I've been running LimeWire on a NAT'ed port, and it never figures out on its own that it is not firewalled.

BearShare has automatically detected whether it is firewalled for a long time. When BS gets an incoming connection from a public remote IP address, BS decides it is not firewalled, and starts returning non-FW Query Hits.

But with LimeWire, even if I even connect directly into the server with a Gnutella host connection from an external public IP address, and even if I connect directly to download (using a manually crafted HTTP request) LW still sends out firewalled Query Hits.

It seems that unless I check the "Force IP" checkbox in Setup, LW only sends out firewalled Query Hits.

Hi mickish --

How do you know which port to advertise? I could have a LimeWire set up behind a NAT listening on port 6346, but have the NAT set up to forward port 6666 to 6346 on that IP. LimeWire may correctly receive an incoming connection, but it won't know which port to advertise unless you explicitly tell it 6666.

I think LW should follow other P2P apps like Bearshare and force IP automatically. This makes it easier for users to configure LW, and as an effect it would likely increase (albeit small) the number of non firewalled hosts. I think Philippe Verdy made the same recommandation a while back (I asked for it too). It is easier for an newbie to forward NAT and the IP on the same port and then see that it works than getting to know how things exactly work and play with different ports.

mes 2 cents!

Ciao

__________________
Liens d'intérêt /Links of interest:
Gnutellaforums en français /The House's rules you have to respect / First search the forum, then create a thread / Free software alternatives! - Logiciels alternatifs gratuits!/

Hi Sam,

In BS we have only one port configuration -- the one you're listening on. If a public IP connects to it, then BS advertises that same port.

While your example is technically correct, IMHO it seems like a pretty rare case that shouldn't interfere with the practical solution.

I suspect that even if you decided to ignore the population of users that forward different ports to their protected machines, surely you would convert so many firewalled users to direct-connect users that it would more than compensate for the mis-advertized hits.

FWIW, I don't recall any complaints from BS users for lack of this flexibility.

All this because I never remember to check the Force IP button until I've messed around with it for a couple of days...