On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:02:39 +0100, dave-kId6I2PxnVtBDgjK7y7TUQ wrote: >>> and most of the rest are >>> behind NATs which the user doesn't properly work around. :) >> >> Is there any reason why we cannot use STUN to avoid the NAT problems? It >> ought to be fairly simple to encapsulate the TCP-packets in UDP. > > Doesn't STUN involve connections to a centralised server? If so, we > wouldn't be able to use that for connections between two behind-a-nat > freenet nodes...
STUN is used to determine whether you are behind NAT. If you are then you need a third party to start connections to others behind NAT. The third party need not be a single server but can be a network of communicating servers (such as all freenet servers not behind NAT). When the connection is started the third party is no longer needed (i.e. data flows directly between the two parties). /Ole _______________________________________________ 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]
