Benjamin Coates wrote:
> 
> >From Mr.Bad <mr.bad at pigdog.org>
> 
> >So, is the following statement true?
> >
> >        "You can run a Freenet node behind a firewall iff
> >
> >         a) The firewall allows the node to make outbound connections
> >            on arbitrary ports.
> 
> Are there a significant number of firewalls that allow you to make outbound
> connections, but not on arbitrary (1024-5000) ports?  Would it be worthwhile
> to have the node take a range of ports to make outbound connections on?

Most firewalls nowadays, or at least the ones being managed by competent
admins, take a "Deny by default" approach.  In other words, not only on
inbound but also on outbound connections, *all* connections are denied
unless explicitly approved.

I agree with what seems to be the general consensus that trying to make
Freenet overly firewall-friendly is going to be a waste of most of the
effort as it's probably about as friendly as it's going to get in all
honesty.  (with one exception, covered below.)

FWIW and only tangentially related - I *am* running a Freenet node
behind my firewall at home, but it required some trickery.  Note that at
home, I only have the "deny by default" on inbound connections. 
Outbound connections all simply get masqueraded.  (So does that make me
an "incompetent admin", too trusting or just lazy?  :)  If I were using
"deny by default" on outbound connections as well, I would have just
given up on getting Freenet to run as a node behind the firewall.

Nonetheless, I still ran into one thing that kept me stumped for a
while.  Here's the issue I ran into and a small change that would help
the situation:

My external address is dynamically assigned (cablemodem) but stays
relatively persistent for several weeks at a time.  I have a Linux box
acting as a firewall directly connected to the cablemodem, running
iptables with the 2.4 kernel.  I set up a DNAT rule that forwarded
connections to "19114" to the cablemodem address to the machine on my
internal home network running as a Freenet node.

The problem is that if I set "nodeAddress" to the machine's "real"
internal address, that's the address that gets advertised to the rest of

Reply via email to