Setting up DMZ

ntlbell

Heads up? Sure!!!

I think the problem is we're discussing it from different hymn sheets, yours is RFC 1631 rather than how vendor's impliment 1631 in reality.

So yes it's a pointless discussion, see you in the fitz?

kin9pin

Psychedelik wrote:

I'm a newbie with this subject

Lads, I get the impression you're all going way over this guys head, he didn't ask who could quote the most jargon in one thread .
Psychedelik: DMZ isn't a good idea, but it's your choice and you do have a software firewall .
Check these links http://forum.portforward.com/YaBB.cgi?board=Routers;action=display;num=1103408440
http://firewalling.com/btvoyager/205adsl-firewall.htm

I'm presuming I've got the right modem??

gsand

Go for DMZ and a software firewall imo

ITs far easier than messing about with router firewalls...

It has always been my preference since torrents and other such p2ps came out, it just represents a simpler, quicker, non restarting method of controlling traffic...

Psychedelik

Well I figured out ( :rolleyes: ..) how to set up a DMZ, on IP 192.168.1.3. It turns out my BitTorrent client uses a random port rather than the standard 6681-6699. I can change the settings, but usually with filesharing software the more ports they have the better.

So I think DMZ works fine for me (a non-networked, home PC setup), much better than setting up loads of Public/Private rules. One thing I might consider using the router's firewall for is blocking high-vulnerability ports such as NetBIOS 137.

I'd like to know why with the GRC port scanner I never get any prompts to allow/deny traffic?? It's automatically stealth.

Thanks.

Mutant_Fruit

I can change the settings, but usually with filesharing software the more ports they have the better.

Nah, more or less ports makes no difference. In fact, using random ports is a pain in the ass at times (take the MSN example if you have a router without UPnP. Theres no way you can use voice/video chat on the router unless you forward all ports/setup a DMZ).

The efficiency of a P2P app isn't dependant on the amount of ports it has access to. A well designed app will just use a single port (or two) for everything. But it is much easier to code for 1 port per download :P Whatever works for yourself is good, but you'll have to disable the DMZ if you ever want to share the internet between computers. Then we'll be here to help you with the NAT'ing.

EDIT: One thing that will make your transfers faster is NOT using the default port/port range. Always choose your own random port number to transfer on. ISP's know the default port ranges of all the P2P apps, and so they have been known to give all traffic on those ports lesser priority.

TimTim

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

EDIT: One thing that will make your transfers faster is NOT using the default port/port range. Always choose your own random port number to transfer on. ISP's know the default port ranges of all the P2P apps, and so they have been known to give all traffic on those ports lesser priority.

Irish ISP's do would *actually* do somethink like that?1?1?1!?!//1?1?1?1 nooooooo, It can't be true.