UPNP Internet Gateway keeps dropping with Belkin WiFi Router

Discussion in 'Home Networking' started by Chris Smithers, Apr 21, 2006.

  1. Trust me, I am! I activated UPnP and suddenly the MSN transfers went from
    painfully slow to blissfully super-fast. I'm not hear to 'prove' anything,
    I was only asking a question. If you want to look into why MSN works best
    with UPnP feel free to search the web.
    ? Advertising :-S
    Chris Smithers, Apr 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. I haven't been sold a pup, I've been sold a pnp.
    Chris Smithers, Apr 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. This is because without one of uPNP or port forwarding, MSN file xfers
    operate by copying the file to a central server, then back out. This
    is a design decision by MSN, who are too tight to provide proper
    server bandwidth.


    You absolutely do NOT need uPNP to get the faster performance, all you
    need to do is set up perfectly normal port forwarding. This isn't
    rocket science and is way safer.
    I have, and what it says is "MSN is a pup, don't use this junk"
    Indeed. Advertising.
    Mark McIntyre
    Mark McIntyre, Apr 24, 2006
  4. Chris Smithers

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <Xg72g.57016$> on Fri, 21 Apr 2006
    I don't think so -- the file transfers slowing down strongly suggest a router
    problem, not a Windows XP problem.
    John Navas, Apr 25, 2006
  5. Chris Smithers

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <LpO2g.58180$> on Sun, 23 Apr 2006
    That's a bit of an exaggeration.

    What matters is having inbound ports forwarded, which can be accomplished in
    most routers without using UPnP.

    Bittorrent (Azureus) works quite well without port forwarding.

    That you are using these filesharing programs tends to support my suspicion
    that they may be causing the problem (per my first response here).
    I think that's a symptom of a router problem, not the loss of UPnP. If a file
    transfer continues to work at all, then loss UPnP isn't the cause of the speed
    loss -- it's just a related symptom of the real problem.
    The issue isn't whether or not the icon disappears, but whether or not port
    forwarding is still working. If port forwarding is working, which can be
    checked easily, then UPnP is irrelevant to the slowdown.
    John Navas, Apr 25, 2006
  6. Chris Smithers

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:12:57
    What UPnP actually does in this case is set up incoming port forwarding in the
    John Navas, Apr 25, 2006
  7. Chris Smithers

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <As13g.58591$> on Mon, 24 Apr 2006
    Link? Because I don't think so, and can't find any such advice (e.g.,
    http://messenger.msn.co.in/Help/Issues.aspx). MSN file transfer either works
    or it doesn't as far as UPnP is concerned -- speed isn't a UPnP issue.
    Not really. And many UPnP apps leave ports open even after they are shut
    You are confusing firewall port opening with port forwarding in the router.
    They are different things.
    John Navas, Apr 25, 2006
  8. Chris Smithers

    Dave J. Guest

    I see that as a misperception, especially when the alternative is the
    enabling of router UPnP capability.

    The days of flawed TCP stack software are over I think, and without a
    vulnerability in that element of your system there is no risk from packets
    that are delivered without an open target port. Unless something on the
    target machine, or on a promiscuous card on the same network segment, is
    listening for packets labelled with that port number they are discarded,
    with almost no processing.

    The only way such an entry point could be considered dangerous is that 'a
    hacker' could place a hidden application on your machine that listens for
    instructions on that port. (And yes, it is possible to write such an
    application in such a way that it can deal with the port clash inherent in
    you opening the legit program)

    However, your prefered alternative allows this hypothetical hacker to open
    any port on the router that s/he feels like, once your machine (not quite
    the same as you) executes their code. I don't see that as more secure, and
    that is before you add in the potential for vulnerability accrued for
    running *any* additional service.

    I'd support the advice offered of statically opening the ports and doing
    away with UPnP altogether.

    Dave J.
    Dave J., Apr 27, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.