* Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-03-06 16:56:37]:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:09:10PM +0100, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-03-06 01:37:52]: > > > > > However: > > > - It would significantly improve connection reliability. If for example > > > all your peers are german and in germany all domestic IPs change every > > > 24 hours, if you are down for 24 hours you are lost for good. > > > > Do we have any stats regarding how many of our users are double-natted? > > I know that in france most people had DSL connectivity before the > > Wireless craze ; meaning that most users are likely to have two > > different natting appliances (the routing modem and the wireless AP). > > You are quite sure that it isn't possible to break out of a double-NAT? UP&P is a mess involving multicast and http/xml streams over udp : no : the multicast won't pass the nat. > > > > > - Right now good connectivity relies on getting a few geek nodes - nodes > > > that are directly connected or port forwarded. UP&P would increase the > > > proportion of such nodes dramatically. > > > > I am not sure it's an issue. I am idling on #freenet-refs on a regular > > basis to see how the installer performs and to see where users get > > stuck : most of them don't have connectivity problems. > > Not initially. The problem here is that somebody gets a few references, > they're all in Germany so their addresses are recycled every 24 hours. > They take their node offline for a couple of days for whatever reason. > They bring it back online and they have no connectible peers. I don't think that's why people leave... but yes, it's an issue. > > > > > - It would allow for all sorts of bootstrapping protocols. One-time > > > references are the tip of the iceberg: Anything that involves giving > > > your details well in advance of the actual connection attempt will be > > > greatly helped by UP&P support. > > > > Will be greatly helped if UP&P works : indeed. > > Right. > > > > > - It would (mostly) eliminate the need to rely on centralised STUN > > > servers. > > > > it's assuming there is no double nat : again ;)
