-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > an important feature of Freenet 0.7 will be that it doesn't > require NATs to be reconfigured because it uses NAT traversal, > from what I can tell from your website, I2P doesn't > support that.
We have had NAT traversal for a while now. It was described in the SSU specs [1] that I sent to toad for comment sometime in the early summer, and deployed in 0.6.0.6 [2]. (yes, we're ahead of our roadmap) I2P isn't that scary, you could probably inform yourself a little better about the field you're working in by trying things out. Or at least reading up on how things progress. [1] http://dev.i2p.net/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/i2p/router/doc/udp.html?rev=HEAD [2] http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2005-September/000919.html > More fundamentally, Freenet provides functionality similar to that > of a DHT, how can it make sense to build on a platform that > already contains a DHT? We want to explore a different part of > the design space. This argument has never carried any water with me. It is, quite literally, Not Invented Here. "Why do X?" "Because someone else is already doing Y." I don't care about technology, I care about results. What will help real live people. You keep saying you care about results too, but its seems thats true only if they require your particular algorithm of the month. =jr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDT8VaWYfZ3rPnHH0RAvYhAJ949XTT0d2DP3MNZQzD/y8v6oSkpgCeK7aY tID3FkFooq5K/7cQPzw5Rxg= =MHX3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
