[p2p-hackers] Real-world UPnP stats

David Barrett dbarrett at quinthar.com
Mon Apr 24 23:38:25 UTC 2006

Yikes, that's pretty bad.  Did you also capture which fraction of clients
report that UPnP works at all?  We use UPnP but aren't currently tuned to
capture this information, though I'll plan to in the future.

When building your UPnP layer, did you find that the various routers were
faithful to the spec, or was there a lot of tweaking for specific NAT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Pankratov
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:56 AM
> To: Peer-to-peer development.
> Subject: [p2p-hackers] Real-world UPnP stats
> We've recently added UPnP support to our client software and
> now I got some server-side stats and they are most interesting.
> Check this out -
> Roughly a half of all clients that reported success talking to
> their 'routers' and establishing TCP/UDP port mappings were
> still inaccessible from an outside via their mapped ports.
> Our UPnP code is written from scratch, so if the client says that
> ports are mapped, there was in fact a 200 response for respective
> SOAP request from the router.
> I was expecting some degree of failures due to double NAT'ing,
> additional firewalling, etc .. but 50% ?
> Anyone care to comment or compare this to their own numbers ?
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
> _______________________________________________
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences

More information about the P2p-hackers mailing list