I call bs on the 85%
from my experience and findings, and being told by, microsoft's tcp-ip driver
does not support tcp-sync-connect
now i could be wrong; cause once i learned that, i said, shit, why go
on...but udp is, well, udp.
the problem is, programmers want to only understand javascript and php. udp
is tough, hard, and you'll have to make an architecutre around it. that is, if
you want to stream data using udp throughout your system.
dat called high-tech.
Carlos Kamienski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear all,
I'd like to know what type of experiences you have about the rate of succesfull
direct communications (without relaying) of peers behind NAT, both for TCP and
UDP and for different scenarios, like home and corporate users.
There are some results reported like the one for STUNT
(http://nutss.net/pub/imc05-tcpnat.pdf), which says that "TCP NAT Traversal can
work 85%-90% of the time" (
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/midcom/current/msg03848.html).
However, other reports don't seem to be so encouraging, like
http://www.paradial.com/storage/Elements/CallCompletion.pdf.
What are the best approaches for TCP and UDP? STUN, STUNT, ICE,....?
The thing is that we need peers to establish direct communication (no realying)
for both TCP and UDPand I like to know the best approaches to do that and the
best existing solutions for that.
Thanks
Carlos
--
"There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking
about."
John von Neumann _______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
You don't get no juice unless you squeeze
Lemon Obrien, the Third.
http://www.tamago.us
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
