On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 09:50:56PM -0600, Salah Coronya wrote: > -----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.
> 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) Didn't know about that one. > > 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.) Indeed. In which case it is impossible to run a permanent node without major effort. > > 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). Eh? A permanent node MUST BE ABLE TO ACCEPT INCOMING CONNECTIONS. Perhaps this can be done by having some means of contacting the node to tell it to open a connection - but it must be able to accept incoming connections. > > 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. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
