Windows Vista Forums

port forwarding on messenger

  1. #1


    J_S Guest

    port forwarding on messenger

    why aren't we given the ability to forward a port range in msn messenger. I
    have recently grown my home network from 1 to 4 pc's and for security
    reasons I think upnp forwarding ports on on demand is a bad idea.

    why cant I define a port range for file transfers, voice and vid that way I
    could block out a space for each computer on my network.


      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  2.   


  3. #2


    N. Miller Guest

    Re: port forwarding on messenger

    On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:35:34 -0600, J_S wrote:

    > why aren't we given the ability to forward a port range in msn messenger. I
    > have recently grown my home network from 1 to 4 pc's and for security
    > reasons I think upnp forwarding ports on on demand is a bad idea.
    >
    > why cant I define a port range for file transfers, voice and vid that way I
    > could block out a space for each computer on my network.
    MSFT, in their infinite wisdom, decided that allowing Windows Live Messenger
    to dynamically configure ports using UPnP was sufficient. So they did not
    feel any need to give users any control over which ports are used for those
    services. I don't think they will ever go back to user configured ports.
    Causes too many support issues from users who don't know what they are
    doing. Which is probably 98% of them.

    --
    Norman
    ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  4. #3


    heian Guest

    Re: port forwarding on messenger


    "N. Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> schreef in bericht
    news:rcbd4dhmh7c3.dlg@xxxxxx

    > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:35:34 -0600, J_S wrote:
    >

    >> why aren't we given the ability to forward a port range in msn messenger.
    >> I
    >> have recently grown my home network from 1 to 4 pc's and for security
    >> reasons I think upnp forwarding ports on on demand is a bad idea.
    >>
    >> why cant I define a port range for file transfers, voice and vid that way
    >> I
    >> could block out a space for each computer on my network.
    >
    > MSFT, in their infinite wisdom, decided that allowing Windows Live
    > Messenger
    > to dynamically configure ports using UPnP was sufficient. So they did not
    > feel any need to give users any control over which ports are used for
    > those
    > services. I don't think they will ever go back to user configured ports.
    > Causes too many support issues from users who don't know what they are
    > doing. Which is probably 98% of them.
    >
    > --
    > Norman
    > ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    > ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

    I have learned from this group about Upnp and got it finally working at
    home.

    But i have seen already two modems, where Upnp was enabled, but in reality
    Upnp was NOT working, or not working correctly.
    Messenger say that there was a non-upnp connection, and another upnp test
    program
    shows the same.
    Port forwarding was possible with that modem, and upnp should work, but i
    think that
    by some older modems upnp was not working very well in the beginning.

    heian



      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  5. #4


    Jonathan Kay [MVP] Guest

    Re: port forwarding on messenger

    Greetings,

    There are a lot of poor or incomplete implementations of UPnP out there -- Messenger will
    just ignore those (or won't work correctly). In some cases they fix these up with firmware
    updates but in other cases you're stuck.

    However, Messenger can still send files without UPnP of course, just not very quickly

    --
    Jonathan Kay
    Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger
    MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
    MessengerGeek Blog: http://www.messengergeek.com
    Messenger Resources: http://messenger.jonathankay.com
    (c) 2008 Jonathan Kay - If redistributing, you must include this signature or citation
    --


    "heian" <Siam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
    news:4844630c$0$6024$ba620dc5@xxxxxx

    > I have learned from this group about Upnp and got it finally working at home.
    >
    > But i have seen already two modems, where Upnp was enabled, but in reality
    > Upnp was NOT working, or not working correctly.
    > Messenger say that there was a non-upnp connection, and another upnp test program
    > shows the same.
    > Port forwarding was possible with that modem, and upnp should work, but i think that
    > by some older modems upnp was not working very well in the beginning.
    >
    > heian
    >

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  6. #5


    J_S Guest

    Re: port forwarding on messenger

    well for the technically inclined, why cant there be a little check box for
    upnp that is checked by default, and then a grey'd out advanced port options
    section for those whom upnp is not an option (ie. those it wont work for,
    and those that don't want to use it. that couldn't be to difficult to code
    into the software, and would give them a feature that is missing in yahoo
    messenger. (suffers from the same lack of port options.)




