Re: Proposal: UP&P

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
> [email protected]
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF7bWDA9rUluQ9pFARAuuuAJ98psQY5N5MNUf/VV5IzjDnccyf2ACgo5Rp
XHBYyLbeV1oThgc4acSq9M4=
=1wIM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----