[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Jonathan De Graeve" <Jonathan dot De dot Graeve at imelda dot be>
 To:  "Mas Libman" <mas at masandwendy dot com>, "Braden McGrath" <braden at big dash geek dot net>
 Cc:  "m0n0wall" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] UPnP as a possible future option?
 Date:  Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:55:04 +0100
http://m0n0.ch/wall/list-dev/?action=show_threads&actionargs%5B%5D=20051
0

J.

-- 
Jonathan De Graeve
Network/System Administrator
Imelda vzw
Informatica Dienst
015/50.52.98
jonathan dot de dot graeve at imelda dot be

---------
Always read the manual for the correct way to do things because the
number of incorrect ways to do things is almost infinite
---------

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Mas Libman [mailto:mas at masandwendy dot com] 
Verzonden: woensdag 30 november 2005 9:59
Aan: Jonathan De Graeve; 'Braden McGrath'
CC: 'm0n0wall'
Onderwerp: RE: [m0n0wall] UPnP as a possible future option?

Bum deal. Could you forward that thread so we can see why no UPNP
support? 


(Braden, you might take a look at Smoothwall.org if UPNP is that
important.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan De Graeve [mailto:Jonathan dot De dot Graeve at imelda dot be] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:30 AM
To: Braden McGrath
Cc: m0n0wall
Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] UPnP as a possible future option?

We already had this discussion awhile ago and the end result was we
didn't
want it.

So no, it want be in a future build. 

--
Jonathan De Graeve
Network/System Administrator
Imelda vzw
Informatica Dienst
015/50.52.98
jonathan dot de dot graeve at imelda dot be

---------
Always read the manual for the correct way to do things because the
number
of incorrect ways to do things is almost infinite
---------

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: news [mailto:news at sea dot gmane dot org] Namens Braden McGrath
Verzonden: woensdag 30 november 2005 7:02
Aan: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
Onderwerp: [m0n0wall] UPnP as a possible future option?

I know there are many on this list who see UPnP as a horrible terrible
useless giant gaping security hole.  ;)

In a corporate setting, I agree 100%.  It has no place there.

However, for those of us who are using m0n0 at home, the dynamic port
forwarding that is enabled by UPnP is a fantastic feature.

I can't be the only person who has multiple machines that like to game.
Multiple Xboxes - while UPnP isn't *required* for Live to function,
things
go much smoother if the router speaks UPnP.  The final nail in the
coffin
for me is with BitTorrent.  I have several machines that all
occasionally
need to use BT to grab stuff from the net.  For various reasons, I don't
want to give them static IPs or assign static port forwards.  UPnP is
the
best way to make this work, since all modern BT clients support it.

Again, I realize that UPnP is a feature that some people hate, but that
is
why there should be a easy to use on/off checkbox next to it...

Developers, what do you say?  Any chance of seeing a UPnP daemon in a
future
build?

Also, FWIW, I'm unable to resolve mono.ch this evening, from my own
nameservers or a third party.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
ll dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch