (POP3)     email     110 (POP3)     POP3     
> WAN     TCP         465         email     465         SMTP SSL
> WAN     TCP         995         email     995         POP3 SSL
> WAN     TCP/UDP     25 (SMTP)     email     25 (SMTP)     SMTP     
> WAN     TCP/UDP     143 (IMAP)     email     143 (IMAP)     IMAP     
> WAN     TCP/UDP     993         email     993         IMAP SSL
> WAN     TCP/UDP     49999         BT     49999         Bit Torrent
> WAN     UDP         5060         192.168.2.11     5060     VoIP     
> 
> 
> I think I'm doing something stupid here.
> 
> NHA
> ---
> Norman H. Azadian    Taegerishalde 13    CH-3110 Muensingen    Switzerland
> norman at azadian dot ch      tel: +41 31 721 7855      fax: +41 31 55 898 55
> 
> 
> Chris Buechler wrote:
> 
>> 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? 
>> -Chris
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>