My apollogies if this is not the correct forum, we have an old request in our problem tracker to modify the default ports in macro.Bittorrent to reflect the ports used in the recent versions of Bittorrent. Is this something you would consider doing for a future release? What would be the appropriate process to request this? Thank-you CRAIG -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/shorewall/+bug/110873 Bug # 110873: BitTorrent macro should use ports 6881:6999, not only 6881:6889 The BitTorrent macro uses ports 6881-6889, but should really use ports 6881-6999 (which gets used by BitTorrent since version 3.2). Additionally, the rtorrent client uses 6890-6999, because the default ports are blocked often. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
Craig Kingston wrote:> My apollogies if this is not the correct forum, we have an old request > in our problem tracker to modify the default ports in macro.Bittorrent > to reflect the ports used in the recent versions of Bittorrent. Is > this something you would consider doing for a future release? What > would be the appropriate process to request this? >Craig, This type of request is better handled on the Shorewall Development mailing list. Be that as it may, the comments in the current macro file reflect our decision about an earlier request to enlarge the Bittorrent port range. Are we to understand from this request that the Bittorrent community has now decided to grab yet another 100 ports? If so, that definitely strengthens our resolve to not be a party to this continuing escalation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
Shorewall Guy wrote:> Craig Kingston wrote: >> My apollogies if this is not the correct forum, we have an old request >> in our problem tracker to modify the default ports in macro.Bittorrent >> to reflect the ports used in the recent versions of Bittorrent. Is >> this something you would consider doing for a future release? What >> would be the appropriate process to request this? >> > > Craig, > > This type of request is better handled on the Shorewall Development > mailing list. > > Be that as it may, the comments in the current macro file reflect our > decision about an earlier request to enlarge the Bittorrent port range. > Are we to understand from this request that the Bittorrent community has > now decided to grab yet another 100 ports? If so, that definitely > strengthens our resolve to not be a party to this continuing escalation.I''ve updated the comment in both the 4.0 and 4.2 macros to specify 6881:6999 rather that 6881:6899. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
Honestly I''m not sure the current stance in the community beyond the defaults and the request by a user to align with them. I was just reading and forwarding a feature request under the assumption that shorewall would be better equiped to understand the implications and/or deny the request. Out of curiosity, I did a quick search just now and it seems like there are those out there who advocate not using that port range at all (referring to said conflict with ISPs) so I can appreciate your approach - the basics work (sic) and those who want to change it are free to. CRAIG On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Shorewall Guy <shorewalljunky@comcast.net> wrote:> Shorewall Guy wrote: >> Craig Kingston wrote: >>> My apollogies if this is not the correct forum, we have an old request >>> in our problem tracker to modify the default ports in macro.Bittorrent >>> to reflect the ports used in the recent versions of Bittorrent. Is >>> this something you would consider doing for a future release? What >>> would be the appropriate process to request this? >>> >> >> Craig, >> >> This type of request is better handled on the Shorewall Development >> mailing list. >> >> Be that as it may, the comments in the current macro file reflect our >> decision about an earlier request to enlarge the Bittorrent port range. >> Are we to understand from this request that the Bittorrent community has >> now decided to grab yet another 100 ports? If so, that definitely >> strengthens our resolve to not be a party to this continuing escalation. > > I''ve updated the comment in both the 4.0 and 4.2 macros to specify > 6881:6999 rather that 6881:6899. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > SourcForge Community > SourceForge wants to tell your story. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword > _______________________________________________ > Shorewall-users mailing list > Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
(PS Thank-you for your help) On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Craig Kingston <funrun73@gmail.com> wrote:> Honestly I''m not sure the current stance in the community beyond the > defaults and the request by a user to align with them. I was just > reading and forwarding a feature request under the assumption that > shorewall would be better equiped to understand the implications > and/or deny the request. > > Out of curiosity, I did a quick search just now and it seems like > there are those out there who advocate not using that port range at > all (referring to said conflict with ISPs) so I can appreciate your > approach - the basics work (sic) and those who want to change it are > free to. > > CRAIG > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Shorewall Guy > <shorewalljunky@comcast.net> wrote: >> Shorewall Guy wrote: >>> Craig Kingston wrote: >>>> My apollogies if this is not the correct forum, we have an old request >>>> in our problem tracker to modify the default ports in macro.Bittorrent >>>> to reflect the ports used in the recent versions of Bittorrent. Is >>>> this something you would consider doing for a future release? What >>>> would be the appropriate process to request this? >>>> >>> >>> Craig, >>> >>> This type of request is better handled on the Shorewall Development >>> mailing list. >>> >>> Be that as it may, the comments in the current macro file reflect our >>> decision about an earlier request to enlarge the Bittorrent port range. >>> Are we to understand from this request that the Bittorrent community has >>> now decided to grab yet another 100 ports? If so, that definitely >>> strengthens our resolve to not be a party to this continuing escalation. >> >> I''ve updated the comment in both the 4.0 and 4.2 macros to specify >> 6881:6999 rather that 6881:6899. >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: >> SourcForge Community >> SourceForge wants to tell your story. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword >> _______________________________________________ >> Shorewall-users mailing list >> Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
On Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 0:01:15, Craig Kingston wrote:> Out of curiosity, I did a quick search just now and it seems like > there are those out there who advocate not using that port range at > all (referring to said conflict with ISPs) so I can appreciate your > approach - the basics work (sic) and those who want to change it are > free to.There are several trackers that will deny clients which use the default port range. -- < Jernej Simončič ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ > Actually, it only SEEMS as though you mustn''t be deceived by appearances. -- The Obvious Law ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
Is there any way to practically deal with this other than perhaps adding a comment to the macro? CRAIG 2009/1/28 Jernej Simončič <jernej.listsonly@ena.si>:> On Wednesday, January 28, 2009, 0:01:15, Craig Kingston wrote: > >> Out of curiosity, I did a quick search just now and it seems like >> there are those out there who advocate not using that port range at >> all (referring to said conflict with ISPs) so I can appreciate your >> approach - the basics work (sic) and those who want to change it are >> free to. > > There are several trackers that will deny clients which use the > default port range. > > -- > < Jernej Simončič ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ > > > Actually, it only SEEMS as though you mustn''t be deceived by appearances. > -- The Obvious Law > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > SourcForge Community > SourceForge wants to tell your story. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword > _______________________________________________ > Shorewall-users mailing list > Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
Craig Kingston wrote:> 2009/1/28 Jernej Simončič <jernej.listsonly@ena.si>: >> There are several trackers that will deny clients which use the >> default port range. > Is there any way to practically deal with this other than perhaps > adding a comment to the macro?We''ve already added such comments to the macro. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
Shorewall Guy wrote:> Craig Kingston wrote: > >> 2009/1/28 Jernej Simončič <jernej.listsonly@ena.si>: >>> There are several trackers that will deny clients which use the >>> default port range. >> Is there any way to practically deal with this other than perhaps >> adding a comment to the macro? > > We''ve already added such comments to the macro.One key reason that we didn''t expand the port list in the macro previously is that we didn''t believe that a Shorewall upgrade should gratuitously open an additional 110 ports. What we *can* do is create a macro.Bittorrent32 that includes the expanded range. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who Shoreline, \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like Washington, USA \ all of the passengers in his car http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword