On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:59:30PM -0400, Dan Merillat wrote: <> > Then why is the NAT case impossible? This whole thing started specifically > because when people asked about NAT they were told "The connection will > be busy, performance will suck, fuckoff." > > If this DOES work properly, holding open 'waiting' connections for a > longer period will let transients behind NAT work most of the time.
If you go back to my original message you'll see that I wrote specifically that making transient nodes work behind a NAT would not require any major changes to the protocol. Adding ways to force the connections to stay open and to keep opening more connections for every query (or queuing replies) are exactly the protocol cludges, layer breaches, and resource wastes that I was referring to. > If it's due to threadcount, then we're back to my original summary: wait > on NBIO, then it will just work. Even with NBIO it would not be desirable to keep an endless number of connections open. So it offsets any major resource waste, but the other issues remain, and having the users in question use FCP is still preferable. And anyways, I seriously doubt you will ever see non-blocking IO in Fred. I'm not going to do it, and around here that usually means it won't get done. -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
