<DIV>i downloaded Rodi source code. I checked out how the NAT stuff worked...and well, didn't understand it too well. it seemed it was using a thread to send messages to itself so it could discover its global port?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>would you mind explaining how it works in detail?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>lemon<BR><BR><B><I>larytet.8753341@bloglines.com</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">i make it on dayly basis using http://larytet.sourceforge.net/btRat.shtml<BR><BR><BR><BR>--- Peer-to-peer development." <P2P-HACKERS@ZGP.ORG wrote:<br>In my ongoing<BR>quest for real-world data, do you know of any significant <BR>> P2P deployments<BR>that hole-punch through symmetric NATs?<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> As you know, the simple<BR>"rendezvous" hole-punching approach described by <BR>> Bryan Ford's paper [1]<BR>suggests that upwards of 82% of all NATs can have <BR>> holes punched on the<BR>assumption that "consistent endpoint translation" <BR>> is in place (and thanks<BR>to the IETF-BEHAVE group, this number will only <BR>> improve). This means<BR>if you establish outbound UDP sessions from the <BR>> same private endpoint<BR>to two separate locations, your NAT will assign <BR>> the same public endpoint<BR>to each. This allows me to contact you without
<BR>> "guessing" what NAT<BR>port you might be using.<BR>> <BR>> [1] http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/<BR><BR>> <BR>> But as Bryan describes, symmetric NATs make no such consistent <BR>><BR>translation, and thus each outbound session is assigned a unique public <BR>> endpoint by the NAT. This complicates hole punching, but doesn't <BR>> prevent<BR>it. To punch through symmetric NATs you must, based on <BR>> knowledge of one<BR>of a peer's public NAT endpoints, intelligently guess <BR>> the others.<BR>> <BR><BR>> <BR>> So hole punching through symmetric NATs is difficult, and Bryan suggests<BR><BR>> not worth the effort. I'm curious what you think, however. Have you<BR><BR>> tried it and found it useful in the real world?<BR>> <BR>> In theory it can<BR>get you better than 82% success ratio of hole punching, <BR>> but I'm not sure<BR>if it gets you only to 85% or 90% or 99% or what. Do <BR>> you know of any<BR>success
(or failure) stories of hole punching through <BR>> symmetric NATs in<BR>the real world?<BR>> <BR>> -david<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR><BR>> p2p-hackers mailing list<BR>> p2p-hackers@zgp.org<BR>> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers<BR><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Here is a web page listing<BR>P2P Conferences:<BR>> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences<BR><BR>> <BR>_______________________________________________<BR>p2p-hackers mailing list<BR>p2p-hackers@zgp.org<BR>http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:<BR>http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>You don't get no juice unless you squeeze<br>Lemon Obrien, the Third.<p>
<hr size=1>Discover Yahoo!<br>
Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=32658/*http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html">Check it out!</a>