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.

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

"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

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
>

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
>>

>

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

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

"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
--

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

"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