RE: [SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up

2000-12-04 Thread Dave Kempe
> > Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > ICQ 2000 would more often than not be using the AIM protocol, > > rather than the ICQ one. > > > > That's what I thought, but Dave Kempe seemed to suggest he'd used > > ip_masq_icq with ICQ 2000. Any more details Dave? > > Impossible, ip_masq_icq specifically works on t

Re: [SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up

2000-12-04 Thread Andrew Macks
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Tom Massey wrote: > Jeff Waugh wrote: > > ICQ 2000 would more often than not be using the AIM protocol, > rather than the >ICQ one. > > That's what I thought, but Dave Kempe seemed to suggest he'd used > ip_masq_icq with ICQ 2000. Any more details Dave? Impossible, ip_masq_

Re: [SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up

2000-12-04 Thread Andrew Macks
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Crossfire wrote: > This is why the ipmasqadm autofw solution using port forwarding is much > easier - this is the "offically supported" method for NAT/Proxy tunnelling. > I do use some masq modules too [mainly for FTP and IRC+DCC], I just find its > less painful if I can avoid

Re: [SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up

2000-12-04 Thread Tom Massey
Jeff Waugh wrote: > ICQ 2000 would more often than not be using the AIM protocol, > rather than the ICQ >one. That's what I thought, but Dave Kempe seemed to suggest he'd used ip_masq_icq with ICQ 2000. Any more details Dave? > Thus my early response of 'tell us which version', 99B I think it

Re: [SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up

2000-12-04 Thread Crossfire
- Original Message - From: Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up > > > Interesting - according to the ip_masq_icq docs, this shouldn't > > work with

Re: [SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up

2000-12-04 Thread Jeff Waugh
> Interesting - according to the ip_masq_icq docs, this shouldn't > work with ICQ 2000. :-) ICQ 2000 would more often than not be using the AIM protocol, rather than the ICQ one. They've finally started integrating their systems after all this time. Thus my early response of 'tell us which ve

RE: [SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up

2000-12-04 Thread Tom Massey
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Dave Kempe wrote: > I did some diggin in some old scripts i had that work great with ICQ 2000: > /sbin/insmod -f /lib/modules/2.2.5-15/ip_masq_icq.o > ports=4000,4001,4002,4003,4004,4005,4006,4007,4008,4009,4010,4011 > range=60200,61000 tcp_timeout=14400 tcp_fin_timeout=60

RE: [SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up

2000-12-04 Thread Dave Kempe
> This method also has the advantage over the ip_masq_icq module that it > should work regardless of changes to the ICQ protocol (The ip_masq_icq > module doesn't currently work with the latest version of ICQ). I did some diggin in some old scripts i had that work great with ICQ 2000: /sbin/insm

[SLUG] Masquerading ICQ follow up

2000-12-04 Thread Tom Massey
Hi, A couple of people have asked me for a summary of how I got this working, suggestions I got and so on. Here's a few thoughts, by no means complete, I hope they're useful... (All this assumes that you've already got a local network set up with ipchains working to share Internet access). First