Too often, I see Limewire attempting to download from an IP address like 192.168.0.101 -- which is an address on my own private network! It seems that many people don't configure their IP address properly using the "Force IP" feature.

I would like an enhancement to the Hosts Filter that prevents Limewire from attempting any communications with the following IP ranges:

10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
172.16.0.0 - 172.16.255.255
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255

These ranges are all reserved for private networks according to RFC 1918. Attempting to download from such an address is futile; it will never work.

The results of the filter enhancement should be:
<ul><li>never to attempt a download from blacklisted addresses
<li>refuse connections from anyone configured with such addresses
<li>never to display search results associated with such addresses</ul>
If there's a way to do any ONE of the above items now, I'd love to know. The Hosts Filter doesn't seem to work with wildcards.

-Alex

Hi!

those IP Ranges 192.168.0.xxx are also used when running a firewall. That means it is a security feature. the force IP is not usefull in cases of a changing external IP address, like for dial-ups and even most DSL/Cable users.
users would have to enter the IP everytime they run limewire.

also you can get files from the LAN IPs with PUSH (not if you have a firewall yourself)...
I have a LAN and a firewall and I can connect and download/upload.

I think Limewire will feature to guess the real IP of a client. that is done by checking the IP with which the network communicates with a client - then the broadcasted IP (the 192.168...) is not relevant for connections.


mahalo, shorebreak

__________________
Who ever plays hardest wins!

Thanks for the reply. You wrote:

>those IP Ranges 192.168.0.xxx are also used when running a
>firewall. That means it is a security feature. the force IP is not
>usefull in cases of a changing external IP address, like for dial-
>ups and even most DSL/Cable users.
>users would have to enter the IP everytime they run limewire.

I guess you're right, it woudn't make sense for those with dynamic IP addresses.

>also you can get files from the LAN IPs with PUSH (not if you
>have a firewall yourself)...

I do have a firewall, so this isn't an options for me.

>I have a LAN and a firewall and I can connect and
>download/upload.

I am curious to know, have you EVER managed to download from an IP address 192.168.xxx.xxx? I haven't. In fact I suspect that those addresses generate download requests to nonexistent computers inside my private network. Many files are tagged with those IP addresses, and invariably a download request from one of those addresses will fail.

I guess what I really want is a feature that hides any search results associated with those private-network addresses. For me, being behind a firewall, those addresses will never work.

-Alex

Like Amatulic, I'm thinking that private network addresses (10.x, 172.16.x and 192.168.x) should be excluded from search results UNLESS the user explicitly *includes* their local subnet. Sure, I have a SOHO network on 192.168.0.x. But I'd rather explicitly include that one small IP address range then to have half my search results be from private network addresses that do not appear to resolve to an accessable host on an outside network.

Of course, if the UI had not been improved to omit the host IP address in the first place.... boy, I dislike it when software designers remove a feature instead of giving me a CHOICE.

Bear

first of all. limewire hasn't lost features except the 'browse host' (that one wasn't working). the only thing that has been done is to reorganize and simplify the GUI.
You can still see the location of a search result! just right click on the tab fields with Name, Size etc. and check the box next to location. voilà.

I'm currently using a CVS code version so this is not released yet. but I can't find any of the mentioned IPs in my search results.
It might be possible that his feature is already implemented and will be available in one of the next releases (?).

mahalo.shorebreak

__________________
Who ever plays hardest wins!

An open-sourcer recently submitted a patch to use wildcards in the IP filter option. We will probably be able to integrate this for LimeWire 2.5. (It's too late for 2.4.)

Also, you might want to configure LimeWire to show only four-star results in the tools->options->searching window. Files from private addresses area are never four star.

I'm using Limewire 2.3 with it set to show only 4 star
results but I still see private IP addresses CONSTANTLY
in the Downloads window. I suspect that they're getting
added to an existing download, even though they aren't
displayed in the Search Results. I'm really looking forward
to having wildcards in the IP filter option. Or maybe even
a single option to exclude all private IPs.

>You can still see the location of a search result! just right click
>on the tab fields with Name, Size etc. and check the box next to
>location. voilà.

Cool. I didn't know that. It lets me verify that the URL filter does indeed work for omitting certain IP addresses from a search.

>I'm currently using a CVS code version so this is not released
>yet. but I can't find any of the mentioned IPs in my search
>results.

I see lots of them. However, my version of LimeWire (2.3.3 Pro) does recognize private IP addresses, because 192.168.x.x, 0.0.0.0, and 10.x.x.x all appear in red.

>It might be possible that his feature is already implemented and
>will be available in one of the next releases (?).

Possibly. For now, I just look for the red IP addresses and add them one at a time to my filters. It's tedious, but goes a long way to reducing the 'bad' search results.

I see a bug though. LimeWire displayed 172.25.150.168 in red. According to RFC 1918, the local range should only include 172.16.*. Maybe there's a newer RFC I'm not aware of.

-Alex

Yeh that might be a good idea to change that to a four star, but most of the really hard to find stuff comes from those 1 stars that are just busy at the moment and I dont mind waiting around to get the file. If I filter those out I limit my search capabilities. I think it would be a great idea to filter out all those 192.XXX . Or filter out all those on a firewall. I have used limewire for a bout a year now and never once have I ever been able to download from a subnet or firewall. I would say half my search results are from those, so yes I think it would be an excelent idea to impliment some feature taylored to that problem.

Thanks

It would be quite easy to have a program read the limewire.props file and add a string to the BLACK_LISTED_IP_ADDRESSES property containing all local IP adresses. I believe that there would be a problem though, because the string would hold billions of host ip adresses.

Does anyone know if there is a limit in the number of blocked hosts, and how high that limit is?

It can easily hold several thousand IP addresses. But I would suggest you use subnet masks instead.

Is Limewire capable of handling subnet masks in blocked hosts? I thought that was not the case yet. What is the syntax to use?

I'm not sure what LimeWire uses - but assuming it adheres to any standard, blocking:

192.0.0.0

would block *all* 192 address.

Zero should indicate the entire range of addresses from 1-255.

Mark

I don't know if the 2.4.4 already supports it, in the cvs-code it's either 192.*.*.* or 192.0.0.0/255.0.0.0. It doesn't support simplified 192.0.0.0/8 yet, but that may change since I have already seen someone request it.

Nope. Didn't work :-(