    "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" <msnewsreplies@xxxxxx> wrote in message
    news:91A83656-CF04-4D62-96D8-5423B715DD53@xxxxxx

    > Greetings,
    >
    > There are a lot of poor or incomplete implementations of UPnP out there --
    > Messenger will just ignore those (or won't work correctly). In some cases
    > they fix these up with firmware updates but in other cases you're stuck.
    >
    > However, Messenger can still send files without UPnP of course, just not
    > very quickly
    >
    > --
    > Jonathan Kay
    > Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger
    > MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
    > MessengerGeek Blog: http://www.messengergeek.com
    > Messenger Resources: http://messenger.jonathankay.com
    > (c) 2008 Jonathan Kay - If redistributing, you must include this signature
    > or citation
    > --
    >
    >
    > "heian" <Siam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
    > news:4844630c$0$6024$ba620dc5@xxxxxx

    >> I have learned from this group about Upnp and got it finally working at
    >> home.
    >>
    >> But i have seen already two modems, where Upnp was enabled, but in
    >> reality
    >> Upnp was NOT working, or not working correctly.
    >> Messenger say that there was a non-upnp connection, and another upnp test
    >> program
    >> shows the same.
    >> Port forwarding was possible with that modem, and upnp should work, but i
    >> think that
    >> by some older modems upnp was not working very well in the beginning.
    >>
    >> heian
    >>
    >

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  7. #6


    N. Miller Guest

    Re: port forwarding on messenger

    On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:51:18 -0600, J_S wrote:

    > well for the technically inclined, why cant there be a little check box for
    > upnp that is checked by default, and then a grey'd out advanced port options
    > section for those whom upnp is not an option (ie. those it wont work for,
    > and those that don't want to use it. that couldn't be to difficult to code
    > into the software, and would give them a feature that is missing in yahoo
    > messenger. (suffers from the same lack of port options.)
    Giving the user port options only leads to numerous service calls. MSFT and
    Yahoo! don't want to do anything which will trigger higher support costs. No
    user configurable ports is cheaper in the long run.

    --
    Norman
    ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  8. #7


    J_S Guest

    Re: port forwarding on messenger

    isn't that what forums like this and others are for? I know most users are
    dumb as rocks and want others to do their work for them but If microsoft or
    yahoo had any faith in the ease of use of their search platforms I don't see
    how it would add anything cost. especially if the first support response was
    an automated one that linked to a guide that explained how to properly
    enable upnp an but also explained the default port numbers, the same info
    that would be found in any article on port forwarding 101. I don't think
    that a way to define a custom set of port is to complex if there is a reset
    to default button in the settings.

    as far as viop and vid conferencing go, the competitor, skype, works alright
    with out properly forwarding a port for it.

    but when you punch a hole in your nat routers firewall for it

    it works better.

    further more... with a fixed port assignment how are two people on the same
    network going to voip or fileshare at the same time? even if upnp were to
    dynamically forward ports as needed it cant forward the same port to two
    places.



    Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> wrote in message
    news:15np81th6x8wm$.dlg@xxxxxx

    > On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:51:18 -0600, J_S wrote:
    >

    >> well for the technically inclined, why cant there be a little check box
    >> for
    >> upnp that is checked by default, and then a grey'd out advanced port
    >> options
    >> section for those whom upnp is not an option (ie. those it wont work for,
    >> and those that don't want to use it. that couldn't be to difficult to
    >> code
    >> into the software, and would give them a feature that is missing in yahoo
    >> messenger. (suffers from the same lack of port options.)
    >
    > Giving the user port options only leads to numerous service calls. MSFT
    > and
    > Yahoo! don't want to do anything which will trigger higher support costs.
    > No
    > user configurable ports is cheaper in the long run.
    >
    > --
    > Norman
    > ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    > ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  9. #8


    Jonathan Kay [MVP] Guest

    Re: port forwarding on messenger

    "J_S" <untoward@xxxxxx> wrote in message:

    > further more... with a fixed port assignment how are two people on the same network going
    > to voip or fileshare at the same time? even if upnp were to dynamically forward ports as
    > needed it cant forward the same port to two places.
    It's not the same port or else you _could_ just forward it -- that's the whole point.
    Although I guess technically there is a limitation of 30,265 computers (two ports between
    ports 5004 through 65535).

