Thanks for the stats. I think that for my particular application it makes sense to avoid Nat traversal techniques. The plan is to provide a single purpose device that would be useful for a wide range of users (most of whom would not be comfortable making changes to settings in their router). I was hoping I could have networking without maintaining an intermediate server that I had to worry about scaling and securing. No such thing as a free lunch I guess.
Sure had fun playing with zeromq though. I was pretty excited about the upnp option (the Gupnp lib even has Vala bindings) until I realized that not all routers support it or enable it by default. Nats are a bummer, if only the pioneers of the internet could have foreseen the need for 128 bit addressing ;-). The powers that be would probably still have figured out a way to prevent us from talking to each other without a middle man. On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Holth <[email protected]> wrote: > According to this diagram > https://developers.google.com/talk/libjingle/important_concepts#candidates > 8% of their connections would have to transfer data through a relay > server (but many applications will say 'no' at this point because it > is expensive). This study from 2005 > (http://nutss.gforge.cis.cornell.edu/pub/imc05-tcpnat.pdf) estimates > an 11% failure rate, but when the connection succeeds your STUN server > handles only the much smaller amount of traffic needed to establish a > direct connection through the NAT devices. > > Seems like you might need to know about individual TCP connections at > a lower level than you get from ZeroMQ. > > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Brian Duffy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Okay, I read up on Nat traversal (interesting). One more question; is it > > worth it? Assuming I am developing an application that would need to > handle > > port forwarding automatically for users that are not expected to interact > > with their routers settings, I am concerned about the drawbacks of Nat > > traversal. Specifically, I don't know how many routers might support > upnp or > > nat-pmp by default, and I don't know if enough routers will be > configured in > > such a way that STUN will be effective. Also, I really don't want an > > external server in my implementation if I can help it. I may just decide > to > > implement some local blue tooth networking and write a mobile app so that > > users can atleast share some data in a personal area network and then > sync > > back to the clients when in range, but I would be interested in peoples > > opinions on implementing automatic port forwarding in their applications > and > > what luck they may or may not have had. > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > -- Duff
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
