On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:54:33 +0000 Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/21/15, Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yawning's mail below reminds me: I am considering removing the C > > implementation of tor-fw-helper from the tor distribution, and > > recommending Yawning's pure-Go implementation instead. But before > > I do this, I'd like to get some sense of whether folks are shipping > > tor-fw-helper today, or using it in practice. > > Does the pure-Go implementation support NAT-PMP or just UPnP? It supports both, though NAT-PMP is limited to Linux, Windows, and *BSD (including Darwin), due to the need to query the routing table to obtain the IP address of the default gateway. It's easy-ish make the new code's NAT-PMP support other platforms (implement one function), but since the existing support covers what's needed I haven't gone and hunted down more obscure things. > I still use tor-fw-helper when I hand compile Tor on obscure systems. > Generally this means a Novena board when I need a newer version of Tor > than is already packaged. > > Also - does this mean that after many many years... that this new > version of tor-fw-helper be enabled by default at build time? Pretty > please? :-) Unlikely, AFAIK the general plan was to have it as a separate package. -- Yawning Angel
Attachment:
pgpyXo9fX_q5O.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev