[Request]Port ranges

[Reverie]

I notice that the port used for incoming connections only have 1 box... can there be a way to set a specific range of ports for Utorrent to use? like 7000~7005 for example instead of just 1 port....

[ScubaSteve]

u only need 1 tcp port open. All of the newer clients use just the one port for both tcp and udp.

[fatshark]

u only need 1 tcp port open. All of the newer clients use just the one port for both tcp and udp.

Yeah but opening 1 port (for example 8 torrents) on some torrent ur not "connectable" shows up on registered torrent sites. So opening a range is a good feature and i would like to see it too

Thanx

[paritybit]

u only need 1 tcp port open. All of the newer clients use just the one port for both tcp and udp.

Yeah but opening 1 port (for example 8 torrents) on some torrent ur not "connectable" shows up on registered torrent sites. So opening a range is a good feature and i would like to see it too

Thanx

I don't believe this is true. There is no reason for this. The only reason I have ever found for a torrent site saying I wasn't connectable was a restrictive firewall implimented on the tracker that didn't allow it to connect to clients on a lot of ports to check their connectability.

[ScubaSteve]

agreed paritybit. opening a range is completely unnecessary and some would say more of a security risk. if the tracker says ur unconnectable then either the trackers screwed or u have a v dodgy firewall.

ps. try not to use ports from 6881-6889 as many private trackers block them.

[slayers]

For pete's sake, this is absolutely unnecessary. If it weren't hard enough for the n00bs to open one port they now have to open more? This is just a complication that will prevent people from adjusting their firewalls properly. Simplification is what is needed to get more people to effectively get their systems configured. I dare say one port increases your speed!

[Blackice]

actually, I'd really like a port range as well.

Don't know about yours, but I can specify a range of ports for my router to open to me, rather than each individually.

And for those who can't, or don't know how, they don't have to use it. Noone's saying that they should make it not allow single ports.

Why not put it under advanced options then? make a net_startport and net_endport thing. It seems that this (seemingly simple to implement) option would make lots of people happy

I don't like these new clients with just one port. I find its more responsive with more (say what you like, that's what I find, and I'll bet many other do too)

[DutchDude]

3 things for me 2 comment:

1) Opening multiple port may allow for more steady up/down, cause requests can be sent to several ports instead of 1. 100% packets on 1 port may cause more blockage then 50% on 2 ports, but perhaps this should be tested.

2) There are still routers out there that do not allow TCP & UDP over a single port. So if both protocols are used by uTorrent it might be helpfull for those users that have such a router. (actually this would still be regarded as single port instead of a range, only meant to circumvent the probs on some routers)

3) If i remember correctly someone requested a feature to allow changing the port automatically. Having a port range would allow this, for example randomise the use of a single port as long as the port is part of a user-specified range. But i see a drawback too. What happens with users that are allready connected ? Do they get redirected to the new port, or do all the connections need to be dropped and reconnected ?

Anyway, imho having multiple ports may seem a good idea, but only if it really serves a predifined purpose. If it is just a nice to have feature which does not serve a specific purpose no one will use it.

[chaosblade]

Considering all BT clients switched FROM multiple ports TO single port cores, Suggests the latter as a better solution.

[SlimMan]

Well perhaps it's just me but I thunk / think that having a multi (random chosen port from a range of ports was a bit more safe in that you don't a one specific port that is locked in and easier to hon in on (esp. when you consider that a router will allow a range of ports and must be set / opened for a BT client to work properly)? Or perhaps this could be my misconception in this matter and in which case it would be my false security.

Any who just my thoughts on this matter.

Slim!

[chaosblade]

P2P was never secure to begin with.

[slayers]

You can randomize your (single) port now as long as you use UPnP. Just check Randomize port each time uTorrent starts.

[Ultima]

I think DutchDude meant that µTorrent can select a random port from within a specified range. So if you choose 6881-6889, it randomly chooses a port within that range every startup (bad choice of range, but just to get the point across ;P)

[macca38au]

Trouble with the randomising port option, Is that It means you have to configure your modem to have all those ports open, unless you set up a port mapping profile of some kind, or use stupid UpNp

I would like the option of randomising the ports, but I would like a user specified range.

