"ENEM | Hans Melgers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We have quite some problems because of poor udp support in adsl routers
Just curious, are you referring to the fact that these devices delete the internal-ip/external-port mappings more quickly than callbacks expire? The Asterisk IAX protocol deals with this by using a "ping pong ball" packet, although I suppose that's more tolerable when you consider the fact that it's designed as a media transport, so those sorts of transfers are negligible compared to the bulk data. > and blocked ports in firewalls. My personal experience is that most places blocking UDP are also blocking TCP and forcing users to use an HTTP proxy for all internet access. I'm actually interested in knowing about the prevalence of anything that falls in-between (NATted TCP but no UDP). I know it's possible, of course; are there any network devices that do this by default, or is it usually the case that networks configured this way are setup this way deliberately? I know it sounds like a hideous idea, but if AFS-over-TCP ever happens, I think tunnelling it inside HTTP would be a pretty useful hack. Given the way that most NATs work, it's actually possible to do something called "unreliable TCP". I've never seen this mentioned before, but I can't be the first person to think of it. The idea is that you "speak TCP" but always ACK all packets periodically, regardless of whether or not you got them -- the NAT can't tell the difference. So you get UDP-type performance with TCP-type compatability. With many NATs you wouldn't even need to bother with the ACKs at all. - a _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
