Robert,
Here are two emails from Lars that might be able to help you out.
Beyond this, I hope some others on the list might be able to
shed some light on the issue. If we can get some concrete info
here, I'll add it to the MASQ howto.
--David
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:09:54 +0100
From: Lars Bensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
Subject: Re: [masq] DirectX6 Ports
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
*** PGP Signature Status: unknown
*** Signer: Unknown, Key ID x471CA3B1
*** Signed: 1/24/99 6:09:53 AM
*** Verified: 1/24/99 5:52:04 PM
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 02:22:53PM -0900, Vince wrote:
> Anyone know how to enable Directplay on dirextX6?
I succeeded in getting Settlers 3 to work, but it included patching the
kernel. The problem was that the server forwarded the IP and port you were
sending from. But standard masq code doesn't allow a different host to
send to the masq port. After changing this it worked with the following
lines:
ipautofw -A -r udp 3343 3346 -h 192.168.0.2 -i
ipautofw -A -r tcp 3343 3346 -h 192.168.0.2 -i
ipautofw -A -r udp 47624 47624 -h 192.168.0.2 -i
ipautofw -A -r tcp 47624 47624 -h 192.168.0.2 -i
ipautofw -A -r udp 2300 2399 -h 192.168.0.2 -i
ipautofw -A -r tcp 2300 2399 -h 192.168.0.2 -i
ipautofw -A -r tcp 1100 1199 -h 192.168.0.2 -i
3343 to 3346 (TCP and UDP) are IIRC specially for Settlers 3, so you can
drop them. I think 1100 to 1199 was a line that was necessary to play with
people who use DX5.
I don't know if this will work with all games. I just checked S3 and it
didn't use DX for the chat server (which BTW has a very sick
implementation). So I guess other games will do the same, so you have to
experiment with every one :-(
> I heard that it has set ports in it unlike the dynamic ones in 5 or
> lower
Well, not really. That's what the docs make you believe. It said it would
use port 47624 in/out (and I think it said just TCP, but there were UDP
pakets coming in as well) and then for the first DX-Connection 2300, for
the second 2301. And that you would just need to open ports 47624 and 2300
on your firewall. But I encountered all kinds of ports between 2300 and
2399. And any game can change the ports if it wants to. So don't depend on
it.
cu,
Lars
--
Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares?
*** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:04:21 +0100
From: Lars Bensmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David A. Ranch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [masq] DirectX6 Ports
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.1i
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
*** PGP Signature Status: unknown
*** Signer: Unknown, Key ID x471CA3B1
*** Signed: 1/25/99 1:04:20 PM
*** Verified: 1/25/99 2:26:35 PM
*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 10:24:36AM -0800, David A. Ranch wrote:
>
> If the code change isn't too big, post it to both the Linux MASQ Apps
> page with a FAT disclaimer and also definately post it to the masq-dev
> list for a sanity check. If it's ok, you'll become famous and we'll
> integrate it into the kernel!
As I said, it was only for 2.0.xx. And I cannot test it anymore. I just
participated in the Settlers III Beta Online Test. That test is over and I
didn't buy the game.
> >But I remember reading something
> >about a patch for 2.1.xx that did something similar. Have a look at
> >http://juanjox.linuxhq.com/. That seems to have something similar for
> >2.2.0-pre1-ac2. But I haven't tested it. One of the patches just sound
> >similar to what I did.
>
> Hmmm.. i compiled up a 2.2.0pre9 kernel last night and didn't
> see anything that looked like this feature. Can you confim this?
I didn't patch my 2.2.0-pre kernel, but did you look at the URL? It says:
2. patch-2.2.0pre1-ac1.ip_masq_dloose.gz Fixes ...
necessary changes UDP stream semantics by keeping only one tunnel
per source <addr,port>
regardless of changes in destination addr,port (note that
this matches "normal" sockets semantics).
Did you try this patch. This sounds like my hack, but more elegant. I just
allowed incoming UDP-Pakets in on ports that were masqueraded for a
different host. But outgoing pakets still generated a new tunnel. As these
get deleted again after the timeout, it shouldn't matter too much, but
it's more elegant nonetheless.
I don't know if it works against -pre9, but I'm sure there will be one
against the final 2.2.0. (Well, pre9 is supposed to be just that :-)
> Anyway.. if you do just a little more leg work, I bet a LOT of
> people would appreciate your efforts!
I seems somebody already did the work.
I tried to write a general DX6 proxy, but it seems nobody wanted to or
could help me with some problems I encountered. As I don't have any DX6
games any more, it doesn't matter anyhow as I can't test anything.
cu,
Lars
--
... Our continuing mission: To seek out knowledge of C, to explore
strange UNIX commands, and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.
*** END PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tiffany.indyramp.com/mailman/listinfo/masq
Admin requests can be handled by web (above) or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
