2 gateways

i agree with the routing rules idea, except i give up straightaway when i look at my modem's configuration screen ... both of them are zoom brands , ones an x3 and anothers an x5... i have never used any other brands, but i thought these modems are quite popular since they seem to be in every computer shop that i look
i can do the second part of the routing , where 10.0.0.3 routes things from 10.0.0.2 to the internet (0.0.0.0) because i can find a routing table inside the config of the modem, but the first part where i select the ports to do this seems to be impossible on the modems, all i can see to do with ports at all is the virtual server which only forwards ports from the internet to specific computers on my computer...(please look at bottom of the post)
perhaps someone has written a special firmware that can change the functionality of the modem, probably the x5?this would be an ideal solution...
the other way i can think of is some kind of 'wrapper' software that makes the p2p software run like its in an OS that is configured to use 10.0.0.3... this is less ideal because the extra cpu that a wrapper like this can take...
a proxy idea doesnt sound so good after reviewing the help files of the program, it seems that it needs udp connections which proxies cant do (although www.analogx.com/contents/download/network/proxy.htm this site seems to imply that the proxy server should be able to handle udp connections, albeit this particular one cant do it on socks5 yet)... ive tried it by setting my own computer up as the proxy and sticking it to the p2p connection and its not working for several reasons, like a few that i dont understand which prevent my housemates emule from being able to access the ports, plus its deterimental to my own internet access because of windows xp sp2's limit on the maximum number of connections to my computer or something, just now i cant even open my modem's config page and i had to restart my computer... it would have been cool because the programs have built in proxy support, but unless theres a good method of setting one up ....

(please look here) hm, perhaps a way can be made, so that all the p2p ports are being forwarded from the p2p modem to the main modem via the virtual server, which is then routingtabled to 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 , but then again the connection attempt would still have been made through the main internet connection and all subsequent traffic would be returned to the main modem, and then blocked because of the lack of virtual server ports...plus the router would somehow have to tell which information packet is normal internet traffic, and which are p2p traffic, and i cant think of any way to do it.. or is it like, all the internet packets both have source and destination ports?

Proxy
With the proxy idea and the WXP blocking some connections. If you have SP2 you may want to check and make sure that the Windows Firewall is not preventing the connection.

Routing tables
Does p2p traffic have a certain characteristic? i.e. does it use a port other than 80? If you could identify the certain characteristics then maybe you could start defining routing rules? I don't know a lot about this but if you wanted to experiment you could always run a packet sniffer while running p2p so you get the finer details on the traffic.

Wrapping/Port spoofing
I have heard about netcat - see netcat.sourceforge.net/ that may allow you to do some interesting stuff in terms of spoofing port connections. I wonder if this would help with your "wrapper" idea.

What do others think, would netcat be of any use in this scenario?

ah ok thanks global youve been great help

my knowledge of networking is pretty incomplete and its not helping the situation, but i figure if
1.tcp has both source and destination ports, and if the virtual server can be modified not only to act as destination ports from the internet, but also to manage source (outgoing) ports and not only block them but also redirect them... basically what you said on your second last post...only possible with a firmware update, so i'll stop mentioning it here and start berating to Zoom Telephonics instead
2.this netcat program can do a tunneling mode that affects the interface... is this the same interface that typing route print in a command line in windows xp would bring up?because if it is, i can just change the route in windows xp that comes from this netcat-created interface to go to the appropriate router... but there are challenges for me to try to do this because im not an experienced computer user beyond windows xp and i have never even heard of those operating systems that the website claims to have tested netcat on

Carmatic

To be honest I am not familiar with netcat but here is some more info (you may need to register to get more details) www.insecure.org/tools.html .

I have also found that the links for the download on the @stake website are broken so found an alternative download site at astalavista.com www.astalavista.com/index.php?section=di...cmd=file&id=2236

The info indicates this should be usable on Windows as well as the other OS'.

From what I understand using the route add command in windows only specifies the path for traffic leaving that PC so this won't solve your problem as you are still not able to direct traffic that you receive and as Chris and Nske were saying this won't be of help with p2p as the destination IP address is not likely to be the same between sessions.

i meant the entry in route print that says something like this... i have 2 entries, each for each connection

network destination
0.0.0.0 , 0.0.0.0
netmask
255.255.255.255 , 255.255.255.255
gateway
10.0.0.2 , 10.0.0.3
interface
10.0.0.7(my computers ip address),10.0.0.7
default gateway
10.0.0.2

i will try to use netcat's tunneling and then add this route:

network destination
0.0.0.0
netmask
255.255.255.255
gateway
10.0.0.3
interface
10.0.0.x (ip address that is formed as part of the netcat tunnel... this will not work because routing tables use the absolute real ip address of the computer and not some made-up one?)

Hi carmatic

Any success?