Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UJaep-0003hJ-PI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 02:27:39 +0000 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UJaeo-0004hW-5P for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 02:27:39 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hm14so5576192wib.10 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:27:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=5laIGGzPNnNzK+DXwNLbEgEpOwx/qCTFJbD0AhelIOs=; b=HfVpLYwcbHxrX1B9ODV/EaufSNDl9TPwSjIYC9CcJEgneNCn+7u0SNX3Pk3Yn58MHe D8BybzyjY7Q8IV7RbkSs38UWyTz9YagUAUh7wcdSvHXPTyqcaWfV4ANAfS4QMYgx+w70 91PoPQUu7rLS8Yb971jnYrO+wdADpfjpEMvE8h07VenmodvFLAxtpzPy7KYNXie1fTec si8e/IDs+2GLzy1vrW6eSWk12MB21ww8PBlOX2hPYVhrfBje6hRWSt0PFy4cM18UmRc0 V+7s6PnyV/YwslI6haG7ZQoETBrQtA2te9f+LUlIkoyexOjXGqJZBchf3XmZMnumho+i EYCw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.87.193 with SMTP id ba1mr589934wib.10.1364092051749; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.30.38 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:27:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [50.0.36.186] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:27:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mark Friedenbach To: Jay F Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044481312f969204d8a26e84 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnXi0vx30USL/dbCO6KK9/4wF+x1Vxys2TC9ALLBOocbOdLLqaSf/EtnhzrZV1Ze099q4NC X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1UJaeo-0004hW-5P Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] A bitcoin UDP P2P protocol extension X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 02:27:39 -0000 --f46d044481312f969204d8a26e84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Nearly all of these new(er) user-mode transports run over UDP, so you can hole-punch and port forward just the same. Some which don't can nevertheless be tunneled, to the same effect. Ultimately I don't have any skin in this game though. Just trying to save someone from reinventing a perfectly good wheel ;) On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Jay F wrote: > My first concern was that I and about everyone else only has TCP/UDP > port forwarding, but at least for the first: > > UDT uses UDP to transfer bulk data with its own reliability control and > congestion control mechanisms. Multiple UDT flows can share a single UDP > port, thus a firewall can open only one UDP port for all UDT connections. > > The latter appears not so friendly to NAT. > > > On 3/23/2013 3:30 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > If you're considering a datagram protocol, you might be interested in > > some more modern alternatives to UDP: > > > > UDT: Breaking the Data Transfer Bottleneck > > http://udt.sourceforge.net/ > > > > Stream Control Transmission Protocol > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. > Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics > Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --f46d044481312f969204d8a26e84 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Nearly all of these new(er) user-mode transports run = over UDP, so you can hole-punch and port forward just the same. Some which = don't can nevertheless be tunneled, to the same effect.

Ultimately I don't have any skin in this game though. Just trying to sa= ve someone from reinventing a perfectly good wheel ;)


On Sat, Mar 23, 201= 3 at 5:57 PM, Jay F <jayf@outlook.com> wrote:
My first concern was that I and about everyo= ne else only has TCP/UDP
port forwarding, but at least for the first:

UDT uses UDP to transfer bulk data with its own reliability control and
congestion control mechanisms. Multiple UDT flows can share a single UDP port, thus a firewall can open only one UDP port for all UDT connections.
The latter appears not so friendly to NAT.


On 3/23/2013 3:30 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> If you're considering a datagram protocol, you might be interested= in
> some more modern alternatives to UDP:
>
> UDT: Breaking the Data Transfer Bottleneck
> http://udt.s= ourceforge.net/
>
> Stream Control Transmission Protocol
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Trans= mission_Protocol
>
>
>


-----------------------------= -------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.s= f.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment

--f46d044481312f969204d8a26e84--