-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Toad wrote:

| On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 10:29:24PM -0000, Simon Porter wrote:
|
|>Home users on the other hand generally don't turn off UPnP :P
|
|
| Indeed. We found a free implementation in java, but it looked rather
| generic, we would need documentation on how to configure UPnP routers as
| well.
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| _______________________________________________
| Devl mailing list
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

What implementation is it?

I found a few resource:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-igd/ - The Linux Internet Gateway
Device - an implementation of Microsoft's Internet Connection Sharing (a
software-based UPnP router actually). Might not hurt to take a look.
(Actually, there are several UPnP utilities, found them by search for
"UPnP" on Sourceforge. Most, again, are for Linux, but taking a look at
the source code would help solve that mystery)

Here's the UPnP specification:
http://www.upnp.org/download/UPnPDA10_20000613.htm

And if all else fails, a few of us could contribute some packet captures
of UPnP in action for various routers.

However, sometimes one is behind a NAT that one cannot control (like
from some ISP, like DirecTV satellite and Spain's major broadband ISP).
IN that case, one would have to use the "Ask the node I'm contacting
what my IP address/port is" approach. (asking for the port probably a
good idea anyway in the event the port "hole" on the router is different
from the port Freenet is running on.)

For impenetrable NAT's one could implement a "passive" mode. The NAT'd
node would contact a non NAT'd node, and ask it for a port to connect
to, FTP-style. The NAT'd node could then connect. Such a node could me
permanent instead of transient. The only problem is such nodes could
talk directly to non-NAT'd nodes, but with UPnP, such nodes would be a
minority. (Multiplexing might solve this problem though).

There are more important thing to do (like actually getting routing to
work), but it might not be a bad idea to revisit these ideas at a later
time, and to think about the next time the appropriate regions of code
need to be changed anyway, even a "hook" for a future implementation.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/taKghctESbvQ8ZwRAqUCAKCUUk/4giFONfwx696TjON7+DiCEwCglEHK
57QQwWqF/f3Gn5CiEp9yzD8=
=dzLu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to