On 14 Oct 2005, at 15:56, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: >> an important feature of Freenet 0.7 will be that it doesn't >> require NATs to be reconfigured because it uses NAT traversal, >> from what I can tell from your website, I2P doesn't >> support that. > > We have had NAT traversal for a while now. It was described in > the SSU specs [1] that I sent to toad for comment sometime in > the early summer, and deployed in 0.6.0.6 [2].
Well, I was basing this on: http://www.i2p.net/faq#ports, which says: == TCP port 8887 inbound == This is used for interrouter communication, and must be reachable from the outside world. Everything will fail if this isn't - you'll have "Active: 0/x". Is that information out of date? > I2P isn't that scary, you could probably inform yourself a little > better about the field you're working in by trying things out. I am sure we could all inform ourselves better about many things given sufficient time. > This argument has never carried any water with me. > It is, quite literally, Not Invented Here. You are right, we didn't invent I2P here, because I2P doesn't meet our requirements, nor does anything that relies on a DHT for its operation. > "Why do X?" > "Because someone else is already doing Y." No, we are doing X because Y doesn't meet our requirements, nor is it clear that Y is better for the requirements that overlap. > I don't care about technology, I care about results. What will > help real live people. Just not if they live in China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or maybe even the UK several years from now... > You keep saying you care about results too, > but its seems thats true only if they require your particular > algorithm of the month. I'm disappointed that you have gone from a civilised discussion into personal insults. You accuse us of pride because we have decided not to use your approach, even though you have conceded that it doesn't meet our non- harvestability requirements, and you have provided no evidence that your approach is better suited to meeting the requirements we share. We are following the approach we are following because it meets the goals we have set for our project. We have not been too proud to abandon the ideas which haven't worked. Before you accuse me of "not invented here" syndrome, note that the core of Freenet 0.7 will be an idea due to Oskar Sandberg, not me - yet you will see that this has not dampened my enthusiasm for it. Ian.
