On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:22:02AM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > > 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 > NAT-to-NAT connections should work without UPnP, NAT-PMP or manual port > forwarding.
If that is the case then we can even use TCP - provided that we identify the rewritten port number if any, and that we open a connection to another node... -------------- 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/c3795f54/attachment.pgp>
