It is very possible that I misinterpreted Brian's original email. If this is the case, my apologies. If/when there is something to test, let me know and I will be happy to bang on it for a bit.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 12:56 AM, David Stainton <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Paul Rabahy, > > Thanks for running the public grid so users can test out Tahoe-LAFS... > > Btw both you and Zooko misunderstood Brian Warner's e-mail; he doesn't > want to take away the autodetect feature... he just wants it to not be > the default if no listening address is specified... keyword AUTO will > be used to specify autodetect... As Daira pointed out, this makes > "tahoe create-note" slightly more difficult to use. > > On the other hand these changes will make Tahoe-LAFS way easier to use > with Tor and other transports (I2p, ipv6 etc) who wish to run storage > nodes at home and need the transport's NAT penetration property. > > I think there are political, economic and technical consequences to > the NAT penetration method chosen... so I have this work in progress > document to help explain some of these tradeoffs: > > https://github.com/telekommunisten/nat-penetration-tradeoffs > > It's far from complete... > > > Cheers, > > David >
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
