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