[freenet-support] Re: Unable to Load

2005-02-01 Thread Someone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Toseland schrieb: | That would rather mean that only 1 machine can be DMZed, right? Exactly, you can only enter one destination IP as DMZ. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFB/7zP5Sa8EyIJhugRAoQ2AJ9rDmlzF4oXd3s6

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Unable to Load

2005-02-01 Thread Matthew Toseland
That would rather mean that only 1 machine can be DMZed, right? On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 05:43:21PM +0100, Someone wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Victor Denisov schrieb: > > | Yes, you have to forward ports if you're behind NAT, regardless of the > | DMZ. All that DM

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Unable to Load

2005-02-01 Thread Victor Denisov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Someone wrote: > Victor Denisov schrieb: > > | Yes, you have to forward ports if you're behind NAT, regardless of the > | DMZ. All that DMZ really does is that router doesn't perform any traffic > | filtering for it by default, not that it can magical

[freenet-support] Re: Unable to Load

2005-02-01 Thread Someone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Victor Denisov schrieb: | Yes, you have to forward ports if you're behind NAT, regardless of the | DMZ. All that DMZ really does is that router doesn't perform any traffic | filtering for it by default, not that it can magically understand that | connec

[freenet-support] Re: Comparison of 5100 vs 5101

2005-02-01 Thread Someone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Todd Walton schrieb: | You were'nt starting from a blank routing table, were you? As a matter of fact it doesn't matter wheter it is blank or not because the number of outgoing connections is mostly less than 5. My node purely lives from incoming connec

Re: [freenet-support] Unable to Load

2005-02-01 Thread Victor Denisov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Earlier I refered to being behind a firewall. I am behind a router (a > Corega, which is a Japanese brand) and a DSL modem which for some > idiotic reason has routing tables and other router features (but only > one ethernet port) for some reason. Do

Re: [freenet-support] Re: Comparison of 5100 vs 5101

2005-02-01 Thread Todd Walton
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:24:21 +0100, Someone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5101 works very fine here, my node was offline for 3 days > as I needed my bandwith. And 30 minutes after starting it > up again it was back to 40 Connections, after about 3 hours > it had it's normal count of 70+ connections.

[freenet-support] Unable to Load

2005-02-01 Thread Kyle Goetz
I am unable to access, well, nearly 100% of anything I try. I am connected to 54 peers and Freenet has been running for over 24 hours now. The furthest I've gotten from the default bookmarks is to the Yoyo main page. Once. Now I cannot even access that page. (Route Not Found for literally every pag

Re: [freenet-support] Error When starting

2005-02-01 Thread Matthew Toseland
That is DEFINITELY the problem I described. The wierd thing is, it has actually loaded the native support! On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 09:10:20PM -, Col.Steve Austin Ret. wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > have never seen an error like this one before. > > Freenet started and ran fi

[freenet-support] Re: Comparison of 5100 vs 5101

2005-02-01 Thread Someone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 5101 works very fine here, my node was offline for 3 days as I needed my bandwith. And 30 minutes after starting it up again it was back to 40 Connections, after about 3 hours it had it's normal count of 70+ connections. Btw. I suggest you update your j