gpg: Signature made Wed Apr 26 19:40:16 2006 UTC using DSA key ID 6554A22D
gpg: Good signature from "Matthew John Toseland (Toad) <toad@amphibian.dyndns.org>"
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 04:43:19AM +0200, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland <toad@???> [2006-04-26 19:01:30]:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 02:31:00PM +0000, NextGen$ wrote:
> > > * Matthew Toseland <toad@???> [2006-04-26 13:26:33]:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:19:23AM +0000, NextGen$ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > imho Up&p and stun are useless without multi-homming support.
> > > >
> > > > Huh? What exactly do you think is necessary prior to STUN/UP&P?
> > >
> > > Having references with multiple contact points (an "official" signed
> > > reference with possibly several addresses and an unofficial one with ip
> > > gathered from up&p, other peers, last known, ...)... And maybe the
> > > possibility within the node to have different listeners bound to different
> > > sockets.
> >
> > We already have the possibility of multiple IPs in the ref, and a
> > separate last-detected IP. The IP detected from other peers is just used
> > in the overall detection algorithm though; we will only publish one IP
> > address at present, and we will only use one at a time to talk to a
> > given node. I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting we need.
>
> Imho we need to publish every known and valid ip addresses, even local
> ones ; otherwise nodes on the same lan won't be able to connect (to both
> outside and internal peers).
Isn't that a security risk? Well, not to darknet peers I suppose?
Anyway we don't want to try such addresses unless we have a good reason
to believe they will work e.g. if we have the same external IP detected
through STUN ?
True multi-homing as you suggest would be fairly easy though, it's not a
big deal.
>
> NextGen$
--
Matthew J Toseland - toad@???
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
