On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:05:19PM +0000, Etienne Dechamps wrote: > My best guess is that it's simply a direct application of > probabilities: if the probability that a NAT is "compliant" is 70%, > then the probability that *both* NATs at both ends of the tunnel are > "compliant" is only 50% (0.70*0.70). Indeed both NATs need to be > compliant in order for UDP hole punching to work.
That's not true, full cone or address restricted NAT can still communicate with a symmetric NAT. It's only port restricted NAT that cannot communicate with symmetric NAT. So in the second graph, it's PAR-SYM and SYM-SYM that don't work, the rest do. > > Of course if there is a lightweight, > > cross-platform library that is easy to integrate we should have a look > > at that. If that can be done with MiniUPnP, go ahead. > > Understood. I'll get busy this week-end :) Great :) > > NAT-PMP (and PCP?) seems interesting to, maybe it is simple enough to > > code directly into tinc? > > Well, the author of miniupnpc also wrote libnatpmp, which apparently > *is* specifically designed to be integrated into an event loop: > http://miniupnp.free.fr/libnatpmp.html Oh, nice! Hopefully it supports Windows as well. -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards, Guus Sliepen <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ tinc mailing list [email protected] http://www.tinc-vpn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinc
