Re: Proposal: UP&P
Matthew Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.freenet.technical |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:22:02AM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > > 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. That is definitely not the case for current Freenet users. I have hardly ever heard of full cone NATs in relation to freenet, but lots of users apparently have restricted cones; this is the preliminary conclusion of a quick survey on frost anyway. Restricted cone is the common one. > > 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) iD8DBQFF8xxeA9rUluQ9pFARAqgpAJ9RMduEenwmF8KnuSUO+3QSf5wP9gCfWr+t 4cPNLcIFeWdJhplORofszTo= =FptF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----