aMule Forum

English => aMule Help => Topic started by: dealcorn on August 03, 2010, 01:37:12 PM

Title: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: dealcorn on August 03, 2010, 01:37:12 PM
Has any Ubuntu or Debian (or Linux) user successfully used a D-Link DIR-300 router to port forward and then received a ED2K high ID? 
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: ZioNemo on August 03, 2010, 04:06:08 PM
Try getting eMule and use that under wine.
If You get a Hi-ID then You have my same problem.
Mine has nothing to do with debian/router.

I'm still trying to get attention from some knowledgeable person.
Failing so far.

Regards
ZioNemo
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: Stu Redman on August 03, 2010, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: ZioNemo on August 03, 2010, 04:06:08 PM
I'm still trying to get attention from some knowledgeable person.
Failing so far.
I don't like your tone, pal, and I doubt somebody who can't get it running himself should try to coach new users.  ::)

Quote from: dealcorn on August 03, 2010, 01:37:12 PM
Has any Ubuntu or Debian (or Linux) user successfully used a D-Link DIR-300 router to port forward and then received a ED2K high ID? 
Did you use different ports for TCP and UDP ?
Router setup and operating system are not related btw.
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: ZioNemo on August 04, 2010, 11:17:06 AM
Quote from: Stu Redman on August 03, 2010, 08:24:57 PM
Quote from: ZioNemo on August 03, 2010, 04:06:08 PM
I'm still trying to get attention from some knowledgeable person.
Failing so far.
I don't like your tone, pal, and I doubt somebody who can't get it running himself should try to coach new users.  ::)
Sorry about the tone.
Fact is I get pissed off rather quickly when I'm given the "did You remember to insert the plug in the wall before turning on your computer?" routine.
MY FAULT.
I do know You receive all too many "no power" help request and I should have learned how to behave.

Another fact is I was using eDonkey2000 well before eMule existed and Linux since the MCC "interim" release, so I have an inkling about computing.

What I was trying to say to delacorn really is:
Check with eMule/Wine, so we can be sure where the problem lies: router or aMule (which, IMHO, has some problems, at least in the current incarnation).

I do sincerely apologize about the tone.
Please understand it is not intentional and my command of the English language might just be worse than I like to think (English isn't my first language).

Best Regards
ZioNemo
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: dealcorn on August 05, 2010, 09:20:46 AM
If I read ZioNemo's post correctly, he similarly was not able to get a high ID using an emule on wine approach though he suggests his issue is unrelated to this thread's question.  Given that this is a reasonable popular router that has been out for a while and my self assessment, I am unlikely to be the first to figure out how to make it work..  On first impression, a home network alternative would be to run amuled from a directly connected server then share the server's Internet connection using the router.  Does this sound reasonable?
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: ^marcell^ on August 05, 2010, 12:35:22 PM
Could you temporarily disable the router firewall and check if it helps?

How did you ensure the configuration of eMule in Wine and aMule being the same?
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: ZioNemo on August 05, 2010, 02:18:15 PM
Quote from: dealcorn on August 05, 2010, 09:20:46 AM
If I read ZioNemo's post correctly, he similarly was not able to get a high ID using an emule on wine approach

Sorry,
it seems I was not clear enough.
My bad.

I was NOT able to get Hi-ID on *A*Mule (no wine involved).

I WAS able to get Hi-ID on *E*Mule (under wine).

Router and OS exactly the same.
I sat up the same ports in both cases (it is not exactly possible, but I went for "closest").

In both cases the web-based test pages gave an OK status.

What I'm suggesting is there's something "strange" with aMule itself or, most likely, with interaction between aMule, debian and libraries.

I understand this might be difficult to reproduce (and fix) at developer's desk, so I am available to be remote-controlled to do experiments.

