Bill Pringlemeir wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> UPnP : ??? (no)
>
> > NIH.
>
> >> NAT traversal : ??? (no)
> >> NAT port mapping : ??? (no)
>
> > Only the usual UDP hole punching.
>
> >> F2F[2] : ??? fire wall to fire wall???
>
> At first, I thought this was sort of lame. All four items are related
> to the ability to accept connections. I guess this is important for
> GNET as it is one of the few protocols without centralized servers, so
> the average user must allow connections if they want to be an ultra.
LimeWire's NAT-to-NAT protocol is only for file transfers. They don't support
it for Gnutella connections or anything else. I'm not sure why but I guess it's
because the protocol is rather simplistic, so they impliciticely rely on TTH
for error detection. Since Gnutella connections are already packet-based, one
might wonder why TCP was used in the first place and especially why it's the
only option. A part of the NAT-to-NAT trick is that both sides sent UDP packets
to each other, so without a third-party who tells to other one to start
sending these you can't initiate a connection unless one side allows UDP
packets at least on the given port from anywhere.
I call it NAT-to-NAT because it has really nothing to do with penetrating
firewalls, so the term is just misleading. For what it's worth, 6to4 can often
penetrate NAT routers and sometimes even firewalls just fine and it works even
behind NAT providing real end-to-end communication.
> Also, it seems very trivial to setup your network to allow
> connections. However, given the technical abilities of the average
> Windows user, I can see why these are emphasised.
I suspect the only reason ISPs ever came up with this (DSL) router stuff is
that they realized it would cripple to connection sufficiently for most
customers so that they wouldn't be able to run servers which as a rule of thumb
cause more traffic. I mean DSL modems just work, they are not vulnerable to DoS
attacks like most routers, they are certainly cheaper. So what's the point of
shipping routers, often even for "free"? Even for a Windos user a firewall
(which a router isn't, it's just a crippling wall), is fairly unnecessary
because 90% (if not more) of the harm is done by the user itself by downloading
trojans, worms, viruses through the web and email.
> There is a open source libupnp; but the quality seems lacking.
I don't have such a device anyway and it even seems to be a Linux thing,
so I wouldn't be able to test it.
> I notice that gtkg is not mentioned on the bitzi page ("http://bitzi.com/";).
> Bearshare, limewire, shareaza, xolox, mldonkey, phex, trusty files,
> aquisition, mutella, and morpheus are there. Is there a gtkg gif (88x31)
> that could be sent to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? Or do they want more than magnet
> links and bitzi queries?
No, I don't think so. I believe some of those above just open an URL in
your web browser or even explicitely MSIE. The image you attached is fine
by me. Feel free to sent it to them.
--
Christian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Gtk-gnutella-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk-gnutella-devel
