{#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{#} To reply to the author, write to Jason Townsend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Any chance we could see a trace from a successful connection?
I'm not that familiar with MSN so I'm just wondering if there are any
obvious differences between the sequence of packets coming from MSN
Messenger vs. Fire.
MSN is working for me and I have hardware NAT.
-Jason
On Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 07:08 AM, Alex Kac wrote:
> Well, etherpeek really isn't showing anything wrong that I can see
> offhand
> in its various windows. Now I've done a trace and unfortunately in the
> Demo,
> copy/paste isn't allowed nor is saving :( So I've taken a screenshot
> and QT
> movie of the data.
>
> Both are available here:
>
> http://ftp2.pocketinformant.com/Temp
>
> --
> Alex Kac, CEO/Developer
>
> Innovation in Personal and Business Information Management
> http://www.pocketinformant.com/
>
> zoomzoom
>
>
>> From: Alex Kac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:47:59 -0500
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: Firewall/NAT problem?
>>
>> Yes, it connects successfully. I'm downloading etherpeek now.
>>
>> --
>> Alex Kac, CEO/Developer
>>
>> Innovation in Personal and Business Information Management
>> http://www.pocketinformant.com/
>>
>> zoomzoom
>>
>>
>>> From: Jason Townsend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:28:16 -0700
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Re: Firewall/NAT problem?
>>>
>>> {#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> {#} To reply to the author, write to Jason Townsend
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Try this in Terminal:
>>>
>>> % telnet messenger.hotmail.com 1863
>>>
>>> and see if you can at least get a connection established to the server
>>> we're using. I guess the next step if that is successful is to take a
>>> look at an EtherPeek trace of what happens when trying to connect in
>>> the
>>> failure and success cases.
>>>
>>> -Jason
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 11, 2002, at 07:54 PM, Alex Kac wrote:
>>>> I agree. That's why I'm perplexed. I was using NAT through a hardware
>>>> linksys box. I'm now using NAT through a software FreeBSD box. The
>>>> FreeBSD
>>>> box is using natd - a daemon that comes with FreeBSD 4.5. There are
>>>> NO
>>>> firewall rules at this time.
>>>>
>>>> OS X:
>>>> MSN Messenger 2.1 works with this
>>>> MSN Messenger 3.0 works with this
>>>> AIM works with this
>>>> Yahoo IM works with this
>>>> ICQ works with this
>>>> Fire AIM/ICQ/Yahoo work with this
>>>> Fire MSN does NOT work at this time in this config
>>>> Proteus MSN does NOT work at this time in this config
>>>>
>>>> Windows:
>>>> Trillian works with this
>>>> MSN Messenger 4.6 works with this
>>>>
>>>> So since Fire and Proteus share the same MSN lib, my guess is that
>>>> there is
>>>> a bug or problem with the MSN lib. But since I know this CAN work
>>>> through
>>>> NAT and the only change has been the move to natd from the Linksys
>>>> box, I
>>>> can only assume that there is something there. Now I'm not a natd
>>>> expert,
>>>> though I DO know unix and networking fundamentals fairly well.
>>>> Since I
>>>> don't
>>>> see getting the MSN lib fixed quickly, I'd rather look at what in
>>>> natd
>>>> breaks the MSN library. But since I'm new at natd, I'm not even sure
>>>> what to
>>>> look for or possibly common issues. I'm also not sure if perhaps I'd
>>>> be
>>>> better of downloading a better NAT daemon and using that...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alex Kac, CEO/Developer
>>>>
>>>> Innovation in Personal and Business Information Management
>>>> http://www.pocketinformant.com/
>>>>
>>>> zoomzoom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From: "David V. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:05:21 -0400
>>>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Firewall/NAT problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> {#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> {#} To reply to the author, write to "David V. Baker"
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In response to a problem email, Eric said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fire is not supported through any kind of firewall or natd
>>>>>> connection.
>>>>>> We have tried to make sure it *might* work, but there are no
>>>>>> guarantees.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex Kac said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I not do think its a great idea to not support firewalls/natd. I
>>>>>> don't like the idea that I have to choose between securing my
>>>>>> network
>>>>>> or keeping it open just for chat. And considering that most of the
>>>>>> world does use some sort of firewall/natd...well, it just doesn't
>>>>>> seem right.
>>>>>
>>>>> It dawned on me that most everyone is behind a NAT router these
>>>>> days;
>>>>> this cannot be a widespread problem. I am behind two NATs at home
>>>>> (Airport and SpeedStream PPPoE router to DSL), two at the office,
>>>>> plus
>>>>> some strict firewall rules at work. But I have never had any trouble
>>>>> with Fire because of NAT routers or my firewalls.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is because Fire and many (all?) of its various clients
>>>>> are
>>>>> "normal" clients that connect from an unprivileged high-port to a
>>>>> well-known destination port; the response stream from the server
>>>>> comes
>>>>> back to the source port, just like most everything. *All* NAT
>>>>> systems
>>>>> should be able to figure that out; it is fundamental functionality.
>>>>> (Things like peer-to-peer AIM voice-talking or file-sharing require
>>>>> different functionality and they are almost always hosed by NAT.)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, as long as AOL and Yahoo and whoever keep their server models
>>>>> the
>>>>> same, Fire will work through NAT routers, and it'll work through
>>>>> firewalls, just like a web browser or POP or telnet or any other
>>>>> service. I think the only thing that will cause any real trouble
>>>>> are
>>>>> firewall rules specifically designed to keep chat traffic out.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if this NAT/firewall discussion all really started because some
>>>>> AIM
>>>>> TOC servers went down today, then...umm, sorry, and uhh,
>>>>> *nevermind*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave Baker
>>>>> --
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> David V. Baker Voice/Cell:617-331-1642 Fax: 603-806-8545
>>>>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.whysheep.com
>>>>>
>>>>> It's easy to downgrade people by dwelling on their
>>>>> weaknesses. It's harder to look at them with
>>>>> fresh eyes and identify their strengths -- and how
>>>>> they can help the organization to function.
>>>>> pg 32, Finding a Way To Win, Bill Parcells
>>>>>
>>>>> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+
>>>>> [ fire ]+---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
>
>
{#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
