[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: simple iptables problem



Daniel wrote:
> I want to play Warcraft III on battle.net which requires
> forwarding of port 6112 (tcp+udp). Currently I'm only
> masquerading my LAN which allows me only to _join_
> games. Hosting fails. I tried various snat and dnat stuff
> but didn't come to a working solution. might anyone help?

Since I have not seen a better response yet, here is what I know.
This is the extent of my knowledge of the subject.  I always play
local lan games where we can all see each others faces and don't get
out to wan game at all.

The game protocol is really rather nasty and wants several ports, if I
recall correctly some on random places.  So it is hard to write
firewall rules to make that work.

If you have only one IP address then you can only host one game.  You
need a different IP address for every server and every client.

> Is there a way to allow ALL internal PCs to host games?
> when routing port 6112 to a specific internal ip this cannot
> be done...i just wonder if this works..

No.  One IP address, one host.  You can make that internal host appear
to be that one IP address with port forwarding.  But that is it.  I
believe it is possible to host a game and make that visible on the
global network and also have a local lan client(s) connect to the
local host since the host machine knows everyone's ip address both
private and public.  I think.  I am pretty sure I have done that a
long time ago.

Your best source of information is in the HOWTOs.  Start with this one
here.  Look for battle.net in the doc.  This should get you pointed in
the right direction.

  http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/IP-Masquerade-HOWTO/forwarders.html

Otherwise, goodness forbid, your best bet is to actually place your
windows machine on the Internet and host there.  If you do that make
sure you have all of the latest security patches or your mean time to
virus will be measured in minutes.

Bob

Attachment: pgpCCjDabuPYo.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: