Hi Alex, > I do care, but, sorry, can't share. It is not 99% though, I can tell you > this much. At some point I made a comment on this list, that 97-98% should > be achievable. Since then we added TCP NAT traversal and a handful of UDP > traversal tricks. On other hand Hamachi's userbase profile has changed. > Specifically, the percentage of home users (behind dumb routers) declined in > favor of people behind proxies and other funny devices (e.g. load > balancers). We got more people connecting from far places (hop count and > latency-wise) as well. So the number works out to be about the same as it > was before. With just the home users I suspect we would've been in 95-97% > range, though I might be off. >
Do you mean 95-97% for both TCP and UDP? Carlos The IETF is pushing a protocol named ICE, but nobody knows how well it works > (Adam – have you come up with any numbers yet?). > > > > Overall, it's much harder than it looks, even in the "simple" cases. The > basic algorithm is: > > > > 1) Figure out the IP address of each node's NAT > > 2) Share each node's pair of (LAN,NAT) IPs with the other node via some > central server > > 3) Try to connect over both the LAN and NAT addresses. > > 4) Apply a lot of voodoo tricks > > 5) Oftentimes it works > > > > Everybody seems to use a variation on this algorithm, though Alex recently > made some suspicious comments suggesting otherwise… > > The way you described it, my comment still stands. I cannot elaborate > more, but it is possible to deduce what Hamachi does differently. > > > > Alex > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers > > -- "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