    --
    Jonathan Kay
    Microsoft MVP - Windows Live Messenger
    MSN Messenger/Windows Messenger
    MessengerGeek Blog: http://www.messengergeek.com
    Messenger Resources: http://messenger.jonathankay.com
    (c) 2008 Jonathan Kay - If redistributing, you must include this signature or citation
    --




      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  10. #9


    N. Miller Guest

    Re: port forwarding on messenger

    On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:45:11 -0600, J_S wrote:

    > further more... with a fixed port assignment how are two people on the same
    > network going to voip or fileshare at the same time? even if upnp were to
    > dynamically forward ports as needed it cant forward the same port to two
    > places.
    UPnP, properly implemented, requests the port from the gateway device. I
    suppose a normal gateway device, being as smart as the typical computer,
    would know which ports it has already forwarded to which computers, and only
    assign ports as available.

    AIM used to be user configurable (I haven't played with it lately), and
    Trillian, as well. The user could select any ports desired, and I had, at
    one time, a table of ports assigned for two computers. I could configure my
    router for two ranges of ports, one for each computer. I see neither of them
    offer user configurable ports, either.

    Windows Live Messenger relies on UPnP, but I have encountered evidence that
    enabling UPnP on the router can be hazardous.

    --
    Norman
    ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  11. #10


    J_S Guest

    Re: port forwarding on messenger

    "Windows Live Messenger relies on UPnP, but I have encountered evidence that
    enabling UPnP on the router can be hazardous."

    that was the biggest point I wanted to stress.

    http://www.upnp-hacks.org
    http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/flash-upnp-attack-faq/


    those are just a couple off the top.




    I am a technically competent user that wants to be in control of the
    traffic on my network.


    a reliance on upnp as the only method of port management is a poor choice.
    (it's a good feature for those that want it)

    it does nothing for the security conscious.

    it does nothing to help those who have poor upnp support.

    in my experience most people have improperly configured port settings with
    or with out upnp.

    ie the touted features of messenger rarely work as advertised and from what
    I can tell that is mostly due to issues involving Network Address
    Translation. as a power user who is now administering my own home network,
    messenger would work better more often if I could dedicate more than just
    the default ports to one computer.


    that said, I hope my rants can be forwarded to some one on the messenger
    dev team.






    "N. Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> wrote in message
    news:jjn1s1td9pce.dlg@xxxxxx

    > On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 14:45:11 -0600, J_S wrote:
    >

    >> further more... with a fixed port assignment how are two people on the
    >> same
    >> network going to voip or fileshare at the same time? even if upnp were
    >> to
    >> dynamically forward ports as needed it cant forward the same port to two
    >> places.
    >
    > UPnP, properly implemented, requests the port from the gateway device. I
    > suppose a normal gateway device, being as smart as the typical computer,
    > would know which ports it has already forwarded to which computers, and
    > only
    > assign ports as available.
    >
    > AIM used to be user configurable (I haven't played with it lately), and
    > Trillian, as well. The user could select any ports desired, and I had, at
    > one time, a table of ports assigned for two computers. I could configure
    > my
    > router for two ranges of ports, one for each computer. I see neither of
    > them
    > offer user configurable ports, either.
    >
    > Windows Live Messenger relies on UPnP, but I have encountered evidence
    > that
    > enabling UPnP on the router can be hazardous.
    >
    > --
    > Norman
    > ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    > ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

port forwarding on messenger
Similar Threads
Thread Forum
port forwarding Network & Sharing
Port Forwarding Vista networking & sharing
RDC through NATs without port forwarding Vista security
Wireless + Vista + Port Forwarding Vista networking & sharing
port forwarding Vista networking & sharing