[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 02:06:30PM +0100, Joern Nettingsmeier wrote: >>>> if you have a solution for this, irc would become my choice i guess ;D > > hmmm... i have a solution now: http://checkip.dyndns.org/
wow. now that is totally amazing technology. i wonder who rewrites the html each time a new user connects? probably outsourced to india... >> the way i see it, if you want to netjack between two natted hosts, >> there's no easy way around port forwardings on both ends. which is fine > > i dont want to get around port forwarding. > there is still the possibility to use UPNP to open the > port. anybody knows a library or code fragment for this ? > it would at least provide for randomized port numbers. > (If your router supports it... mine does, but i deactivated it ;S hmm. i haven't looked into it, but my gut feeling is that upnp merely adds a network transparency layer to each known exploit in the world... but i may have grown old and grumpy, so ignore me. >> imho, since we are not competing with skype here, are we? > > hmmm... i guess skype is not competing with us ;) > we are providing N channel support, midi transport, > low-latency lan operation. A musical codec... > transport synchronisation. i know :) what i meant is: people who want to use netjack are advanced users who run their own linux studio. for them, setting up a port forward is no dark magic. so we don't have to compete with skype in terms of one-click-installability. in all other aspects, we are of course going to have them for breakfast :) i'd rather have this additional barrier of manual setup than to have to activate upnp in my studio network. additionally, i might also want to get additional firewall rules in place to permit only specific source ips (which should be trivial to automate if the connection information is available via jabber). > hehe :) > i need to research the possibility for cloud DSPing :D > ie rent your lexicon to other studios... lol. or record to 16 track 2 inch at some remote location that still has the tape wizards to maintain one :-D (and yes, the telcoms could be at yet another facility - but i'm getting carried away...) >> for the simple case (both end points have real ip addresses), some >> simple directory script (such as the icecast streamer list) might >> suffice, but the cool thing about the jabber idea is you can ssl it and >> maybe also use it to agree on a login procedure without having to post >> your ip (and hence, your open netjack port) for all the world to see. > > yes. this is my intent. > now with the possibility to detect own IP i can decide between irc or > jabber. i dont even need to modify jabberd. > And irc would still require cloaks to hide ips. so i guess i will go > with jabber. > > jabber already has buddy list etc implemented, and i dont need to think > about this. > > Paul seems to also like the idea. the problem might only be, that > dreamhost prohibits irc like services. But this is just a presence > service. do you think that a properly setup jabberd that requires registration would fall under this exclusion rule? i'm running a torrent mirror at a hoster that explicitly forbids file sharing, but when i explained to them the nature and licensing of the material provided (it's not warez or moviez) and gave them figures of bandwidth usage, they gave me the thumbs up. -- jörn nettingsmeier home://germany/45128 essen/lortzingstr. 11/ http://spunk.dnsalias.org phone://+49/201/491621 _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
