Hi, thank you it is very interesting! I was wondering if:
1) are there subsequent other results with larger scale number of nodes? 2) is the software to track those number available somewhere? Thanks. Best regards, Alessio Pace. On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 9:37 PM, David Barrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aha, tracked down the original post, on the BEHAVE list. > > > http://www.nabble.com/RE%3A-Re%3A-removing-application-milestone-td11622258.html#a11628671 > > Here's the data itself: > > > Type Count Connectivity Open Time > > Fullcone 150 (9%) 92% 1056ms > > Fullstatic 397 (25%) 94% 867ms > > Fw 68 (4%) 2% 374ms > > Rstrcone 598 (37%) 89% 706ms > > Rstrstatic 82 ( 5%) 91% 769ms > > symmetric 293 (18%) 94% 906ms > > > > This is read as "598 tested clients had a restricted cone NAT (making up > 37% > > of all clients tested), with an average peer connectivity success rate of > > 89%". ("FullStatic" and "Rstrstatic" means a non-NAT'd client with > endpoint > > independent/dependent filtering, respectively; "Fw" means a client that > > failed our STUN operation and thus might just have UDP blocked > altogether; > > "Open Time" is the time it took to establish the connection and begin > > sending actual connection data.) > > > > fullcone fullstatic fw rstrcone rstrstatic symmetric > > fullcone 98% 96% 0% 96% 94% 98% > > fullstatic 97% 97% 5% 97% 90% 98% > > fw 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% > > rstrcone 96% 97% 0% 16% 66% 27% > > rstrstatic 94% 92% 0% 66% 100% > > symmetric 98% 98% 0% 12% 100% > > > > Here are the pairwise peer connectivities. As you can see, this is a > pretty > > small test (only maybe 1000 total clients), an thus not all pairwise > > scenarios got tested (ie, no rstrstatic:symmetric or symmetric:symmetric > > tests were attempted). > > > > Thus I wouldn't put too much faith in those numbers (especially anything > > claiming 100%) until I have numbers on a broader scale. For some reason > I'm > > seeing peer connectivity problems at larger scales (average peer > > connectivity across the board is 90% in the above case, but drops to 40% > > when tested on 10x the clients), and I'm still ironing them out (there > > appears to be a problem in my test infrastructure). > > > > Basically, I'd love to see some results on ICE in the above format, as > > that'll let me do an apples-to-apples comparison of it versus mine. > > > > -david > > > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers >
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
