ExternalVendorCode/ZeroTierOne
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne.git synced 2025-01-18 02:40:13 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

No reason to randomly pick uPnP secondary port. In fact it would likely cause problems on restarts and uPnP rule bloat.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Adam Ierymenko 2015-10-01 14:40:28 -07:00
parent 2fa21aa676
commit 72e7e36a5b
1 changed files with 2 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
service/OneService.cpp
View File

@ -493,10 +493,8 @@ public:
// (cough Ubiquity Edge cough) barf up a lung if you do both conventional
// NAT-t and uPnP from behind the same port. I think this is a bug, but
// everyone else's router bugs are our problem. :P
for(int k=0;k<256;++k) {
unsigned int randp = 0;
Utils::getSecureRandom(&randp,sizeof(randp));
unsigned int upnport = 40000 + (randp % 25500);
for(int k=0;k<512;++k) {
unsigned int upnport = 40000 + (((port + 1) * (k + 1)) % 25500);
_v4UpnpLocalAddress = InetAddress(0,upnport);
_v4UpnpUdpSocket = _phy.udpBind((const struct sockaddr *)&_v4UpnpLocalAddress,reinterpret_cast<void *>(&_v4UpnpLocalAddress),131072);