On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > Masquerading NATs do allow transient nodes to work normally, though. > > NO! Don't tell me how it works - I wrote the code in question and the > protcol specification. A Freenet node, transient or not, needs to be > able to accept new TCP connections from the Internet to work. A host > behind a Masquerading NAT cannot do this (unless it has a port foward), > so it will not work.
I stand corrected. > Showing it has failed to connect to that node 356 times. This is not a > non-transient node that it is trying to route to - the node is not dumb > enough to try a broken route 356 times - this is a transient node > that didn't received the response it was due 356 times. How about having a queue of recent request replies which could not be delivered? Whenever the transient node behind a firewall connects to another node, the non-transient node could check whether it has any replies to deliver and deliver them whenever the connection is idle. > The myth that transient nodes work behind firewalls is hurtful to users > whose time is wasted through frustrating performance (as if it isn't bad > enough as it is) and hurtful to the network since the public nodes > resources are wasted on failed connection attempts and pointless > requests. Please stop perpetuating it. Will do. BTW, is there an up-to-date documentation of FNP out there somewhere? -- Mika Hirvonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://nightwatch.mine.nu/ _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
