On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
> I concur. In fact, I was surprised that not a single one of the many P2P
> solutions presented at the recent excellent CODECON made any mention of
> support for IPv6, which can be easily be added to just about any P2P
> application, while every presenter
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>So if your P2P application is IPv6 compatible, you can get a semi
>permanent IPv6 IP automatically from a server, and thereafter do peer to
>peer, just as if you were full, no kidding, on the internet.
This nicely solves the problem with NATs, true.
On 28 Apr 2002 at 16:20, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> > How exactly does the introduction of IPV6 on a machine that is
> > NAT-ted by the ISP who doesn't give shit about IPV6 help the
> > situation ?
James A. Donald:
> To connect to the IPV6 world from inside a NAT network, you need a
> machine that is
--
On 28 Apr 2002 at 16:20, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> How exactly does the introduction of IPV6 on a machine that is
> NAT-ted by the ISP who doesn't give shit about IPV6 help the
> situation ?
To connect to the IPV6 world from inside a NAT network, you need a
machine that is both inside and out
> I concur. In fact, I was surprised that not a single one of the many P2P
> solutions presented at the recent excellent CODECON made any mention of
> support for IPv6, which can be easily be added to just about any P2P
> application, while every presenter bemoaned the fact that the existence
> of
On 28 Apr 2002 at 0:15, Lucky Green wrote:
> I concur. In fact, I was surprised that not a single one of the many P2P
> solutions presented at the recent excellent CODECON made any mention of
> support for IPv6, which can be easily be added to just about any P2P
> application, while every present
James wrote:
> IPV6 to the rescue.
>
> Every network behind a NAT router should set up a 6to4
> tunnel, probably some time early in 2003.
>
> IPv6 is almost source code compatible with IPv4, so every
> application should soon be recompiled to be IPv6 compatible.
>
> Every computer with a rece
--
On 18 Feb 2002 at 14:37, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> we still need one of the machines to be outside a firewall. I
> think what anonymous is describing is the situation when each
> and every non-corporate customer is behind a firewall owned by
> an ISP, corporations shield their employees behin
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Adam Back wrote:
>and when someone wants to connect to it and can't they connect to the
>super-node and the super-node tells the unreachable node over the
>already open connection to connect back to the connecting machine.
Of course, that approach could be extended do the po
I think the asymmetric up/down speed is not as much a problem for
peer2peer as anonymous fears. Morpheus has demonstrated that the
approach of having a single request served by multiple servers works
well. A cable modem users download speed can be merrily supplied by
dozens of even dialup, or ot
10 matches
Mail list logo
