Taral wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:42 AM, David Barrett <dbarr...@quinthar.com> wrote: >> However, X can change. So rather than doing this once and being done >> with it, use this approach to "walk up" to a keepalive frequency that is >> "too low", then walk back "down" to a frequency that is "unnecessarily >> high", and then repeat. I've found X can change for a given router (or >> collection of routers), perhaps under load? So this keeps the system on >> its toes. > > Interesting idea. What happens if you're trying to maintain more > connections than the NAT can handle? Your X will drop to zero?
Presumably. I did most of my work in the range of 40 UDP peers, so we weren't (to my knowledge) hitting any caps there. Then again, if you're talking with more peers than your NAT can handle, aren't you screwed no matter what you do? It seems at that point you've got a bigger problem than NAT binding timeouts. -david _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
