On Apr 22, 2013, at 4:55 AM, Celejar wrote:
Yes: http://m19s28.dyndns.org/iblech/nat-traverse/#technique
General discussion:
http://www.h-online.com/security/features/How-Skype-Co-get-round-firewalls-747197.html
Celejar
Thanks! Interesting stuff...
Rick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debi
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:59:00 -0700
Rick Thomas wrote:
> Alberto,
>
> What you want to do is possible. In particular, skype and bittorrent do it.
>
> As I understand it, they make use of a server with a public IP address. I'm
> not going to get it exactly right, but the general idea is this:
Alberto,
What you want to do is possible. In particular, skype and bittorrent do it.
As I understand it, they make use of a server with a public IP address. I'm
not going to get it exactly right, but the general idea is this:
Two clients, A and B, both behind NAT firewalls. Server, S, with a
> That looks like you have to somehow be logged into both hosts and run
> nat-traverse on each. But it looks interesting.
Firewalls can track and block UDP (create state) even if it is a
stateless protocol too, so you may have to have control of the gateways
too.
--
__
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:29 PM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> Actually I got the idea from filetea [0]
>
I just checked it out. Its less magical than I thought. It *does* use the
server to route all packets :(
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Since alberto said that both A and B know about Server then NAT
> traversal shouldn't be needed.
>
Actually I want to connect from A to B directly, so nat traversal seems
nice, but I cant try it right now... when I have the machine back up I
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> alberto fuentes wrote:
> > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city)
> >
> > To make it a little more clear. Both computer A and B know about Server.
> > Right now I use openvpn to bring all the computers together into th
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, green wrote:
> Lars Nooden wrote at 2013-04-19 10:35 -0500:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> > > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city)
> >
> > To make a direct connection between A and B with ssh, you need to have at
>
green wrote:
> Lars Nooden wrote:
> > alberto fuentes wrote:
> > > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city)
> >
> > To make a direct connection between A and B with ssh, you need to have at
> > least on of them be publicly available even if the other is blocked behind
> >
Lars Nooden wrote at 2013-04-19 10:35 -0500:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> > A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city)
>
> To make a direct connection between A and B with ssh, you need to have at
> least on of them be publicly available even
alberto fuentes wrote:
> A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city)
>
> To make it a little more clear. Both computer A and B know about Server.
> Right now I use openvpn to bring all the computers together into the same
> network. But it seems too much overhead being both co
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city)
To make a direct connection between A and B with ssh, you need to have at
least on of them be publicly available even if the other is blocked behind
a firewall. Depending
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:00 PM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> A (me) -> Server (overseas) -> B (arbitrary computer in my city)
>
To make it a little more clear. Both computer A and B know about Server.
Right now I use openvpn to bring all the computers together into the same
network. But it seems to
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> I guess the OP means "packets" instead of "packages". Some languages
> have the same word for "packet" and "package". However I cannot figure
> out clearly what he is asking for either.
>
>
Yes. I never noticed packages and packets are the
Hello,
Bob Proulx a écrit :
>
> You first mentioned connecting to a server so I guessed ssh. That was
> apparently not what you were asking about. Now you mention packages.
> I could guess that you want to set up an apt proxy of some sort. Is
> that what you are asking about? A way to set up
alberto fuentes wrote at 2013-04-18 16:18 -0500:
> Its a long shot because i can really picture how could it work
>
> I know I can connect using the third server, but I just want to use the
> server to establish the connection
Perhaps the nat-traverse package is of interest to you.
signature.as
alberto fuentes wrote:
> That way all the packages would be forwarded via the server.
>
> The server is overseas. Im trying to connect to a computer in my city.
> Packages have to travel and comeback. I was hoping some kind of magic that
> would allow me to use the server overseas *just* to establ
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> alberto fuentes wrote:
> > Subject: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls
> > using a third server
> > Its a long shot because i can really picture how could it work
> >
> > I know I can connect using the third server, but I
alberto fuentes wrote:
> Subject: connect directly to another computer bypassing firewalls
> using a third server
> Its a long shot because i can really picture how could it work
>
> I know I can connect using the third server, but I just want to use the
> server to establish the connection
The c
19 matches
Mail list logo
