flexy123

nope, i am behind a NAT proxy/router where i dont have any control over it. (It's the ISP router, not mine). Therefore i depend on NAT and it gives SUPPOSEDLY better speeds than with a client w/o NAT...eg. XXXX-torrent :) My NAT-tr. is on, but i really dont see better speeds.

To the BC coder, is NAT-traversal actually working ? (Speaking of BC 0.70) I am getting the same speeds with BC0.70 as i do with "some other" client...which makes me wonder whether NAT-T is actually working. Also...for NAT-T to work....does the other client ALSO need to be BC..... ? And..why did you temporarily disable nat-traversal in BC.071/0.72 ? Just wondering.

oh..i see your point. you are NOT running any applications with any internet-access ? You very likely are behind a router...either yours or your ISPs...and connections are still "open".....some routers hold connections open for long periods of time. And from an older P2P session still someone tries to connect to your IP. Also...if you're behind a NAT router (a router which is ahred by many users incl. you at your ISP)...possible that stuff comes in from there even if you're not the one being online. Also..spyware/virus is a possibility. go into CMD adn do a "netstat -a" which should show you all connections in/out.

any links for an alternative block-list ? I dont want to download the first best one from mysterious sources....with bluetack at least i know its good. Yes..bloated...for sure..i also want to get rid of the comments, or just get a more compact list. (Mine is 9MB) Problem is BC slows down A LOT with that list loaded (in ipconfig.dat)...and i experience serious lag while playing while BC is running...also HIGH CPU usage up to 40%. Yes i know PG2/protowall etc block everything on system//driver level...but then i figured the method with BC/ipfilter.dat is more transparent...in this case i just wnated to block bittorrent stuff. But i will try to switch to PG2 again i guess.

i was downloading a torrent from a very known site....and i noted a HUGE list of peers with basically the same IP range on one torrent. eg 123.123.123.xxx:port...he was downloading/seeding etc....and i could link this IP to a very suspicios company. So...i got my protowall, checked out peerguardian, also got me the latest ipfilter.dat which i d/l with blocklist-manager. All the programs i was testing seperately and they all used the same blacklists (different formats tho). When i use PG2 or protowall the packets are blocked, but i STILL see the bad IP-range in BC as listed "peers"...although he is unable to connect anymore. When i use BC with the option "use ipfilter.dat" and i use the ipfilter.dat, the "bad" peer is not even shown in BC at all anymore. What does that mean ? ---> How does IP filtering from withing BC (with ipfilter.dat) differ from using a tool like PeerGuardian or Protowall ? For me it just looks "safer" that the bad peers are not shown at all now...so i dont use PG2/Protowall. As is my understanding all peers-info is gotten from the tracker...or is it that BC just makes the peers "invisible" in the peer-list because it knows they're bad ? (And basically the blocking is the same as i would use PG2 or PW ?) Also....is there a way to delete the comments in the ipfilter.dat (at the end)....to make it a little smaller ? thanks

the bitcomet/client ID is generated on the fly IN THE CODE...so he defintly did something so patching/faking is not that easy...but you can do *anything* if you spend the time/effort. But its pointless..the problem FOR SURE is not BitComet....but the stupidity of the trackers/site-owners. Look at an average torrent and how many people use BC.... its MANY ! Why ban them ? Chose another site then because the one who ban are idiots. bittorrent lives from the "community" and many people participating/sharing...and we dont need torrent-nazis which ban a huge number of people using a widely used client because they think so. Rgarding patching: See above....this doesnt only apply to BC.....theoretically you can patch any other client to pretend being any other client if you some programmign knowledge

or....you do some very, very dirty stuff with the help of a disassembler :) Forget all the "bitcomet patches" which are floating around..they're halfa$$...the only way to "fake" another client requires changing/patching the BC code....well...enough said. Anyway...i think, to all the trackers which ban a widely used and GODD client like BC...just **** 'em...there are enough other bittorrent sites around !

you have a point ! :)

yes this makes sense...but isn't this a general problem with the BT protocol then ? Eg..i also have only 7 upload slots available...and hundreds of peers are trying to connect to me ? But my original question still stands...would it be possible to go thru the peer-list and just discard the ones which dont send ?

