On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:32:08 +0100, Toad wrote:
and most of the rest are
behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT problems? It
ought to be fairly simple to encapsulate the TCP-packets in UDP.
/Ole
and most of the rest are
behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT problems? It
ought to be fairly simple to encapsulate the TCP-packets in UDP.
Doesn't STUN involve connections to a centralised server? If so, we
Roger Oksanen wrote:
Tunneling packets in UDP when both hosts are behind NAT has the
following problems:
* Generic NAT tunneling implementations don't work; They require
that one host is on a routable address.
Not true in 85% of cases, most NATs will forward UDP packets that come
from a host
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 21 May 2004 18:15, Ian Clarke wrote:
Roger Oksanen wrote:
Tunneling packets in UDP when both hosts are behind NAT has the
following problems:
* Generic NAT tunneling implementations don't work; They require
that one host is on a
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:44:20PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:32:08 +0100, Toad wrote:
and most of the rest are
behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :)
Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT problems? It
ought to be fairly
Umm. I was told that most NATs would use the port number to forward
packets from any and all external hosts to the one internal PC that has
used a given port.. is that wrong?
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 06:48:42PM +0300, Roger Oksanen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On
In any case, is it fair to say that we will probably need some sort of
introduction over the network for anything like this to work? i.e. we
will need a way to send a message to a node we are not directly
connected to, through the network?
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:36:16PM +0100, Toad wrote:
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 07:37:25PM +0100, Toad wrote:
In any case, is it fair to say that we will probably need some sort of
introduction over the network for anything like this to work? i.e. we
will need a way to send a message to a node we are not directly
connected to, through the network?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 21 May 2004 22:10, Ole Tange wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Roger Oksanen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 21 May 2004 16:44, Ole Tange wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:32:08 +0100, Toad wrote:
and
