On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 09:36:57PM +0200, Ole Tange wrote: > 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).
How is that possible? Does it involve TCP spoofing? -- 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]
