On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:43:37PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thomas King wrote:
> > - Adding STUN-support (RFC 3489) to Freenet to automatically collect NAT
> > related information. These information will be used to automatically
> > configure Freenet.
>
> Doesn't STUN require the client to contact a server in order to learn
> its IP address? If so it might conflict with one of the goals of the
> darknet approach, which is to prevent a single person or small number of
> people from being able to harvest a list of Freenet nodes.
>
> I believe nodes can already learn their IP addresses from their peers,
> so STUN is unnecessary as long as you have one peer with a static IP (or
> more than one if they spend a lot of time offline).
Right. We do need ARKs or something similar so that your other peers can
learn your new IP address of course; that is well up the todo list. But if
all your peers are on the same ISP and are NATted and the ISP recycles
your IP every night, you're in trouble.
>
> UPnP, on the other hand, sounds useful - LimeWire contains a Java
> implementation so that might be a good starting point.
I believe there are UP&P implementations out there... the question is,
is UP&P widely used and widely available? If so we should certainly
support it.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
--
Matthew J Toseland - toad@???
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