i might be totally off now...but give me an idea what this shouldn't work. Well let's say my max connections/task is set to 200...but the peers for a specific torrent are...hmm...1000. So...i connect to a 200 peers...but 150 of them are either not sending AT ALL or just too slow. My question: IS it feasable to have a feature which scans the list of peers/seeds...and auto-bans/kicks peers which are "too slow"...to make room to connect to other peers who might be faster ? So...that basically the client looks for the fastest peers autimatically ? It's just that i am always wondering why i have so many peers which i am connected to..but only a few sending data....in my case it's usually that 80% of my peers dont seem to send any data..so why should i need them ??? (Or would my idea totally break the bittorrent concept ? Is it even doable ? SECOND: second idea (sorry for making another post): The status screen is still unclear for me..especially when it comes to NAT traversal. "Diconnected1" doesn't say too much....i'd like to have more detailed/clearer information, especially so people know whether their NAT traversal actually works. ANd/OR if peers cannot connect because of NAT...it should be clear to see somewhere.... The problem is that a number of NATS obviously dont allow NAT traversal...and at this point i dont even know whether mine works. There are indications it works (green light, connected peers)...then there are still MANY peers where it says "disconnectedX"....and...then the speeds are the same like when using XXXX-torrent.....where i know the XXXX-torrent client doesnt do NAT traversal.....so i would expect BC getting higher speeds but it doesn't. Btw. this is not a feature for some unlucky ones behind NAT (like me)...but according to some recent research allegedly up to 60% of all internet users are behind NAT ! Therefore i think it's important smile.gif

he says: i got BC 0.70 and it always says "DHT not connected"...i dont know how to solve this. I entered BC in the XP firewall exceptions. Also...i got a EUMEX 300IP modem where i have to open ports. I think that's where my problem is: url=http://home.arcor.de/funtermi/Screen%2000000.JPG]http://home.arcor.de/funtermi/Screen%2000000.JPG[/url] Here you can see the IPs (ports) i entered there. You can reach me via ICQ 313341390 --- I'd say.....look under "portforward.com" and check whether your modem is listed there... Geh zu portforward.com and schau' ob dein modem da aufgelistet ist...check auch ob du in BC die richtigen ports anagebeben hast (16744 oder was du du hast)...und teste deine ports http://www.canyouseeme.org/ waehrend BC LAUEFT....und schau ob der spezifische port auch offen ist. Ansonsten...schau dir den BC settings guide an hier im forum.

hehe kluelos....i had "some" network discovery tools running..and YEAH i can connect to the router..and even read a lot of configuration strings.....i can read the ARP/routing table/interfaces...etc..etc... the big Q would be whether i actually can CHANGE the config...but needles to say it would be...uhm...considered as a serious attack :) Its NOT as easy that i can login there with the browser...there is a SNMP interface (if you know what this is)...but you can also try to telnet to the router....but i didnt get as far as trying to login since an attempted login could be seen as attack. etc.. etc... Well..anyway i dont have any software firewalls running, also dont have the XP firewall on. Btw. the machine (the router, default gateway) is (as far as i understand) a fiber "last mile" endpoint....running vxworks...and each unit supplies 8 endpoints with all the services. I am assuming that the router is the default gateway my DHCP set up. But then i still dont know a lot about that network....the blocking could happen somewhere else...AFTER that default gatway.....hmm..which is actually interesting to look into... Sorry being offtopic :)

well i dont have the option for my own router...its' just how their network is set up...*everyone* on this network is behind a NAT router/switch. I have a LAN outlet right in my appt..so i dont use a modem as i did with cable. (Just plug network cable right in). Also..i already wrote their support....but they were not realy helpful and replied back they dont block any ports on their router....but it's defintly the case that ANY unsolicated incoming port is blocked...so i have to rely on Nat traversal. (All the clients here are assigned a private IP while the "real" IP is the IP of their router.) I researched A LOT already what i can do (lol)...but as it looks i cant do more than living with those speeds....eg. AVERAGE good speed for me is like 50kB/s for a torrent...then i can be glad already. There are times where i get good speeds...but BY FAR less than what i had with comcast (cable)..where i had my router and portforwarding set up....i had speeds 200,300, 400 etc.kB/s

well....i HAD a wrt54G before i was with *that* ISP now....i am on a fiber network now and behind a router, THEIR (provider's) router - and i do not have any control over it ! (i dont even have my own router right now) means: there is NO way to forward/open ports. So...i am relying if the BC UDP nat traversal works since i cant do *anything* regarding opening ports. unusual_suspect: () Yes..i throttled my upload speed down just to make sure i dont max out ! Otherwise my max is about 38 or so.

dark shroud, could you tell me how i can check whether my NAT/firewall affects me ? If i had problems because of NAT...how can i verify this looking at the BC status screen ? Also..the option "use listening mode only"....it's not explained what exactly it does if i would to check this. I am not sure whether the UDP NAT traversal (the main reason i am using BC) actually works for me. (right now its on Auto) regarding BC settings...well yeah i tried (and try) all those recommended ones....but my speeds are still way below average....otherwise i am using all recommended settings for my conection.