Some feedback from #azureus : <The_8472> nat traversal + UPnP + NAT-PMP can solve about 80% of the NATed problems <toad_> you have any quantitative numbers btw? <The_8472> nope <The_8472> it's 2nd-hand info i got from the devs
Anyone got anything more concrete? On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:37:52AM +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Universal Plug and Play support > =============================== > > I suggest that we need UP&P support. The main caveats are that it is not > usable on an untrusted LAN, so we need to ask the user, and that we may > not easily be able to distinguish between a local trusted LAN and an > ISP's LAN. It is also reported that UP&P works only around 50% of the > time when it is detected. > > 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. > - 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. > - 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. > - It would (mostly) eliminate the need to rely on centralised STUN servers. > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070306/e18e430c/attachment.pgp>
