On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if your P2P application is IPv6 compatible, you can get a semi
permanent IPv6 IP automatically from a server, and thereafter do peer to
peer, just as if you were full, no kidding, on the internet.
This nicely solves the problem with NATs, true.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Lucky Green wrote:
I concur. In fact, I was surprised that not a single one of the many P2P
solutions presented at the recent excellent CODECON made any mention of
support for IPv6, which can be easily be added to just about any P2P
application, while every presenter
On 28 Apr 2002 at 16:20, Morlock Elloi wrote:
How exactly does the introduction of IPV6 on a machine that is
NAT-ted by the ISP who doesn't give shit about IPV6 help the
situation ?
James A. Donald:
To connect to the IPV6 world from inside a NAT network, you need a
machine that is both
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if your P2P application is IPv6 compatible, you can get a semi
permanent IPv6 IP automatically from a server, and thereafter do peer to
peer, just as if you were full, no kidding, on the internet.
This nicely solves the problem with NATs, true.
--
On 29 Apr 2002 at 14:58, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
[IPv6] nicely solves the problem with NATs, true. However, most
firewalls I know are there for security reasons. Those will
likely be adapted to work for 6to4 as well. The transition
period will likely see some cracks where p2p can work,
James wrote:
IPV6 to the rescue.
Every network behind a NAT router should set up a 6to4
tunnel, probably some time early in 2003.
IPv6 is almost source code compatible with IPv4, so every
application should soon be recompiled to be IPv6 compatible.
Every computer with a recent
On 28 Apr 2002 at 0:15, Lucky Green wrote:
I concur. In fact, I was surprised that not a single one of the many P2P
solutions presented at the recent excellent CODECON made any mention of
support for IPv6, which can be easily be added to just about any P2P
application, while every presenter
I concur. In fact, I was surprised that not a single one of the many P2P
solutions presented at the recent excellent CODECON made any mention of
support for IPv6, which can be easily be added to just about any P2P
application, while every presenter bemoaned the fact that the existence
of
--
On 28 Apr 2002 at 16:20, Morlock Elloi wrote:
How exactly does the introduction of IPV6 on a machine that is
NAT-ted by the ISP who doesn't give shit about IPV6 help the
situation ?
To connect to the IPV6 world from inside a NAT network, you need a
machine that is both inside and
On 28 Apr 2002 at 16:20, Morlock Elloi wrote:
How exactly does the introduction of IPV6 on a machine that is
NAT-ted by the ISP who doesn't give shit about IPV6 help the
situation ?
James A. Donald:
To connect to the IPV6 world from inside a NAT network, you need a
machine that is both
--
On 28 Apr 2002 at 16:20, Morlock Elloi wrote:
How exactly does the introduction of IPV6 on a machine that is
NAT-ted by the ISP who doesn't give shit about IPV6 help the
situation ?
To connect to the IPV6 world from inside a NAT network, you need a
machine that is both inside and
--
On 18 Feb 2002 at 14:37, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
we still need one of the machines to be outside a firewall. I
think what anonymous is describing is the situation when each
and every non-corporate customer is behind a firewall owned by
an ISP, corporations shield their employees behind
I think the asymmetric up/down speed is not as much a problem for
peer2peer as anonymous fears. Morpheus has demonstrated that the
approach of having a single request served by multiple servers works
well. A cable modem users download speed can be merrily supplied by
dozens of even dialup, or
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Adam Back wrote:
and when someone wants to connect to it and can't they connect to the
super-node and the super-node tells the unreachable node over the
already open connection to connect back to the connecting machine.
Of course, that approach could be extended do the
14 matches
Mail list logo
