Thanks for this hint. From the thread 
(http://zgp.org/pipermail/p2p-hackers/2006-April/003804.html) it looks like 
that different people made different experiences. Probably it would be a good 
idea to write a small UPnP-Capability-Test-Programm so that we can collect 
data for a survey. I think it is an unanswered question if and how well UPnP 
works. My perception is that it works pretty well because it is supported by 
many routers and a lot of software in UPnP-enabled. However, may be I am 
wrong. What do you think about this?

Of course, this evaluation program should not be part of freenet, instead it 
should be a separate program probably announced on the freenet website?


On Wednesday 26 April 2006 01:27, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Hmm, not good.. could you keep us informed of the results of the thread?
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:13:02AM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > This thread on p2p-hackers might be of interest...
> >
> > 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.
> > >
> > > Our UPnP code is written from scratch, so if the client says that
> > > ports are mapped, there was in fact a 200 response for respective
> > > SOAP request from the router.
> > >
> > > I was expecting some degree of failures due to double NAT'ing,
> > > additional firewalling, etc .. but 50% ?
> > >
> > > Anyone care to comment or compare this to their own numbers ?
> > >
> > > Alex
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060426/b7c165b1/attachment.pgp>

Reply via email to