Re: Proposal: UP&P

Matthew Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]> Thu, 8 Mar 2007 13:01:06 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.network.freenet.technical
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

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

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

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 189 B)

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

iD8DBQFF8AkSA9rUluQ9pFARAnt1AJ4jwneUMcwMpmRxLBCY7X7A2yFEvwCeJIZS
UBrDrPF/VsvpWvaTdubEpGs=
=OBnJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----