|
||||||||||
It is when both parties are behind NAT that UPNP becomes necessary, and that's the problem I have. Without UPNP, file transfers go extremely slow (10kb/s instead of 70kb/s+), video is choppy (if at all) and audio just doesn't work. That's while both parties are on broadband (8mb/768kb) connections. If I switch monowall out for my old wireless G router w/ NAT & UPNP, suddenly all these things work. According to the MSN folks, I need UPNP or a SOCKS proxy to fix this. (The wireless router has crappy perf otherwise, and I want to take advantage of the QoS capabilities in M0n0wall.) Believe me, I'd be happy living w/out UPnP, but so far the solutions are limited :( I'm also looking into getting a SOCKS 4\5 module into a custom m0n0wall image .. we'll see how much I can break ;) Cheers, /Mas -----Original Message----- From: Xavier Beaudouin [mailto:kiwi at oav dot net] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 2:09 AM To: Mas Libman Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option? > As I posted in the past: how do I enable audio & video conferencing > and file sharing via MSN Messenger through m0n0wall w/out UPNP? No > amount of static port maps will make this work with the number of > clients I have behind the firewall. Is anyone aware of an incarnation > of M0n0wall with a SOCKS proxy perhaps? (if not perhaps I'll give it a > go myself, but it'd be nice not to duplicate efforts.) Humm... It works for me(tm) without any uPnP what ever MSN Messenger client you are using... > So are you saying that M0n0wall isn't intended for use in your home > (where there are lots of "lame" sys admins)? That sounds like a shame > to me - M0n0wall was a snap to set up and get going - about as easy as > any "commercial" solution. I use it at home, but audio / video conferencing with msn messenger / aim / ichat works without upnp. Maybe this is something else on your system that avoid you to do such work. > -Mas > > P.S. the ironic part here is that, for the most part, I agree with > everyone that UPnP is a scary technology and that you most certainly > don't want any signs of it in the corpnet scenario. I am, however, > willing to live with this risk in my home due to the high level of > protection and control I have over all of my client machines. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Xavier Beaudouin [mailto:kiwi at oav dot net] > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:56 AM > To: Mas Libman > Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option? > > IMHO I think UPnP is dangerous beast... Because of the way on how is > made some M$ thingies uPnP can whole open a firewall and make it useless... > > uPnP has been done for lame users that don't know what firewall / nat > is, m0n0 is for people that want to rely on efficient system (same as > pfsense tooo...). > > But this is my point of vue, but I dunno if m0n0 or pfSence > developpers wants to add or not this dangerous thing.... :p > > /Xavier > > Mas Libman wrote: >> No UPNP support in pfsense either :( >> http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=0434dc072b1fa4a262c85f23 >> d >> 7651eb >> 7&topic=219.0 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mas Libman [mailto:mas at masandwendy dot com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:54 PM >> To: 'Alex Neuman van der Hans'; 'Chris Buechler' >> Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch >> Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option? >> >> Perhaps I'm not privy to the past conversations on UPNP where folks >> were rude (apparently?), but this discussion (thus far ;) is far from >> "moaning or complaining". If it were not for this thread, I would not >> have learned about pfSense, or anything else that folks might >> recommend to solve this issue. Or perhaps this thread is how I find >> others that are want this feature bad enough that they too are >> willing to > contribute. But, contrary to Chris' >> sentiment, the general response has been "I don't want UPNP so shut >> up and go away". That is hardly the open source spirit of which he speaks. >> >> I'll look into pfsense this evening and report back. Thanks Alex! >> >> /Mas >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alex Neuman van der Hans [mailto:alex at nkpanama dot com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:23 PM >> Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch >> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option? >> >> Doesn't pfSense (based on m0n0) support uPNP? >> >> Chris Buechler wrote: >> >> >>>On 11/30/05, Giobbi, Ryan <rgiobbi at agoc dot com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I saw the above challenge in the list archives and found two real >>>>firewall configuration tools (both use IPTables on the backend) that >>>>support UPnP. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Neither of which are real firewall packages, they're configuration >>>interfaces for iptables. By "real firewall package", I meant a >>>respectable commercial offering. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>It's kind of sad when most $50 cheap-o home routers support UPnP, >>>>but it isn't even offered as an *option* in m0n0, which is supposed >>>>to be a superior solution. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>My $10,000 Cisco PIX doesn't, and you don't hear me complaining. >>>Wait, that must mean the $50 Linksys is superior!! *gasp* >>></sarcasm> >>> >>> >>>In all seriousness, let me explain something. Open source works when >>>people contribute what they want to see in a project. It *DOES NOT* >>>work when people do nothing but bitch, moan and complain about what >>>they want and don't do anything about it. Want uPNP? Make an image >>>with support that works, and submit the code to Manuel and/or the dev >>>list. Obviously from past threads, those of us that contribute >>>couldn't give a shit less if uPNP is supported or not. The other >>>alternative is to offer up $X for whoever can implement uPNP. If X >>>is sufficiently large, someone will do it. This isn't a whining >>>competition with the winner getting whatever feature they want. >>> >>>If it doesn't make it into the base system, I would gladly host the >>>uPNP-enabled images on my site, and link to them from the >>>documentation, so the effort wouldn't be for naught. >>> >>>sorry, tired as hell of this and similar crap that people want to >>>moan about but do nothing to resolve. >>> >>>-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 >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > -- Quand on essaye continuellement, on finit par y arriver. Donc, plus ca rate, plus on a de chance que ca marche... (Proverbe Shadok) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 |