Its all about security anyway, IMO, and UpNP isnt the most secure way of doing things, as everyone knows, so why should we have to rely upon It, which Is what you are saying we should do. Let UpNp do the work.

I dont wish to, as I simply dont trust It. Ive read too many negative things over time, and even though they say Its now secure, well the damage has already been done. By not having this option, I am forced to use a simgle port, not use the randomise feature, and I have to manually change the port every week or two. If this option was Included, I would never have to look at It again.

I like having control over whats happenning on my computer, and the fact Is, when I first started using torrent, and reading many tutorials, this was mentioned numerous times, and was advised NOT to used UPNP. Was advised to use a small range of uncommon ports, and also, If the Randomise option Is there, to randomise them.

ABC, did this beautifully.

Urorrent Is a good program, but It didnt Invent the wheel. Why then Is It now trying to Re Invent It to Its own specifications.

A number of users obviously see more to this, than most, and Its an option that I feel would be used.

I certainly would use It, and feel much better knowing that my ISP Is spying on what I am doing, but has a hard time keeping up with me. a number of ISPs actively watch for torrent ports, and slow them or block them to p2p. They also track what traffic Is going on on what ports, and If thier detective skills are good enough, they can do the same to other ports. This Is why the randomise ports was Included In many clients, for these reasons.

This Is why this feature Is wanted, and i think Its fair enough, IMO.

And all this about only needing one port anyway, then why was an option to randomise ports included In the first place. Seems a little weird.

I will keep using Utorrent, and Its a good program, but with this option, to me, It would be the ONLY program.

Cheers

[lokanetra]

I have a suggestion and perhaps easy enough to update in a future Micro Torrent client.

The Randomize port each time uTorrent starts is helpful but randomizing those ports to higher numbers might be an idea. Ports 49152 through 65535 are the IANA dynamic / private ports which are typically good to use with Micro Torrent. Currently I keep my incoming port set to 55000 and higher and speeds have been great. I tend to notice lesser speeds with random lower port numbers.

Great client though. Got rid of java

[DreadWingKnight]

I like having control over whats happenning on my computer, and the fact Is, when I first started using torrent, and reading many tutorials, this was mentioned numerous times, and was advised NOT to used UPNP. Was advised to use a small range of uncommon ports, and also, If the Randomise option Is there, to randomise them.

ABC, did this beautifully.

But this was dropped once the single-port core was added.

ABC's switch to a single-port core is a sign of the direction we're headed in. Switching to a range from a single-port is not progressing.

[foxyshadis]

ISPs really cracking down don't watch port traffic, they watch BT traffic. It's amazingly easy to sniff BT traffic, especially when it's 95% of your traffic, and jumping ports gives you zero protection. Hell, half the time they don't care, it's just your bandwidth use they watch. Besides, why would spikes in traffic to a small range of ports be any less of a red flag to a monitoring isp than a spike on one port? Even randomizing on startup is only useful if you do it so often it gets lost in the noise, which is hourly or so.

If you don't like uPNP write a script to update your router, or forward the range 10k-64k. uPNP has nothing to do with this.

Also multiple ports being any more reliable is hogwash. Multiple NICs is the only way you'd get that.

uTorrent currently randomizes between 10000-65535, which is good enough for all but very rare corporate networks.

[Firon]

Yay, ludde fixed it!

Before it only randomized between 3000-9999

[Ultima]

Hm, how did it end up picking 25/smtp as a port before? (Or am I misinformed about why people were complaining about µTorrent sending mail?)

[ScubaSteve]

most likely just norton rubbish picking up anything on that port as being mail.

[Firon]

Lots of AV/FW software have "e-mail" scanners, which do nothing more than check for traffic on port 25/110, instead of actually checking the contents of the packets...

[cjtskater1]

So picking a high port number is better than a low one? I tried 80 one time and it worked amazing, now im using a random 5 digit number, and its almost as good...but not quite.

[GTHK]

Sometimes e-mail scanners also break traffic by trying to reformat BitTorrent data as SMTP.