Which ports, besides 6346, should be allowed on the OSX firewall for Gnutella uploads? Any answers to "why?" appreciated also. Cheers.

You will only need one listening port. It's not important which port is it. 6346 may be standard, but it's not required.

__________________
Morgens ess ich Cornflakes und abends ess ich Brot
Und wenn ich lang genug gelebt hab, dann sterb ich und bin tot

--Fischmob

OK . . .
I think I'm mixing up concepts now. In order for uploads to work better around my NAT and firewall, I thought I'd need to open up port 6346 (and more?) on the firewall . . . then configure the NAT software on my gateway box for "port forwarding." I found a "port mapping" interface (sounded close enough), but adding an entry for a range of ports (6346-6359) hasn't seemed to help.

Still seeing 1000's of pong errors, and nothing in the HTTP requests. I'm not sure what questions I need to ask to get uploading.

pong errors are not important, push messages are. A pong error is every pong you did not request, - so basically all the pongs you get as a leaf are counted as pong errors.

I don't think you can do any more than forwarding the ports to your computer's local ip address and force the correct ip with LimeWire.

__________________
Morgens ess ich Cornflakes und abends ess ich Brot
Und wenn ich lang genug gelebt hab, dann sterb ich und bin tot

--Fischmob

Thanks! Pongs make more sense now. I'd thought they were requests for 'chunks' Forced the IP, mapped the router to my G3 for all ports, and within minutes had more activity in the Monitors pane than I knew was possible! Yeeha!

This led to a bunch of new issues and two crashes (one when I tried to allow UP).

The Pushes are related to forcing the IP, but forcing seems to be redundant since that's what the NAT primarily does. If LW can detect a NAT, why doesn't LW get the address required for formatting queries and responses from the NAT?

Before I ask any more ?'s, my ISP says I have a second static I can use. I think I can set it up to provide a NAT-less base comparison next. I hope too this will eliminate the "file not found." problems.

Thanks again--gotta run.

LimeWire get's the IP from java's InetAddress.getLocalAddress() function. That may or may not be the correct ip of your NAT and depends on how your system is configured.
If you force your IP you are always on the safe side. LimeWire will always advertise the forced IP of your NAT in the QueryHits, so people can connect to you directly after they received a QueryHit from you. Otherwise LimeWire might advertise your computers local IP address in your LAN in the QueryHits. The NAT does not know about Gnutella packages, it can only change low-level protocol messages like UDP/TCP/IP.

I wouldn't let LimeWire become an ultrapeer on MacOSX. The JVM is a little instable. Apple's implementation of Java 1.4 should fix this but the LimeWire version that is capable of using it is still in the works. (3.0 should be able to use Java 1.4).

The "file not found" problem is caused by corrupted HTTP requests. The old LW 2.8.6 was sometimes sending malformed http requests and old Gnutella clients don't request by urn, so LW will not always know which file to send, also resulting in a 404.

__________________
Morgens ess ich Cornflakes und abends ess ich Brot
Und wenn ich lang genug gelebt hab, dann sterb ich und bin tot

--Fischmob

Sorry about the delay in responding. Thought I'd follow your hint and start reading about Java 1.4.1 . Scary--some of it almost made sense, especially the resolved and known issues. Looks to me that LW and Acq take a lot of heat for Java issues, so I'll have to go back and study them more. I really perked up glancing over the "open source" and Java Community Project stuff. Does Apple really offer much to the cross-platform Java community that LW can use?

Aachen, huh? Whatever . . . as this thread and past ones prove, you've provided me with the most useful information. Whoever fixed the http bug, helped develop a way to bock the spammers with "block host", reduced the "could not move to library" problem, etc. deserves a lot of credit.

Back on topic, no further developments on the 2nd static IP setup. ISP has activated the second, and is willing but unable to help with the NAT. Waiting for a third reply from the NAT software vendor (I haven't heard anything from LW Pro support). I have a second ethernet hub, so I think I'll try using one hub to split the modem connection for a direct connection on one IP, and run the NAT off the other IP and hub.

Then I hope I can narrow down what the upload problems are. Cheers.

I would prefer if Sun would create a JRE for OSX (it shouldn't be too hard to port the linux JRE to OSX), - but Apple certainly does a better job at integrating java applications into the OSX environment. I have the impression Mac users are used to drag-and-drop and a unified interface. That's something Sun doesn't really provide you with, although they are improving java on this sector (at least they support native clipboards, now).

West Germany, near the borders to Belgium and the Netherlands.

No problem, I've lots of free time at the moment, since I have my spring vacations at the moment.

Honestly, I wouldn't go through all the trouble if I were you. It's usually just some stupid problem with the configuration that you overlook even when you go through it for the hundredth time. You could spend weeks on this problem. Gnutella works quite well with a certain amount of firewalled hosts and it's not as if you were not uploading anything at all.

__________________
Morgens ess ich Cornflakes und abends ess ich Brot
Und wenn ich lang genug gelebt hab, dann sterb ich und bin tot

--Fischmob

Ah . . . but the thrill of the hunt! Tracking down a problem when the learning is so rewarding is what makes spending months so worthwhile. It's not boring yet--and there are so many idealistic experts willing to suffer through newbie abuse and help! Go figure. And there is progress . . . not being a leecher. Maybe one of these day gnutella will actually have something worthwhile to share. Publius looks too much like a closed shop, so the openess of gnutella

As a Mac user, I'm outraged at the shoddiness of application developments. We are used to high performance with so little effort on our part. I call it "expectation inflation." I think Apple is slowly weaning us with OSX, and giving us a sense of what programmers work with. Whenever I get too interested, though, I take a look at the LINUX/UNIX forums and run! Grrrrr. I guess I'm still leeching off the BSD work. Maybe in my next life, but that sounds like hell.

Anyway, sorry for the digression. I did try a direct connection and didn't see as much difference as I'd hoped. The big downside was that I couldn't find a way to access my NAT, and needed to get at the printer. So went back behind the NAT, learned more about the NAT software, and all seems reasonably fair.

Ignore the above. Is mapping UDP 6346 a good idea, or was that just for GUESS?

Cheers.