Regards
ZioNemo
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: Vollstrecker on August 05, 2010, 03:42:17 PM
Did emule enable upnp by default, and you didn't enable it in amule?
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: Stu Redman on August 05, 2010, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: ZioNemo on August 04, 2010, 11:17:06 AM
I do sincerely apologize about the tone.
Easy, man. I just told you my opinion, and everything is cool.  8)
Quote
when I'm given the "did You remember to insert the plug in the wall before turning on your computer?" routine.
The plug in the wall (or something similar) is very often the very reason. So we have to try simple things first, then move on to more complicated ones. And it's usually impossible to guess a users level of knowledge from a few posts.
Quote
my command of the English language might just be worse than I like to think
Your English is fine, just like that of all people who express this concern.  :)
Quote
(English isn't my first language)
Welcome to the club. There's hardly any native speaker here.

Quote
I sat up the same ports in both cases (it is not exactly possible, but I went for "closest").
A TCP port for other clients to connect to you, and a UDP port for Kad. Same both for eMule and aMule. The server UDP port is not so important.
I don't know how Wine works, but maybe it is allowed to pass through your firewall (which might be part of Debian - I don't know that distro) and aMule isn't. That would be a simple explanation. And how long did  you wait? It can take a few minutes until you get high id.
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: dealcorn on August 06, 2010, 09:38:45 AM
I am not yet able to replicate  ZioNemo's high ID using emule V5.0a on wine 1.2 (configured to provide a NT environment) using a dLink DIR-300 router (version 1a updated to firmware 1.04) in Ubuntu lucid.  Emule reports that NAT does not work whether NAT is enabled or disabled on the router (access point flag on manual Internet set-up).  I am not clear whether the SPI flag should be enabled on the router (advanced firewall settings).  Presumably, absent NAT, port forwarding is required.  Were you successful using ports 4462 and 4465 or what numeric range were your ports selected from?  Did you implement using router's Port Forwarding screen vs the Application Forwarding screen?  Is some secret sauce required on the ubuntu side?  I use a firestarter firewall nbound policies to open requisite ports to "everyone".
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: woutermense on August 06, 2010, 10:50:57 AM
You've been turning NAT on and off on the router?  Could you tell us the WAN network address of the router? If it is a private IP, then what else is on the WAN side of the router? Just the modem? Does it do NAT as well? Are ports forwarded to the router on it?

My train of thought here is that maybe in your network double NAT happens, once in the modem and once in the router. If you put the router in access point mode (bridged) then you should only have to worry about the port forwarding in the modem, and if the router is in routing mode you need to port forward in both your modem and your router.
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: myth on August 06, 2010, 12:20:55 PM
Or maybe you should configure your modem disabling the modem's security feature!

I have a similar setup (Linksys Modem with Dir-100 Router).
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: Kry on August 06, 2010, 10:33:39 PM
Quote from: dealcorn on August 06, 2010, 09:38:45 AM
Presumably, absent NAT, port forwarding is required. 

This sentence is painfully wrong. NAT does translation to map ports you use to contact other people with the ports the router uses for it, whereas port forwarding maps ports that people use to contact YOU.
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: dealcorn on August 07, 2010, 04:03:41 PM
My ISP provided Siemens SE260 ADSL2 modem receives a dynamic public ip address and provides a LAN ip of 192.168.1.1.  I can access the web based user interface but have neither a manual nor administrative password.  The modem has some port forwarding  and DMZ capabilities and does not provide any user interface for either NAT or UPnP.  The interface also permits adding an ip to its native firewall ("parental blocking") but the firewall configuration is otherwise not discussed.  While hopefully not relevant, the Internet is delivered to the modem by a routable wireless signal.

The modem plugs into a dLink DIR-300 wifi router (rev 1a updated to 1.04 firmware) with LAN address of 192.168.1.2 (access point mode: NAT disabled).  In router mode (NAT not disabled), the router's access point is 191.168.0.1.  Maybe, this precludes the above noted double NAT conflict between the modem and router/access point.  Each wifi or hard-wired client is configured to receive a static ip address like 192.168.1.4 and uses the modem (192.168.1.1)as a default route instead of the router (192.168.1.2 or 192.168.1.3) using NetworkManager Applet 0.8..  In access point mode the router provides no forwarding, NAT or firewall capabilities.  Nothing else is on the LAN side (192.168.1.x).  If appropriate, I can switch back to router mode.  For now everything is configured for access point mode.  The conversion of this modem to or from access point mode takes hours but appears to work.

