Sign In | Sign Up

My Profile

Old_BitComet_Forum
531400
.....
Points: 27305
Country: China

Shortcuts

Categories

My Talk

By xnd08
From forum_name, PlayComet Forum

Can I have a beta account?

Also, apology, what is this GameBorder thing all about, thought the game for Bitcomet users? [ Last edited by xnd08 at 2008-4-17 14:38 ]
I'm Brand new... Thu May 29, 08 10:41 PM
By cassie
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
LISTEN PORT HELP Fri May 30, 08 02:45 AM
By kluelos
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
Hmm. I'm not clear on how that got set that way, but let's go with the flow here.

So you're using the 10.xxx.xxx.xxx block, which is just fine. Quite a few routers default to this. The only significant difference is that you have a possible 256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216 possible device addresses on that block. But you'll probably never need more than two or three of them. So this is cool.

Your default gateway means "where do I go if I can't find what you want around here?", and for you and most people, there's only one gateway -- your network card and whatever is on the other end of it. So in your case, it's the LAN address of the router. That's your default and only gateway. DNS searches also get passed to the router, which in turn, passes those searches to whatever the WAN side has been told to use for the purpose. But that doesn't affect settings on the LAN side. ANyway, default gateway and preferred DNS servers are the same.

As I said on the other thread, addresses can be requested via DHCP. This is how the WAN side of your router gets its 83.xxx.xxx.xxx address - by asking your ISP for an assignment. That's fine.

But it's no good for port-forwarding. (port triggering is something else and doesn't apply here.) Look at your router and read your manual. If it requires an IP address for a forwarding/virtual server rule, then you cannot use a dynamic address from DHCP for this purpose, and must set a static address as stated. If you do not then it will be a matter of pure luck if you happen to get the right address with the open port on it.

Now I'm very uncertain what you mean by the phrase, "on the router settings". Do you mean the manual? Or from the control interface? Or exactly what do you mean? From what you say it's trying to use both reserved blocks, which is going to cause a lot of confusion here. What exactly are you referring to here? In detail. You speak of "the internet port" on the class C block, and "the lan port" on the class B block, where they probably ought to be one and the same interchangeable port, unless you have two NIC's, which would be the first mention of THAT, and a serious additional complication. Very much confusion, very much doubt here. You need to go into great detail about what you're talking about, since I can't see it for myself.

I can't advise you how to proceed until this is cleared up.
LISTEN PORT HELP Fri May 30, 08 12:02 AM
By stevy_port
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
also, i'm not sure if it matters but uPNP is off

i'm sure there's an easy answer to this i'm overlooking,

thanks for the help
LISTEN PORT HELP Thu May 29, 08 11:58 PM
By stevy_port
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
thanks for the help...that's sorta what i figured.

i've found an extra conundrum so i'll be more specific from the beginning.

SETTINGS:

?Software Firewall is off
?Stateful Packet Inspection firewall on the router is off
?my router address is 10.0.0.1
?my LAN address is 10.0.0.2
?my WAN (Modem) address is 83.XX.YY.ZZZ
?Default DMZ server is enabled on the router and set to 10.0.0.2
?Router is enabled as a DHCP server

?I deleted all the port forwarding (i previously mentioned) and left one only port 65432 TCP/UDP forwarded
?listen port in BC is 65432
?No port triggering is enabled on the router

-----------------------------------------------------------

under the last environment the router address space was 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.254
and this computers IP used to be 192.168.1.3

but when I reinstalled everything under this new network environment
the address space is 10.0.0.1 to 10.0.0.254
and this computers IP is now 10.0.0.2 as said above

---------------------------------------------------------

HERE'S THE INTERESTING SETTINGS I FOUND ON THE ROUTER SETTINGS:

Internet Port:
MAC Address AA.BB.CC.DD.EE.FF
IP Address 192.168.1.3

LAN Port:
MAC Address AA.BB.CC.DD.EE.FF
IP Address 10.0.0.1
DHCP On

i reckon this could be the cause of the listen port being blocked???

and i tried to port foward for 192.168.1.3 but obviously i'm not
allowed - only 10.0.0.XX addresses can have ports forwarded.

i also tried port triggering on 65432 but no dice.

