Re: [freenet-support] NAT Freenet
On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 11:05:14PM -0700, Galen wrote: Hi, One of the places where I would like to use freenet is behind NAT. I know all about port mapping, but this simply isn't available in this situation. What is the hope of running Freenet? I know virtually every other protocol has implemented support for NAT as part of (or before) becoming mainstream... if this doesn't exist in freenet as of now, it might be something important if freenet were to ever become widely used. No, they haven't. Please try running a web server behind a NAT that you can't forward ports on. Or ssh. Or any number of other client/server protocols. To answer your question, freenet stable build 5077, or recent freenet unstable builds (60077 is current), will work a lot better in such a situation than previous builds. However, the node will still not be a proper member of the network because it cannot receive incoming connections, and thus will not perform as well as it could. I don't think your anonymity is seriously jeopardized by being behind a NAT, but I'm not absolutely sure on that one. Implementing a means for sending a message through the network to tell a NATted node to open a connection to another node is something that we might implement, but probably not before 0.6. -Galen -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] NAT Freenet
One of the places where I would like to use freenet is behind NAT. I know all about port mapping, but this simply isn't available in this situation. What is the hope of running Freenet? I know virtually every other protocol has implemented support for NAT as part of (or before) becoming mainstream... if this doesn't exist in freenet as of now, it might be something important if freenet were to ever become widely used. No, they haven't. Please try running a web server behind a NAT that you can't forward ports on. Or ssh. Or any number of other client/server protocols. I was thinking of P2P file transfer protocols. Bittorrent, gnutella, fasttrack, etc. Uploading doesn't always work really great, but downloading is quite decent. Bittorrent seems to have zero problems saturating upstream bandwidth on many torrents that are 100% behind NAT. I classified (mentally) freenet as a P2P, but it's more like a server-to-server for best performance. To answer your question, freenet stable build 5077, or recent freenet unstable builds (60077 is current), will work a lot better in such a situation than previous builds. However, the node will still not be a proper member of the network because it cannot receive incoming connections, and thus will not perform as well as it could. I don't think your anonymity is seriously jeopardized by being behind a NAT, but I'm not absolutely sure on that one. Implementing a means for sending a message through the network to tell a NATted node to open a connection to another node is something that we might implement, but probably not before 0.6. I've just downloaded the latest stable build of freenet and we'll see how it works. You'll be hearing from me again. -Galen ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] NAT Freenet
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:41:56 -0700, Galen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking of P2P file transfer protocols. Bittorrent, gnutella, fasttrack, etc. Uploading doesn't always work really great, but downloading is quite decent. Bittorrent seems to have zero problems saturating upstream bandwidth on many torrents that are 100% behind NAT. I classified (mentally) freenet as a P2P, but it's more like a server-to-server for best performance. Bittorrent works _really_ lousy for downloading if you don't open up a bunch of ports in the firewall/NAT. ___/ _/ -- http://troed.se - controversial views or common sense? ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] NAT Freenet
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:07:15PM +0200, Troed S?ngberg wrote: On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:41:56 -0700, Galen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking of P2P file transfer protocols. Bittorrent, gnutella, fasttrack, etc. Uploading doesn't always work really great, but downloading is quite decent. Bittorrent seems to have zero problems saturating upstream bandwidth on many torrents that are 100% behind NAT. I classified (mentally) freenet as a P2P, but it's more like a server-to-server for best performance. Bittorrent works _really_ lousy for downloading if you don't open up a bunch of ports in the firewall/NAT. Yup, Blizzard had major problems with this when they started offering vids only via torrent to save bandwidth... it didn't help that they didn't provide a bandwidth slider in their custom clients (and didn't provide a link to the .torrent files directly either). -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] NAT Freenet
No, they haven't. Please try running a web server behind a NAT that you can't forward ports on. Or ssh. Or any number of other client/server protocols. I was thinking of P2P file transfer protocols. Bittorrent, gnutella, fasttrack, etc. Uploading doesn't always work really great, but downloading is quite decent. Bittorrent seems to have zero problems saturating upstream bandwidth on many torrents that are 100% behind NAT. I classified (mentally) freenet as a P2P, but it's more like a server-to-server for best performance. You always get far more responses if you're forwarding the ports. Quite simply there is no way for two firewalled users to communicate without at least one forwarding ports. All those P2P programs do is restrict you to connecting to users who're not hiding behind a NAT device, and if they want to download a file from you they send a message via the network to open a connection to them. -- Phillip Hutchings [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sitharus.com/ ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] NAT Freenet
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:07:49PM +1200, Phillip Hutchings wrote: No, they haven't. Please try running a web server behind a NAT that you can't forward ports on. Or ssh. Or any number of other client/server protocols. I was thinking of P2P file transfer protocols. Bittorrent, gnutella, fasttrack, etc. Uploading doesn't always work really great, but downloading is quite decent. Bittorrent seems to have zero problems saturating upstream bandwidth on many torrents that are 100% behind NAT. I classified (mentally) freenet as a P2P, but it's more like a server-to-server for best performance. You always get far more responses if you're forwarding the ports. Quite simply there is no way for two firewalled users to communicate without at least one forwarding ports. All those P2P programs do is restrict you to connecting to users who're not hiding behind a NAT device, and if they want to download a file from you they send a message via the network to open a connection to them. Indeed. Which is what we could eventually do. You can connect directly to users not behind NAT, and others can connect to you by sending a message to one of your peers asking for you to open a connection to them. There is also some possibility of getting routers to port forward using UPnP (there is a java implementation), or of using UDP (which is automatically forwarded by a lot of NATs). -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] NAT Freenet
- Original Message - From: Galen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:05 AM Subject: [freenet-support] NAT Freenet Hi, One of the places where I would like to use freenet is behind NAT. I know all about port mapping, but this simply isn't available in this situation. What is the hope of running Freenet? I know virtually every other protocol has implemented support for NAT as part of (or before) becoming mainstream... if this doesn't exist in freenet as of now, it might be something important if freenet were to ever become widely used. It is planned for.. not there yet though But.. due to the new BiDi facilities (in current unstable) my non-NATed node have started working suprisingly well.. /N ___ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