I use firestarter as a firewall but for port testing purposes I disable firestarter.  Perhaps naively, I think the only remaining firewall I have is in the modem.  The following port forwarding rules are enabled on the modem:

            Local               Public
Local IP   Protocol    Port    Comment   Enable    Remote Host    Port    Interface
192.168.1.4    TCP+UDP    4662    amule    Enable    192.168.1.1    4462    ---
192.168.1.4    TCP+UDP    4462    amule    Enable    192.168.1.2    4462    ---
192.168.1.4    TCP+UDP    44662    amule    Enable    192.168.1.1    44662    ---
192.168.1.4    TCP+UDP    44662    amule    Enable    192.168.1.2    44662    ---
192.168.1.4    TCP+UDP    51413    trans    Enable    192.168.1.2    51413    ---
192.168.1.4    TCP+UDP    51413    trans    Enable    192.168.1.1    51413    ---

The modem rejected my attempt to forward the (dynamic) public ip using the (static) remote host ip  as not on the same sub-net. 

Amule's port checker web page reports "TCP Error 111 Connection refused" for ports 4662, 44662, and 51413 with firestarter disabled.  How do I identify the source of the blockage?

For diagnostic purposes, I also tested an Asus RT16N configured in access point mode (private ip 192.168.1.3) and observed the same blocked ports. 
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: woutermense on August 07, 2010, 04:33:10 PM
So your provider enabled NAT on your modem and there's nothing you can do about that, because they only want to give you 1 IP address. There's two things you can do.

- Keep NAT enabled on your router and forward all ports on your modem to your router. This way you can do all of the ports and security management on your router and don't have to bother with your modem any more.

- Or disable NAT on your router and forward the correct ports on your modem to the machine running aMule. This way you don't have to configure your router to add additional ports for other programs.

Basically it boils down to what interface is most convenient for managing port forwards. If you have software that cant handle double NAT (Starcraft 1 comes to mind) then it would be best to disable NAT in your router.

So if you decide to keep NAT enabled in your router, be sure to forward ports from your modem to your router as well as forwarding them to your computer from the router.

Setting up port forwarding with this kind of setup is a pain in the ass so put IPv6 on santa's list ;)
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: dealcorn on August 07, 2010, 06:35:39 PM
Quote from: woutermense on August 07, 2010, 04:33:10 PM

- Or disable NAT on your router and forward the correct ports on your modem to the machine running aMule. This way you don't have to configure your router to add additional ports for other programs.

While I do not know how to edit a prior post to correct  a forwarded port #  from 4462 to 4662, you are suggesting that I do what is already done.  NAT is disabled on my router (192.168.1.2).   I forwarded ports 4662 and 44662 from my  modem  (192.168.1.1) to my computer running aMule (192.168.1.4).  I configured aMule with standard client TCP  port 4662 and then verified that port 4662 was blocked.  As an alternative I then configured aMule with standard client port 44662 and then verified that port 44662 is also blocked.    As a supplemental check I then configured the router to forward  ports 1-60000 to my PC running aMule and verified that the ports 4662 and 44662  were still blocked though I performed this test with firestarter enabled with appropriate inbound policies.  My question is if I  disabled NAT on my  router and forwarded the correct ports on your modem to the machine running aMule, why is my port still blocked?
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: woutermense on August 07, 2010, 07:19:25 PM
ModemRouter
Situation 1:   aMule ports forwarded to computer   Access point, NAT off, no port forwarding
Situation 2:   aMule ports forwarded to router   Router, NAT on, ports forwarded to computer

I will explain for situation 1. In the port forwarding list, Local IP means the IP address of your computer. Remote Host means the WAN IP of your modem. Since you said you have a dynamic WAN IP you could also also try to leave this empty. The list would then show as follows:

Local IPProtocol   PortComment   Enable   Remote HostPortInterface
192.168.1.4   TCP4662   amuleEnableWAN IP or empty   4462   ---
192.168.1.4TCP4465amuleEnableWAN IP or empty4462---
192.168.1.4UDP4463amuleEnableWAN IP or empty4462---