-----------------------

NEXT

in the router setup my IP Address and DNS are got dynamically from the ISP

I ran "ipconfig/all" this is what is said:

?Gateway,DHCP server and DNS server are all 10.0.0.1
?IPv4 address 10.0.0.2 (preferred)

so next i tried to set the IP and DNS in the router myself to these.
it didn't work so i set it back to "get dynamically from the ISP"

now i ran "ipconfig/all" again and it says now:

?Gateway,DHCP server and DNS server are all 10.0.0.1
?IPv4 address 10.0.0.3 (preferred) .... (presumably this changed due the IP conflict from setting it myself)

------------------------------

i'm sure the problem lies between the IPs and this 192.168.... and 10.0.0..... issue???

if you need any more info please ask...

there must be an easy answer, please help!!!!
LISTEN PORT HELP Thu May 29, 08 07:20 PM
By kluelos
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
First, take a look here: http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showt...ost&p=45711

Your router has two sides. THere's a WAN side that connects to your modem and ISP, and gets an assigned address in the 88.55.xxx.xxx range. You have to set that side up the way your provider instructs you too, and leave it alone.

Then there's a LAN side. Your computer connects to this side. You pretty much control how this side gets set up.
On this side, the router has a completely different address, valid only on this lan, and only in terms of devices connected to that side of it.

Now, you get confusing. There are two commonly-used address blocks which are reserved for LANs, and your router should probably use one or the other of them. But you say instead that your router has "an address example" of 00.00.00.00

That's weird. It makes me think somebody's been mucking around with it and didn't know what they were doing. Is that what the address really is? If so, is it in the manual that way?

If not, then you need to find out how to reset the thing to its factory defaults. This is usually a little bit difficult to do, intentionally so because it shouldn't be easy to do by accident. you've usually got to stick a pin in a little hole and depress a button in there for ten seconds, or something like that.

It should reset to the class C reserved LAN block, 192.168.xx.xxx, but it might use the class B reserved LAN block, 10.xxx.xxx.xxx No big deal if it does, this just determines how many different devices can be on the lan. For most people, the first block gives them 256 x 256 = 65,536 devices. (That's usually enough.)

One address needs to be used by the router itself on the LAN side. Let's say that is 192.168.1.1, and make it so if it isn't. (This isn't the lowest address in the pool, the lowest one is 192.168.0.0 but the zeroes make people nervous.)

Its netmask defines the valid range for your network, and it's usually 255.255.255.0 Combine that netmask with your base IP address, and what it means is that the first three octets are fixed at 192.168.1, while the last octet can have any value from 0 to 255 - you can have 256 different devices on this LAN when its set up this way, and this is usually far more than you actually need.

Your computer will take up another of those addresses, and you've still got plenty left over.

The router takes all of the computer's requests and reframes them as if they were the router's requests. So when you visit WhatsMyIP.com, it is not your computer that's asking. It's the router that's asking at some computer's behest, and what gets reported is the WAN side IP address that the router got from your ISP via the modem. (If you have a second computer hooked to that router and it asked WhatsMyIP.com, it will be told it has the same address as the first computer, which would ostensibly be impossible - can't have two devices on the network with the same address.)

If you want to see your computer's IP address on the LAN, use the IPCONFIG command from the DOS shell. That address is not visible to anyone not on your LAN, and neither is your computer itself. All the outside world can see is the WAN side of the router. IPCONFIG will tell you you have a LAN-range address, something like 192.168.1.xxx

Ports now, you need one and only one port. It is the same port that you choose as a listen port and set up that way in your BitComet preferences. All of these other ports, this A through H nonsense, you can forget about. Compound misunderstandings. You just need the one port. You use it throughout.

I usually just tell 'em to use port 65432, because I said so, don't bother me, kid. This is to take care of the ditherers who go into fits if you tell them to just pick a port.
multi sections Thu May 29, 08 10:58 PM
By cassie
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
Also, please note the following...

http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showtopic=12791006
multi sections Thu May 29, 08 07:22 PM
By kluelos
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
Please read the "New to Bittorrent?" section in the Guides forum.
need help Fri May 30, 08 03:09 AM
By crzy6888
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
Never mind i fixed the problem i just uninstalled aol
need help Thu May 29, 08 02:42 AM
By crzy6888
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
i also have one more question when i try to start a task back up bitcomet stops responding for awhile but if i leave it for awhile it starts working again. this happens when i have 1-2 things running.
thanks for help
como me registra Wed May 28, 08 10:41 PM
By cassie
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
Por favor lea aqu?..

http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showforum=27

y, a ser posible, escoja el idioma que mejor entienda.

Saludos,


cassie



Please read here...

http://forums.bitcomet.com/index.php?showforum=27

and, if possible, choose the language that you understand the best.

