aMule Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We're back! (IN POG FORM)

Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic: Ip Filter  (Read 13267 times)

|Syrius|

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2004, 05:39:24 PM »
please... take it easy...

try this (in portuguese): http://forum.amule.org/thread.php?threadid=4351&sid=

I think that is what you want!
Logged

s0undt3ch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
    • http://ufsoft.org
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #16 on: December 11, 2004, 01:59:23 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by |Syrius|
please... take it easy...

try this (in portuguese): http://forum.amule.org/thread.php?threadid=4351&sid=

I think that is what you want!

Well, this solves the part of the happy hours, but I don't have happy hours, so I'm stuck with the same problem.

But indeed, this got my mind thinking a litle bit more, so, My question for the developers now is:

If instead of enabeling/disabeling ipfilter.dat with the right click, we could instead set the IPLEVEL per file, meaning:

On my ipblock, bad ips have a level of 000, if I make the Portuguese IP's to be LEVEL 200 for example, setting a file with IPLEVEL to 200 would make it DL from Portuguese sources, making IPLEVEL 100 on another file would mean that It would download from anywere besides the BADIP's(level '000'). Do I make any sence?

Doable? Please?

s0undt3ch.

P.S.: About the rude part, sorry , bad interpretation, no one was rude, I got carried away...
Logged
s0undt3ch[/B]
[ AMD Athlon @ 1GHz / 768 RAM on Gentoo [SERVER] ]
[ P4 @ 2.8 GHz / 1Gig Ram on Gentoo ]

Jacobo221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #17 on: December 11, 2004, 03:08:47 AM »
"set the IPLEVEL per file" <- this is real non-sense ;-) values over 127 mean that those IPS _are_ accepted, while vules minor 127 mean that those IPs _aren't_ accepted. now, decide which values suit you and yes, here you can modify the iplevel values with a simple script.
IMO, ipfilter per file is real real real on-sense.

Greetings!
Logged

s0undt3ch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
    • http://ufsoft.org
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2004, 03:38:05 AM »
Bummer!!!!

At least you got my idea right didn't you?
This way we would't have do disable the whole ipfilter.dat, leaving those dangerous ip filters blocked.

Come on it does make sence!

Instead of setting the ip level only on config or cmd, wich makes changes for all files, we could set at least some pre defined Level wich would be choosable on every file!

Low(Block Always) - 000
Medium - 100
High - 200

For me this would translate to someting like:

Bad IP's(LOW-000) would always e blocked:
International and National downloads (MEDIUM-100)
Only National downloads (HIGH-200)

Of course everyobdy would have to define their IPFILTER.DAT to suite their needs...

Does this make better sence?

I know it would problably consume more CPU power but I manage with that, as for the ones that use IPFILTER.DAT as it is now would not get their CPU power consumed because they wont be using it this way!

It could have a check box stating the behaviour we wanted, per file or global....

Come on it makes sence if you think about it!

Thanks!

s0undt3ch
Logged
s0undt3ch[/B]
[ AMD Athlon @ 1GHz / 768 RAM on Gentoo [SERVER] ]
[ P4 @ 2.8 GHz / 1Gig Ram on Gentoo ]

djtm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #19 on: December 11, 2004, 12:35:09 PM »
Now I like the Idea too.

Give priority to certain IPs depending on their numeral in the ipfilter.dat
So the higher the Number, the higher the priority. This doesn't look too diffucult and would be compatible with older versions. priority lower than the set value (default 127?) are still blocked.
Logged
"If you laid all of our laws end to end, there would be no end."
Mark Twain
"Linux is like a wigwam: No Gates, no Windows, but Apache inside!"

GonoszTopi

  • The current man in charge of most things.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 169
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2685
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2004, 02:36:55 PM »
At least we'd have a certain meaning of the number in ip filter level. (Currently it acts as a boolean value, <128 = true, >127 = false - or the other way)
Logged
concordia cum veritate

Jacobo221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2004, 02:43:46 PM »
well, you'll have to discuss this with phoenix at irc (well, he's kinda busy lately) but I don't like the idea. the level is already set in all files and you should have the level set with the same criterium in all files, so that when you have it set to, let's say, 200, you are doing what you exactly want to do i all files.

it is nonsense to add various files, then allow level-per-file, and filnaly ipfilter-per-download.

phoenix is the oen who coded the ipfilter, so you'll have to ask him, but I'm not voting for iplever-per-file ;)
Logged

s0undt3ch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
    • http://ufsoft.org
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2004, 04:30:13 PM »
HURRAY!!!

Glad to see somewone liked it!!!!


Possilble? After 2.0.0 final of course....

s0undt3ch.
Logged
s0undt3ch[/B]
[ AMD Athlon @ 1GHz / 768 RAM on Gentoo [SERVER] ]
[ P4 @ 2.8 GHz / 1Gig Ram on Gentoo ]

s0undt3ch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
    • http://ufsoft.org
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2004, 04:32:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by s0undt3ch
HURRAY!!!

Glad to see somewone liked it!!!!


Possilble? After 2.0.0 final of course....

s0undt3ch.

OOPPPSSSS!!!
Only now I saw page 3!
Guess I'll try to convince him!

s0undt3ch
Logged
s0undt3ch[/B]
[ AMD Athlon @ 1GHz / 768 RAM on Gentoo [SERVER] ]
[ P4 @ 2.8 GHz / 1Gig Ram on Gentoo ]

s0undt3ch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
    • http://ufsoft.org
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2004, 03:26:35 AM »
I think I convinced him to do it!

Lets hope he finds time to do it!

s0undt3ch.
Logged
s0undt3ch[/B]
[ AMD Athlon @ 1GHz / 768 RAM on Gentoo [SERVER] ]
[ P4 @ 2.8 GHz / 1Gig Ram on Gentoo ]

Jacobo221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2712
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2004, 05:34:27 AM »
;)
Logged

djtm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #26 on: December 12, 2004, 12:45:07 PM »
:)
Logged
"If you laid all of our laws end to end, there would be no end."
Mark Twain
"Linux is like a wigwam: No Gates, no Windows, but Apache inside!"

s0undt3ch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 200
    • http://ufsoft.org
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #27 on: December 12, 2004, 02:16:51 PM »
What are your real reservations about the subject Jacobo?

For what I've talked to phoenix, I stated that it would be advisable to have a check-box, to enable/disable this kind of behaviour, so that people who don't need it, wont get their amule running slower...

So, again, what are your real reservations about the subject Jacobo?

s0undt3ch.
Logged
s0undt3ch[/B]
[ AMD Athlon @ 1GHz / 768 RAM on Gentoo [SERVER] ]
[ P4 @ 2.8 GHz / 1Gig Ram on Gentoo ]

djtm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2004, 02:47:01 PM »
There shouldn't be any significant speed reducements through this. It would rather be advisable to merge the behavior into eMule as well. As it's simple, easy, flexible and efficient IMHO. Also the checkbox for enabling IPfiltering should be sufficient.
Oh, guess I'm not Jacobo... ooops. :))
Logged
"If you laid all of our laws end to end, there would be no end."
Mark Twain
"Linux is like a wigwam: No Gates, no Windows, but Apache inside!"

lfroen

  • Guest
Re: Ip Filter
« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2004, 04:22:49 PM »
Quote
it is nonsense to add various files, then allow level-per-file, and filnaly ipfilter-per-download.

I totally agree with that. Moreover, I find the hole idea of ipfilter be questionable. This is exactly what firewall was invented: filter packets according to some rules.
Unless someone can point to something iptables can't do, but amule ipfilter can.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »