Re: Proposal: UP&P

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

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

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

iD8DBQFF72cJA9rUluQ9pFARAor8AJ9X1hbx91yKlyX4zs4qQ0IS9xqU5gCfTpNE
Foz8zgLRO6fzC1dRy4+3e4M=
=UGpE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----