Derek Atkins wrote: > Quoting Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > True, but a) that assumes multiple clients behind a NAT (which isn't always > the case), and b) server support to track by port was added a while ago, > even if there are still bugs in it.
The port tracking code was broken enough that it might as well have not been there. Once the connection dropped the server would always attempt to contact the client on port 7001 regardless of what port was used. If you had more than one client behind a NAT, only one of the clients would ever get callback breaks. I haven't thought through all of the ramifications of decreasing the time between pings for a large number of clients. Too be honest, I don't want to. My head hurts enough already. Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