Regards,


cassie
technical question Wed May 28, 08 08:35 PM
By Dark_Shroud
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
All of the lists provided by Peer Guardian use the lists from Bluetack.
technical question Wed May 28, 08 05:42 PM
By The UnUsual Suspect
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
I was watching my peer guardian the other day when I started a torrent for a popular new movie, and I had the same outgoing IP connection blocked, over and over... so it started me thinking how that would effect my ability to obtain useful connections if it keeps failing to connect to the hostile IP

It did manage to get a reasonably good speed, but may have been delayed by this unusual circumstances...

Regarding Peer Guardian, using the bluetack lists is optional, isn't it? I use peer guardian, but the only bluetack list I use is the level one p2p, which is a redundant copy of the peerguardian p2p list (added because the peerguardian list often fails to update).

technical question Wed May 28, 08 04:46 PM
By Dark_Shroud
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
In short no, the client will just have to wait until they time out and are then closed/dropped. I believe this is around 300ms.

In short there might be a delay of a few seconds depending on someone's blocked lists. But that's what that get. Peer Guardian should not be recommended for use anymore at this point. Due to the lists at Bluetack being extremely bloated.
By suwatj
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
QUOTE (kluelos @ May 30 2008, 01:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
One change you should make though, is not to use the same port for BitComet and EMule. Whichever one gets the port first will block it for the other, so they'll never both work at the same time.


You misunderstood me. I did not run both Bitcomet and eMule concurrently using the same port. In the experiment above, I ran Bitcomet alone using port 49999 and then exited it and ran eMule using the same port. In essence, I checked the port using eMule. I did this because I do not know have a better tool to check the listening port. In both cases, I used canyouseeme.org to verify the connections. If canyouseeme.org is to be believed like you said and if the port was blocked by the router or whatever firewall in the system, be it software or hardware, eMule should be blocked too. It turned out that Bitcomet was blocked or refused to respond to the port while eMule was not blocked. There are only two hypothesises, I could fanthom. The first one is that there is an external process that only block Bitcomet but not eMule. I know this is a bit absurd and leaning toward conspiracy theory. The second hypothesis is more plausible. There is something inside Bitcomet, either by design or some libraries (DLLs) and/or system services that Bitcomet hooked to, interfering with the listening port.
In one of my trial and error before my posting here, I turned almost everyting on the way from the modem to Bitcomet off. Firewall in the modem was off except Intrusion Detection (can't find way to disable it). Windows firewall was disable. All the programs that started with windows were disable or exited. I did not turn any system service off because the last time my ignorance made me turned off "remote procedural call service" and I was forced to do reformat and re-install. Same result. Bitcomet was blocked while eMule could get thru.

QUOTE
And to repeat, if the port's blocked, you have a firewall that's blocking it.


I ran out of idea on how to investigate this phenominon. So please help if you can. Any suggestion is welcomed. Or at least pls point to a tool that can help me investigate further. My curiosity is killing me.

QUOTE
UPnP has had a very unhappy history with routers, and frequent unexplained failures. If it happens to work for you, great, but if it does not you probably will not be able to fix it, or to diagnose any problems. Should UPnP fail to work completely and easily, you should forget it, disable it, and configure manually instead. Betyer to know what you're doing and why, than to rely on the mysterious and undocumented inner workings of some mechanism with that track record -- especially if it used to work and now doesn't. You'll probably never be able to figure out why.


Thanks for the warning. I always set everything you mentioned by hand and use uPNP and ICF/ICS as a mere backup. Currently I am into Wireshark. It looks like Wireshark inserts itself in front of windows firewall because I turned firewall off and still could see transactions to the port originated from remote IP without reponse from my computer; not even "RST".

Regards, suwatj.
By cassie
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
QUOTE (suwatj @ May 29 2008, 05:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It reminds me of one of my weaknesses; curiosity.

Lol, I don't consider it a 'weakness' (I am guilty of the same thing, myself) - rather a 'thirst' for knowledge...
By kluelos
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
BitComet starts and tries to send a message to an external server, asking it to send a probe to your listen port. It then waits for that message. If it can't contact that server, it shows a gray light. If it contacts the server but never sees the probe, it shows a yellow light. If it contacts the server and then sees the probe, it shows a green light. It's a simple-minded system and has lots of possibilities for error.

Because of those possiblities for error, you test at canyouseeme.org for confirmation.

