On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:22:02AM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > 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? > > There are some useful stats in this paper: > http://nutss.gforge.cis.cornell.edu/pub/imc05-tcpnat.pdf > > Here's the raw data: > http://www.guha.cc/saikat/stunt-results.php > > It looks like about 70% of deployed NATs are full cone, so 81% of
If that is true, then things are a lot easier than I had thought. Linux for example doesn't normally do full cone. It is the same with UDP as with TCP? > NAT-to-NAT connections should work without UPnP, NAT-PMP or manual port > forwarding. > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- 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/20070308/be8ac984/attachment.pgp>
