{#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{#} To reply to the author, write to Alex Kac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ack! Fire now works with MSN. I have changed NOTHING but given myself a
manual IP instead of using DHCP...so strange.
--
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:47:02 -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]>
>
> 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 ]+---
>
>
>
{#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