Is there any choice you can make at the Interface column?
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: Stu Redman on August 07, 2010, 08:52:41 PM
Now you've confused even me. Shouldn't it be
Local IP   Protocol      Port   Comment      Enable      Remote Host   Port   Interface
192.168.1.4   TCP   4465   amule   Enable   WAN IP or empty   4465   ---
192.168.1.4   UDP   4463   amule   Enable   WAN IP or empty   4463   ---
?
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: woutermense on August 08, 2010, 12:01:13 AM
You're right, I misread the TCP+3 line in the preferences panel. Of course that second line should be UDP. Since the post-modification-timeout has passed, please feel free to edit my previous post for me ;)
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: dealcorn on August 08, 2010, 07:48:53 AM
Quote from: woutermense on August 07, 2010, 07:19:25 PM
ModemRouter
Situation 1:   aMule ports forwarded to computer   Access point, NAT off, no port forwarding
Situation 2:   aMule ports forwarded to router   Router, NAT on, ports forwarded to computer

I will explain for situation 1. In the port forwarding list, Local IP means the IP address of your computer. Remote Host means the WAN IP of your modem. Since you said you have a dynamic WAN IP you could also also try to leave this empty. The list would then show as follows:

Local IPProtocol   PortComment   Enable   Remote HostPortInterface
192.168.1.4   TCP4662   amuleEnableWAN IP or empty   4462   ---
192.168.1.4TCP4465amuleEnableWAN IP or empty4462---
192.168.1.4UDP4463amuleEnableWAN IP or empty4462---

Is there any choice you can make at the Interface column?

Boy do I want to agree.  My router is in access point mode with NAT turned off and no ports forwarded.  The modem can not forward the dynamic WAN IP with static rule because on modem reboot to enable the rule the IP changes making the forwarding rule wrong.  However, contrary to my first impression, the modem can forward a "blank" remote host as follows.

Local          Local         Remote   Public
IP Address    Protocol Port    Comment Enable    Host    Port    Interface
192.168.1.4    TCP     4662    amule    Enable       4662    ---
192.168.1.4    TCP     4665    amule    Enable       4665    ---
192.168.1.4    UDP     4663    amule    Enable       4663    ---

The interface parameter offers choices of either "any" or "pppO".  I chose any. Prior to testing ports I started amule and verified that standard client TCP port was set to 4662 and the extended port was set to 4665.  With this configuration and firestarter turned off, http://www.amule.org/testport.php reports that ports 4662, 4663 and 4665 are blocked.
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: dealcorn on August 08, 2010, 08:51:16 AM
Now I am  perhaps confused but happy.   With no change to my immediate prior post, I swapped the Dlink router for an Asus RT16N also in access point mode and  port checker  still reports that 4662 is blocked.  However,  I observe  a eD2K high id on aMule  on 4662 with firestarter enabled.   Perhaps it will be intermittent due to ISP quality issues but structurally, I suspect I have the best  possible result.     I will give the current set up some time before I try to swap back the  DLink but notwithstanding the outcome, the configuration I currently have may be optimal. :) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: woutermense on August 08, 2010, 11:08:26 AM
aMule (or something) needs to be running and listening at the port you want to test or else the test will fail at the final level, because nothing responds to the tester. If you like you could run additional tests with netcat like this:
Code: [Select]
nc -l <port>It will listen to any tcp port you specify. Forward the tcp port and then run the test tool for that port.
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: dealcorn on August 10, 2010, 04:51:17 AM
In this context, the reason I care about port forwarding and port unblocking is to get a high id.  I now have a high id  and am happy, but I may be getting confused by protocol obfuscation.  While ED2K info shows a high id on 4662, the aMule log show connections on obscure ports like 1616  which is neither forwarded not unblocked by firestarter.  In Amulegui the obscure port connection is reported which suggests forwarding is not working correctly,.    Is this typical behavior?
Title: Re: High ID Dlink DIR-300?
Post by: Kry on August 10, 2010, 06:41:30 AM
Ports you connect to/from are random. The forwarded port is only to contact you.