On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Timm Murray wrote: > > We should think about how difficult it would be to allow the various > > non-streaming messages (ie. the messages that do not contain a stream of > > data) to be transmitted via UDP, as opposed to TCP. > > > > Clearly, this would require thought about how we can achieve the same > > crypto goals in a UDP packet that we achieve with a TCP connection, but > > the prize could be a massive speed-up in Freenet's searching and > > inserting performance. > > It's also one more hole you need to open in a firewall if you want a Freenet > node behind it. It will also slow down performance if the firewall is > stateful. > > Freenet has enough problems as it is dealing with firewalls. Idealy, FNP > would > make UDP for certain operations optional, and nodes could specify if they > only accept TCP connections.
Actually, WRT firewalls, UDP is nicer. Especially home nat boxes. There's a "feature" of online games that's rather entertaining. You connect to a central server via UDP, it hands your IP off to the other players, who send you UDP packets to your IP/Port that the server saw. At no time did you establish a connection with them. Because of the popularity of this, many (cheap) NATs support this "promiscious UDP" mode. I.E. As soon as we connect out to ANY freenet server via UDP, any other server can contact us via UDP on the same port. Now, since it's going to get a random UDP port, you'd need to use FNP extensions to find out who you are, but it's possible. Not all routers support this mode, but it would work for those that do. --Dan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 155 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20030320/65297d6e/attachment.pgp>
