MiniUPNPD

[fotring]

Hi,
miniupnpd seems to be broken in 26.1:

miniupnpd 37136 - [meta sequenceId="85"] pfctl_get_rules_info: Invalid argument

Its spamming the routing log.

//Daniel

[franco]

First time I hear this. Kernel ABI and upstream software didn't change from 25.7.x so not sure what we're looking at here.



Cheers,
Franco

[fotring]

Fun, a puzzle :D
Had it working in 25.7 for a couple of playstations, and i had trouble getting it going OOTB but that's a couple of years ago so i can't remember what i did. But in sure it wasn't this error.

//Daniel

[fotring]

when trying to map a port from my macbook:

miniupnpd 34776 - [meta sequenceId="77"] ioctl(dev, DIOCCHANGERULE, ...) PF_CHANGE_GET_TICKET: Invalid argument

[franco]

True, it's more likely the errors were always there or at least for a while.


Cheers,
Franco

[nero355]

Had it working in 25.7 for a couple of playstations

Why not just give them 1:1 Port Mapping and leave it at Moderate NAT level instead of fully Open NAT ?!

[d0shie]

Why not just give them 1:1 Port Mapping and leave it at Moderate NAT level instead of fully Open NAT ?!

Because Moderate NAT can only talk to Moderate and Open NAT. Other console people who are on Strict NAT (more than you'd think) can only talk to Open NAT. With how prevalent the P2P matchmaking model is, Moderate NAT just won't do if you want the best chance at finding more people to play with. There's also the need to factor in the effort to manually configure mappings for every game service. The better equivalence would be putting that console behind a DMZ, but it'd also mean the ports have to remain open 24/7, and only for that console.
UPnP, on the other hand, provides the perfect middle ground while cleaning up after itself so allowed devices can cycle between ports. I'd say these days consoles is one of the primary reasons why UPnP is in use.

[franco]

I'm still missing the point a bit: it was said it's broken because it's spamming. The question is: is it still working after upgrading from 25.7.11 (where it worked) to 26.1-RCx (in which the code really doesn't differ)?


Cheers,
Franco