Amule with Raspberry

I tried to install amule on the raspberry: the amuleweb service, however, does not start automatically but I have to launch them from the shell.
Another problem I also have to change the port because I get:
Creating client...
Succeeded! Connection established to aMule 2.3.2
../../src/LibSocketAsio.cpp(1257): Asio thread 1 started
../../src/LibSocketAsio.cpp(1257): Asio thread 2 started
../../src/LibSocketAsio.cpp(1257): Asio thread 3 started
../../src/LibSocketAsio.cpp(800): Critical message: CAsioSocketServerImpl bind to 0.0.0.0 4711 failed - Address already in use
../../src/LibSocketAsio.cpp(1257): Asio thread 4 started
In fact if I use netstat pi hole it occupies port 4711 ...
But changing the port (changing amule.conf and remote.conf) I always get the same result ... can you help me?
Reply to
marco.saraceno78
Loading thread data ...
Hi,
Does the raspberry has an ipV4? (And not only an ipV6)
Reply to
yamo'
Re: Re: Amule with Raspberry By: NY to Doug McIntyre on Thu Jul 30 2020 09:35 am
If you have an Ipv6 assignation for your LAN
and you have a proper way to tell the LAN computers where to find the DNS servers over ipv6
and you have a proper way to tell the LAN computers where to find time servers.
Yes, then you can get away with no ipv4 in some circumpstances. Issue being, many routers etc don't do proper dhcpv6/slaac, so if you try to go ipv6 only with those, you will get the ips of your devices assigned, but they won't be able to resolve names or get their clocks synced.
The real problem with ipv6 is not that devices get exposed. Your LAN firewall should take care of it anyway. The real problem is that ipv6 requires the good will of your ISP for properly segmenting your network. As it is, if you want to use ipv6 properly for having multiple networks/subnetowrks, you need the isp to have a working dhcp with prefix delegation. GUess what, most have not. SO if you want to do fancy tricks with your LAN network topology you end up having to resort to NAT66 which is ugly as heck.
TL;DR; ipv6 SUCKS because it is poorly implemented and puts the control of your LAN topology in the hands of your ISP.
--
gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es
Reply to
Richard Falken
I think all computers that use TCP/IP have at least IPv4 - and optionally IPv6. I've never seen anything which only does IPv6 and does not do IPv4.
Reply to
NY
I have many IPv6 only machines.
There's no reason to setup IPv4 in a properly setup IPv6 environment depending on your needs and requirements for them.
--
Doug McIntyre 
doug@themcintyres.us
Reply to
Doug McIntyre
If you have a router and ISP that give you an IPv6 address, then I suppose IPv4 is not strictly necessary. However I would have thought that any default installation of Windows, Linux etc would enable IPv4 by default, so it would require explicit action to turn it off.
The whole concept of IPv6 fills me with horror. The idea that all LAN devices have public IP addresses, and that all devices must have a good firewall, instead of using the NAT and the firewall in the router, seems a *huge* retrograde step in terms of security. By all means use IPv6 for the router's public WAN address, to allow many more such WAN addresses in the world, but I'd have preferred IPv6 to still use IPv4 addressing within the LAN, and NAT to translate between WAN and LAN.
But they didn't do it that way (why?) so we've got to live with the consequences of the way they designed IPv6.
Reply to
NY
It is a software issue only. The hardware does not change.
So it is correct to say that LINUX does IPV6 as well as IPV4.
Pi or PC makes no difference.
--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your  
oppressors." 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
There's no reason to setup IPv6 in a properly setup IPv4 environment depending on your needs and requirements for them, either.
--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will  
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
You still need to enable IPv4 or have an IPv6 to IPv4 gateway to access the vast majority of sites which are still IPv4 only.
---druck
Reply to
druck
Depends on your needs..
--
Doug McIntyre 
doug@themcintyres.us
Reply to
Doug McIntyre
You can perfectly well have an IPv6 firewall in your router, not conceptually different from the IPv4 firewall we expect to see today.
NAT is not a security measure. People presumably assume it is because it is typically codeployed with an IPv4 firewall, but it?s the firewall that is protecting your network, not the NAT.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Reply to
Richard Kettlewell
ISTR your construed example relies on packets to and/or from RFC1918 subnets managing to traverse the internet?
Reply to
Andy Burns
?? The firewall is in the router and the concept for IPv4 and IPv6 is exactly the same: place the device behind your router and it's private (except with IPv6 it has a public address which can be enormously useful, but it still cannot receive unsollicited traffic!), place it beside your router and it's public.
Without IPv6, everyone will slowly move to carrier grade NAT, which is a nightmare if you want to do anything except the most basic consumption of data (ie. connect to it from the outside).
Reply to
A. Dumas
One of my firewall rules exists to prevent such packets entering my LAN, without it I'd be wide open to such attacks. Admittedly they're very difficult to launch due to the prevalence of rules blocking such packets but he is right it's the firewall rules that keep them out not NAT.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays 
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
The point of the example is to demonstrate that it?s not the NAT which actually implements the policy, it?s a packet filter. The actual addresses aren?t really relevant.
If you think that RFC1918 addressing can stop packets chosen by an attacker from reaching your router then you?re assuming that: * your ISP cannot be hacked * your ISP cannot be coerced by the state * your ISP?s staffed cannot be bribed or blackmailed * your ISP?s staff are not themselves the attacker
These aren?t realistic assumptions.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Reply to
Richard Kettlewell
Explain to me how your IPV4 client can specify an IPV6 target, without being in itself IPV6?
--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight  
and understanding". 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Idk. 4to6 gateway? What did I say that prompted this? For me, there is no crossover.
Reply to
A. Dumas

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.