On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:57:01PM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> 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? > > It seems to be slightly worse for TCP - see the brynosaurus link in my > other email. Linux and BSD software NATs are some of the worst to be > behind, but hopefully we can rely on Linux and BSD users to know how to > forward a port.
Well some routers use Linux/BSD. But most don't because cheaper hardware usually trumps cheaper software. > > 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/20070308/770a9f0e/attachment.pgp>
