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 > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
