Re: [freenet-dev] Problem with handling of Opennet Announce Requests

[Steve Dougherty]

On 02/18/2016 09:06 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On 18/02/16 13:43, Steve Dougherty wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 6:30 AM Martin Byrenheid <
>> martin.byrenh...@tu-dresden.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> while working with Freenet, I discovered that whenever a seed node
>>> received an
>>> OpennetAnnounceRequest-message for a target location X, it forwards the
>>> request to another opennet peer node, but always for target location 0.0
>>> instead.
>>
>> Yikes. That sure sounds like a bug.
>>
>> This behavior results from the fact that the constructor of the
>>> AnnounceSender class (line 55 [1])  does not copy the given target location
>>> into the "target" member variable. Is this an implementation bug or is
>>> there a
>>> good reason why the original target location should be ignored?
>>>
>> Matthew likely wrote it, but he's busy at university, so instead of asking
>> him my impulse would be to check if that behavior is in the initial
>> AnnounceSender implementation. If it was intentionally removed later there
>> should be reasoning in the commit message. If - as I'd expect - it's a bug,
>> it very well may exist in the initial implementation or be introduced by a
>> refactor.
> 
> Argh. Yup:
> 
> https://github.com/freenet/fred/commit/5d21c855655c1f974a8e9333d74c1d564224bf4c
> 
> Please send a patch, and make target final while you're at it. Thanks!

Patch is now merged as 71a788164a896d6e5b6af0dfe0f35da5a6927633. Thanks
again!

Add missing assignment for Opennet announce location

This regression was introduced in
5d21c855655c1f974a8e9333d74c1d564224bf4c which was released in
build01412 on 2012-09-12.

See GitHub for details:
https://github.com/freenet/fred/pull/503#issuecomment-186988870

- Steve



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Request for improvement node behavior because of ISP NAT translation timeout now is less than 5 seconds

[vastik_spbm]

On 02/20/2016 05:37 PM, vastik_spbm wrote:

On 02/20/2016 04:08 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:

IIRC symmetric means exactly the problem above: Different port number
for each pair of IPs, can only connect to nodes that aren't NATed. :(



You want to say that all nodes are behind a NAT?
Last time I waited about an hour and my node did not connect to any.
I think the problem consists of not only symmetric nat.



I think I found the root problem with my ISP.
Those freaks disabled one IP:port to multiple IP:port connections. Their NAT only 
allow one IP:port <--> IP:port UDP connection.
Literally my applications cant connect from 5060 (SIP) to many IP:5060.

That is why freenet doesn't work, it uses one port for many remote connections, 
which is all now blocked.


Thank for help.

--
Best regards
Vasilii Tikhonov
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl