On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Alex Pankratov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What if you need super-high success rates for direct connectivity >> (+95%)? > > In my experience one cannot achieve these rates with client-driven > traversal, there's gotta be a coordinating third party.
Not a problem, right? Even in a purely edge-based deployment, some fraction of the nodes are going to be able to play the role of coordinator. > I meant that providing > reliability over UDP tunnels (or lossy behaviour over TCP ones) > is a subject that is not directly related to the "NAT traversal > state of the art". NAT traversal domain ends when you have two > peers talking to each other in some form or fashion. Adapting > this form to the needs of the application is a separate issue. Understood, these are separate issues. I brought them up together because as far as I can tell from the literature and reported results, TCP traversal success rates are much lower than for UDP, so if you have a real requirement for reducing relaying as much as possible, you are going to need to use UDP and deal with the consequences. I thought it would be useful to discuss the two topics together. Cheers, Alen _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
