Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 09:05:52AM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
>
>> On Jun 2, 2006, at 8:18 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:13:55AM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the first thing to do is to add a warning, when the node is
>>>> spending more than XXX% of it's bandwidth/time checking node status.
>>>>
>>> Possibly.
>>>
>> Great. This is fairly trivial, but lets people know that they are
>> being stupid.
>>
>
> I'm not promising anything. But you can file a bug for it. :)
>
>
>> Example- Nodes A, B, C and D.
>>
>>
>> Nodes A and B are running 24/7
>> They exchange heartbeats every 30 secs, and punch through NATs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nodes C and D are transient- They run when the user has free
>> bandwidth, etc.
>> There is no reason that A and B should be trying to connect to these
>> machines every 30 secs....
>>
>
> There is every reason. Unless A and B are not NATted, or have
> successfully forwarded their ports. In which case, they could perhaps
> have connection backoff, and then send frequently when contacted by C
> and D. I'm not sure whether there would be any point in special casing
> this though; only experts and a few LAN-less idiots will be port
> forwarded / directly connected. It's probably better to just warn the
> user when your attempts to connect to other nodes are using most of your
> bandwidth.
>
I wonder what we could do if a node knew it didn't need hole punching or
a node knew a particular peer didn't need hole punching. (How the node
would know is irrelevant at this point in the discussion.)
