David Barrett wrote:
On the topic of UPnP, does anyone have any advice on whether to use the
IUPnPNAT interface in Win32 versus going straight to the UPnP layer?
Stay as far away from IUPnPNAT as possible. This bundle of joy tends
to randomly fail perfectly valid requests with undocumented return
codes. It also depends on SSDP service, which is frequently painted
as a major security hole and therefore scares users off.
As I understand it, IUPnPNAT is a wrapper/helper atop the lower-level UPnP
interfaces. Is there any advantage to going with the low-level route versus
sticking with the helper?
Alternatively, Alex, how difficult did you find it to write your own UPnP
code from scratch?
It took me a couple of days to write everything from scratch (zero
external dependencies), but that clearly depends on your development
style and experience.
And finally, does anybody use UPnP for anything other than NAT port mapping?
Can you, for example, query a gateway's realtime bandwidth usage using UPnP
somehow?
-david
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Saikat Guha
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 7:24 AM
To: Peer-to-peer development.
Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Real-world UPnP stats
On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 11:56 -0700, Alex Pankratov wrote:
We've recently added UPnP support to our client software and
now I got some server-side stats and they are most interesting.
Check this out -
Roughly a half of all clients that reported success talking to
their 'routers' and establishing TCP/UDP port mappings were
still inaccessible from an outside via their mapped ports.
Interesting. Some reasons for this I can think of are as follows:
- If I recall, UPnP on a NAT that is behind yet another NAT doesn't work
well (since the UPnP Internet Gateway Device on most NATs
typically doesn't act as a client for the outer NAT's UPnP IGD). This
comes into play when some connects a wireless router to their existing
wired-only NAT or something.
- UPnP doesn't have nice crash semantics. If an application registers a
mapping, crashes, is restarted, and re-registers the same mapping, some
NATs ignore the new registration while other NATs silently reap the old
mapping. The first case would result in broken behavior.
- On the flip side, if two different applications register the same
mapping, the latter mapping may silently override the former mapping or
alternatively, the latter may get silently ignored. Either way, one of
the applications suffers.
Anyone care to comment or compare this to their own numbers ?
While I don't have numbers, I suspect UPnP success rate (for NATs that
support UPnP) would depend on the application as well as the topology
common for the target user population.
As a side note, if you want to test UPnP functionality, target Japanese
users -- based on anecdotal evidence, UPnP seems far more popular in the
far east than anywhere else.
cheers,
--
Saikat
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers@zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers@zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
