On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:07:49PM +1200, Phillip Hutchings wrote: > >>No, they haven't. Please try running a web server behind a NAT that > >>you > >>can't forward ports on. Or ssh. Or any number of other client/server > >>protocols. > > > >I was thinking of P2P file transfer protocols. Bittorrent, gnutella, > >fasttrack, etc. Uploading doesn't always work really great, but > >downloading is quite decent. Bittorrent seems to have zero problems > >saturating upstream bandwidth on many torrents that are 100% behind > >NAT. I classified (mentally) freenet as a P2P, but it's more like a > >server-to-server for best performance. > > You always get far more responses if you're forwarding the ports. Quite > simply there is no way for two firewalled users to communicate without > at least one forwarding ports. All those P2P programs do is restrict > you to connecting to users who're not hiding behind a NAT device, and > if they want to download a file from you they send a message via the > network to open a connection to them.
Indeed. Which is what we could eventually do. You can connect directly to users not behind NAT, and others can connect to you by sending a message to one of your peers asking for you to open a connection to them. There is also some possibility of getting routers to port forward using UPnP (there is a java implementation), or of using UDP (which is automatically forwarded by a lot of NATs). -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
