First, your quoting is in desperate need of addressing - the quoted text
is not any different from your new text, and there should be some
differentiation for clarity.
Now, as for UPnP, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, UPnP is a Microsoft
invention, but it makes like in small businesses (and homes) much
easier. I'm not so concerned about passing MSN Voice/Video out using
it, but that is a thing that a lot of people want to do.
The reason I'd like to see UPnP implemented is because many businesses
run a Windows-based network, with Windows Server and ISA Server. ISA
Server can configure hardware firewalls (or software based standalone
firewalls) if these devices have implemented UPnP. Especially for the
SMB space, this is quite useful as most SMBs don't have tech staff on
hand to be able to manually open and close firewall ports as
needed/required. UPnP implementation in m0n0wall would work NICELY with
MS ISA Server in this respect, and therefore open m0n0wall up to a whole
new world of users.
On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 03:20, Jonathan Merrill wrote:
> Could an Universal Plug and Play option be enabled on the firewall to allow
> these ports to open dynamically for those who need it?
> I'd recommend an approach where the if enabled, all traffic should be
> logged. . .
> Jonathan Merrill
> CCA, MCP, Net+
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Dorman [mailto:dmdorman at email dot com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 8:05 PM
> To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: [m0n0wall] FW Rules to allow MSN / windows Messenger Voice
> Been searching the forum and Googling for an answer but found none
> yet. I need to get m0n0wall v1.0 to permit voice chat thru windows
> 4.7 or 5.0. I set up some NAT and fw rules to allow certain ports:
> UDP * * 192.168.1.6 2001 - 2120 NAT IM file
> TCP/UDP * * 192.168.1.6 6901 NAT IM Voice
> UDP * * 192.168.1.6 6801 NAT IM Voice
> TCP * * 192.168.1.6 6891 - 6895 NAT IM File
> UDP * * 192.168.1.6 5000 NAT IM UPnP
> TCP * * 192.168.1.6 3389 NAT IM
> TCP * * 192.168.1.6 1603 NAT IM
> Now, on my old Coyote Linux fw using iptables, this seemed to work
> on occaision. Figured FreeBSD and ipfilter is superior to iptables
> so it should be easier to accomplish. Probably is but I need
> someone to point out the answer to me. Please help.
Hilton Travis Phone: +61-(0)7-3343-3889
Manager, Quark AudioVisual Phone: +61-(0)419-792-394
Quark Computers http://www.QuarkAV.com/
(Brisbane, Australia) http://www.QuarkAV.net/
Open Source Projects: http://www.ares-desktop.org/
Non Linear Video Editing Solutions & Digital Audio Workstations
Network Administration, SmoothWall Firewalls, NOD32 AntiVirus
Conference and Seminar AudioVisual Production and Recording
War doesn't determine who is right. War determines who is left.