"It work very well" is good news, but I would also be very interested to see this statement supported by measurement results as is normal for any engineering report. Just to make it credible.
Thanks, Henry On 1/23/11 1:02 PM, "David Barrett" <dbarr...@quinthar.com> wrote: > On 01/23/2011 10:21 AM, Julian Cain wrote: >>> On 01/23/2011 09:51 AM, Valerio Schiavoni wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> related to the recently discussed topic of nat traversal, there is the >>>> topic of nat discovery: >>>> being able to detect behind which kind of NAT a peer is sitting. >>>> >>>> Although some solutions exist, they all rely on the existence of >>>> servers used for this sole purpose. >>>> >>>> What are the best practices in this regard ? >>>> How are you currently detecting your NAT type ? >>>> Can it be done in a purely decentralized fashion ? >> >> Of course, we do it in RELOAD(p2psip-base) and it works very well. > > How well is "very well"? If you don't mind sharing, what's the largest > real-world RELOAD deployment, and what fraction of nodes that attempted > to establish a direct connection were in fact able to do so? (Based on > hard data from live testing, not estimates.) I haven't followed p2psip > for a couple years, I'm eager to hear how it's progressed! > > -david > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
