On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Mike Perry schrieb:
> > I've found an undocumented feature in 2.2.0p1 IPmasqing. In the 2.0 series
> > of kernels, when you had a masq network and wanted to use Blizzard's
> > BattleNet servers for Starcraft internet play, you had to use ipautofw to
> > forward port 6112 tcp/udp to battle.net. Under 2.2.0p1, not only do you
> > not have to do this anymore...
>
> Sounds like you have applied the "ip_masq_dloose" patch
> (included in 2.2.0pre1-ac2, but not yet in Linus' tree, I think).
> The description of this patch on http://juanjox.linuxhq.com/ is:
> patch-2.2.0pre1-ac1.ip_masq_dloose.gz
> Changes UDP stream semantics by keeping only one tunnel
> per source <addr,port> regardless of changes in destination
> addr,port (note that this matches "normal" sockets semantics).
>
> I gave Juanjo the idea for that patch; the goal was to improve support
> for multiplayer games. You can read more at
> http://alumni.caltech.edu/~dank/peer-nat.html
> Using ipautofw limits you to one player on the masq'd LAN,
> I think, but the new code lets you have unlimited players,
> without any manual configuration, if the game is written
> properly.
>
> > but if you DO specify autofw (using the new
> > ipmasqadm and autofw module) with those ports, communication with
> > battle.net is broken.. When you do nothing, game play is fine.
>
> I'm suprised that using autofw causes trouble. I don't know
> enough about battle.net to guess what the problem is; all
> my testing was done with Activision games.
> If you don't apply 2.2.0pre1-ac1, does starcraft work when
> using the new ipmasqadm/autofw stuff?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/