On Friday 04 March 2005 00:28, Dafydd Harries wrote: > So UPnP is the sanest of the available NAT-punching protocols?
I wouldn't call UPnP "sane" in any sense of the word. It's certainly the easiest, tho. > In which cases does Shtoom need to be able to accept incoming > packets? Are these packets TCP or UDP or both? UDP. Unfortunately, it's UDP on dynamically allocated ports. If you have anything _but_ a symmetric NAT, shtoom does sufficient magic to enable it to just work, without having to change anything(*). UPnP allows shtoom to tell the NAT what ports it needs punched down, on the fly. There's a fair amount of text on this issue in an appendix to the paper I presented at OSDC2004 - see http://www.interlink.com.au/anthony/tech/talks/OSDC/shtoom-paper.txt (*) There's an issue with communications between two people who are both behind RestrictedCone-style NATs - I have a workaround planned for these, but it's awaiting some round-tuits to do the work. For now, UPnP or an outbound proxy work best for these. -- Anthony Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It's never too late to have a happy childhood. _______________________________________________ Shtoom mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/shtoom
