Yes, It should stop saying Behind NAT. I am not sure how to help with the "no
active connection" issue. Sorry I can't help more.
If you have a UPNP router and the FolderShare UPNP setting enabled, you do
not need to manually map ports.
--
Jeremy Epling
Lead Program Manager - Windows Live FolderShare
"Jon S" wrote:
| Quote: |  | |
|
> On May 12, 11:09 pm, Jeremy Epling [MSFT]
> <JeremyEplingM...@xxxxxx> wrote: | Quote: | | | |
> > The polling on FolderShare startup is used to determine if your client can
> > accept p2p connections from other clients. If these are negative, all file
> > transfers will go through the FolderShare relay servers which will make the
> > transfer slower and cannot handle files over 2GB.
> >
> > If you want the best performance when transferring files, you should allow
> > these incoming connections.
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Epling
> > Lead Program Manager - Windows Live FolderShare
> >
> > "Anthony R. Gold" wrote: | Quote: | | | |
> > > Although its assignee does not have reverse DNS on address 65.55.24.40 it
> > > is in one of Microsoft's netblocks and those connection attempts were only
> > > to FolderShare TCP/IP service ports, so I would presume those connection
> > > attempts were both proper and benign.
| | | | | > > | Quote: | | | |
> > > CIDR: 65.52.0.0/14
> > > NetName: MICROSOFT-1BLK
| | | | | > > | Quote: | | | |
> > > Neither FolderShare staff nor documentation have explained the benefits, if
> > > any, from allowing incoming connections. I run the program both with and
> > > without those and I never notice any difference in performance.
| | | | | > > | Quote: | | | |
> > > Tony
| | | | | | | | | | >
> I set up Port Forwarding in my router's firewall for these particular
> port requests. At least I think I got it right. The messages about
> incoming TCP connections being blocked have gone away, but now I'm
> getting the messages shown below. Any idea what to do about them, if
> anything?
>
> Also, Folder share says it is online, but it has stopped saying
> "behind NAT". Is that to be expected since I changed the port
> filtering rules?
>
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:15 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.46:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1030 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:14 2008 Blocked outgoing TCP packet from
> 192.168.0.199:80 to 65.55.24.43:37154 as FIN:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:14 2008 Blocked outgoing TCP packet from
> 192.168.0.199:6571 to 65.55.24.43:37156 as FIN:ACK received but there
> is no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:14 2008 Blocked outgoing TCP packet from
> 192.168.0.199:443 to 65.55.24.43:37155 as FIN:ACK received but there
> is no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:14 2008 Blocked outgoing TCP packet from
> 192.168.0.199:8000 to 65.55.24.43:37157 as FIN:ACK received but there
> is no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:12 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.49:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1053 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:12 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.43:37155 to xx.xx.xx.xx:443 as ACK received but there is no
> active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:12 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.43:37156 to xx.xx.xx.xx:6571 as ACK received but there is no
> active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:12 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.43:37157 to xx.xx.xx.xx:8000 as ACK received but there is no
> active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:12 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.43:37154 to xx.xx.xx.xx:80 as ACK received but there is no
> active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:07 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.46:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1030 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:03 2008 Above message repeated 1 times
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:01 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.49:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1053 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:06:01 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.46:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1030 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:59 2008 Above message repeated 1 times
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:58 2008 Blocked outgoing TCP packet from
> 192.168.0.199:1030 to 65.55.24.46:443 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:57 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.46:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1030 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:56 2008 Above message repeated 1 times
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:56 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.49:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1053 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:55 2008 Log viewed by IP address
> 192.168.0.199
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:55 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.46:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1030 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:53 2008 Allowed configuration authentication
> by IP address 192.168.0.199
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:53 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.49:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1053 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:50 2008 Above message repeated 1 times
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:48 2008 Blocked outgoing TCP packet from
> 192.168.0.189:1053 to 65.55.24.49:443 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:47 2008 Blocked incoming TCP packet from
> 65.55.24.49:443 to xx.xx.xx.xx:1053 as PSH:ACK received but there is
> no active connection
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:45 2008 Above message repeated 2 times
> [info] Wed May 14 10:05:39 2008 Time synchronized
> | |
| | |