A blocked port means you have a firewall blocking the port. This is a rule you can rely on. If your port is blocked, then you've got a firewall you haven't configured to open that port. If you don't think so, that just means you've got a firewall you haven't found yet, or think you've configured properly when you have not.

UPnP has had a very unhappy history with routers, and frequent unexplained failures. If it happens to work for you, great, but if it does not you probably will not be able to fix it, or to diagnose any problems. Should UPnP fail to work completely and easily, you should forget it, disable it, and configure manually instead. Betyer to know what you're doing and why, than to rely on the mysterious and undocumented inner workings of some mechanism with that track record -- especially if it used to work and now doesn't. You'll probably never be able to figure out why.

One change you should make though, is not to use the same port for BitComet and EMule. Whichever one gets the port first will block it for the other, so they'll never both work at the same time.

If you are using the Windows firewall and have enabled ICF in your BitComet preferences, then BitComet will configure that firewall correctly for you, automatically. If any of those are not true, then this must be done manually. You must not only permit BitComet traffic outbound through your firewall, you must also open the selected listen port. This is not "to" BitComet or any other application, because it's not a firewall's job or concern to route traffic. The port must just be open, period.

And to repeat, if the port's blocked, you have a firewall that's blocking it.
By bloominidiot
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
I got that damnable yellow light yesterday (28 May 2008) myself after upgrading to BC 1.01. Had been using ver. 96 and had green light all the time. Went thru a bunch of stuff trying to get my green light back but to no avail until I went into windoze firewall settings. I allowed my listening port in exceptions and got my green light. So now all is good again.
By suwatj
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
QUOTE (kluelos @ May 29 2008, 03:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Now adding a second router into the mix, it gets messier. The same principles apply, but you have to go through Router B. Router B has to sit in place of your computer. It has to have a static IP address on Router A's subnet, just as your computer used to. Router A's firewall has to forward the chosen port to Router B, at that same IP address, just as it used to do for your computer.

Your computer's connection to router B will be unchanged from its former connection to router A. Your computer can even use the same IP address as before, because it is now connected to a sub-sub-network.
You can't have two files with the same name, in a single directory, but you can if one is in a subdirectory. Same principle.

Router A can only see Router B, but not B's subnet or any devices connected to Router B. As far as router A is concerned, all of this traffic is coming from Router B with no idea what, if anything, may actually be connected to B. This isolation flows both ways.

It's still the same principle. Get the unsolicited traffic through the first firewall on the right port, to and through the second firewall on the right port, to the computer that's expecting it and where BitComet is waiting for it. You use the same tools to test it.


To avoid the above problem with too many routers and sub-sub-net, I took "Router B" out of the loop by connecting my computer directly to "Router A". Port-forward and firewall setting stayed the same as before. I used Bitcomet v1.01 and eMule 0.48 for testing the port. Here's my findings:

Case 1: Port 49999, uPNP enabled, Port-forward and other settings were checked twice. Bitcomet started. eMule not running. Results:
- Unsuccessful. Yellow light. "Local" initation and LT Seed. No "Remote".
- Canyouseeme.org reported "Connection refused"
- Wireshark reported that Bitcomet received transaction from the port but refused to connect by sending out "RST".

Case 2: Port 49999...settings same as Case 1. Bitcomet not running. eMule started using 49999 as listening port.
Results:
- Successful, High-ID connection to server.
- Canyouseeme.org reported successful connection.
- Wireshark reported normal transaction on port 49999.

Then I connected everything back to the original two-tier setup by including "Router B". I got the same results as the above test. eMule could use the listening port successfully while Bitcomet was still blocked or it refused to receive transactions from that port. So, I think the problem has nothing to do with firewall, port-forwarding or the two-router setup. It looks like Bitcomet didn't want to communicate to its peers and I really don't know why.

Kluelos, what's your opinion? Are there other ways to check deeper? Some software that can trace deeper?

Any suggestion is really appreciated. Thanks in advance.
By suwatj
From forum_name, BitComet Forum
kluelos, thank you very much for your prompt reply. Your post was a little crytic to me. Either my language deficiency or my ignorance made me read the post several times to fully understand what you tried to explain. Base on your answer, I will do some experiments and will post the result back later. I hope that you will stay helping until the issue is solved. Thanks again.

QUOTE (cassie @ May 29 2008, 05:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
*moved to Port Forwarding and Router Setup*


cassie, my apology for posting in the wrong place. By the way, I like your animated cat; it's pretty cute. It reminds me of one of my weaknesses; curiosity.
30375 1/1519 |12345678NextLast