This is still an interesting discussion ... ;-)
On Tuesday 20 June 2006 04:19, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Do we need to implement UP&P support? It would help in many areas:
> - It would allow us to forward ports and detect our real IP address!
> - It would make connection work more reliably on dynamic IPs, especially
> with nodes with poor uptime.
> - It would expand the range of nodes which can be seednodes on opennet.
> (To be a seednode you need to be directly connected or port
> forwarded).
> - It would allow us to implement something like the distribution
> servlet.
> - It would allow us to usefully implement support for "invitations", one
> use darknet references which come with authorization to add the other
> side.
>
> Unfortunately:
> - It is grossly insecure if run on a LAN with untrusted users. We would
> have to ask the user during setup.
> - It is blocked by default on Windows XP SP2.
> - Stats on another p2p app which supported UP&P showed it only working
> successfully about 50% of the time even when detected... That may have
> been bugs in their implementation of course...
>
> So is it a panacea or a nightmare? Do we want UP&P support?
