Matthew Toseland:
> Doing it the protocol way would only help the minority of users
> who are behind NATs, but CAN set up a port forward and CAN'T set
> up a dyndns client.
As I just pointed out in another reply, users are asked to port
forward by many applications.
Freenet would just be one more.
Dependence on a third-party dyndns provider is not necessary and
should not be required.
It is not a matter of can versus can't. I would probably choose not
to install Freenet if I had to spend hours finding a free dyndns
service and configuring my system to update the records in their
special proprietary way. I'm perfectly capable of doing this; in
fact, I have done it in the past. But I won't. It is just trouble.
On the other hand, I'll be happy to add
iptables -A PREROUTING -t nat -p tcp --dport 42332 -j DNAT --to
192.168.1.3:42332
to my /etc/sysstart script. A user with a Windows NAT box would
surely need to do something equally simple, and the same thing goes
for someone who owns a port-forward capable hardware NAT box.
_______________________________________________
devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
