[nanomsg] Re: NAT transport
- From: Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:27:39 -0700
TURN might require some kind of support in Nanomsg, but you can also use
nn_device() on NAT-free nodes in order to do something very similar without
any changes to Nanomsg.
Jay Berg wrote:
> Im dealing with distributed autonomous p2p protocols like bitcoin. Need
> to connect to multiple peers, and do not want to rely on third party
> servers.
>
> if peers can't connect without 3rd party server, then they will just move
> on to the next peer. Its ok if some of the nodes are only able to connect
> to non NAT ips.
>
> even if I use TCP hole punching, this would still require a new nanomsg
> transport. or am i missing something? still researching this stuff.
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Alex Elsayed
> <eternaleye@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Um, not really. With TURN, you'd be able to use TCP across both-NAT.
>>
>> TURN does have downsides, but those are really best laid at the feet of
>> NAT.
>>
>> There's also the option of a "supernode"-style system, where non-NAT
>> peers TURN for their NATted siblings.
>>
>> Jay Berg wrote:
>>
>>> to use nanomsg , I would need a new transport.
>>>
>>> //www.freelists.org/post/nanomsg/is-there-a-nanomsg-socket-type-unaffected-by-natfirewall,2
>>>
>>> this is a big issue with p2p / blockchain technology. I have a p2p
>>> system using nanomsg protocols, and I'm hoping i don't need to rip out
>>> all the nanomsg stuff…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Brian Empson
>>> <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You will need a third host that both hosts can reach outside of the
>>>> NAT'ed networks to do this. I don't think you'll need another
>>>> transport.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 08:47 -0700, Jay Berg wrote:
>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To use nanomsg when both sides are behind a NAT, we will have to
>>>>> implement a new nanomsg transport.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I understand, NAT hole-punching is more reliable using UDP
>>>>> vs TCP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would the nanomsg protocals all work with a UDP transport?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Jay
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
Other related posts:
