November 30th, 2002
|
| Valued Member contributor | | Join Date: August 4th, 2002 Location: Chicago, USA
Posts: 321
| |
 Re: Re: Regarding Comments from Trap_Jaw
Quote: Originally posted by trap_jaw
A significant number of users has no direct connection to the internet, - and you are trying to help some users (with good connections who don't really need that help) while hurting others (who already have a lower QoS because they're firewalled). I don't even think you are effectively helping anyone, since you are telling people with good connections to ignore a good number of hosts they could actually download from. | Personally I don't think being behind a firewall is such a big deal. In fact the program works find with most firewall implementations. Thus many of those people are able to participate without much issue. The people who have the most failure are the ones with firewall / NAT implementations that are configured correctly. There at least 4 different types of NAT implementations and anyone with a remote understanding of NAT knows that there are some problem with using NATed based hosts with certain Internet Applications. Quote: Originally posted by trap_jaw
That does not suprise me. Some users will see a better ratio of search results to working downloads. That's not because you helped them increase the number of working downloads but reduce the number of overall results (also ignoring results that might have worked without problems).
| It is also noted in my original post that by taking these measures one would see significantly less results. My intention being why do a search that returns a large amounts of results and only a few, will after much attempting will actually work. Come-on, You've been on the forum you know that this is a problem. Quote: Originally posted by trap_jaw
Forcing your IP address does not work in any case: You will need a router that supports port-forwarding and it has to be properly configured, too. Otherwise people will connect to your router (since you forced its IP address) and the router will simply discard those connection attempts because it doesn't know what to do with it. In some cases you will have to ask the admin of your network to set up port-forwarding for you, for example, - and that's not good if you are using Gnutella at a university or at school.
That's what PUSH was invented for. It works even when your IP is not forced. | You just described a typical situation involving a standard firewall which is usually not a NAT based implementation. Quote: Originally posted by trap_jaw
You clearly didn't understand how PUSH works. - The PUSH message will recurse the path of the response and will reach the firewalled host through the peers that transmitted the queryhit to you. If you got a queryhit from a firewalled host and you are accepting incoming connections, you will be able to download from it. Forcing your IP address makes your NAT transparent, so you can accept incoming connections and you won't appear to be firewalled to anyone else on the network. | You clearly didn't read my post before replying. (I think we are confusing Firewalled and NATed host issues. When you force the right IP on the network the PUSH requests work correctly.) Quote: Originally posted by trap_jaw
That's what swarming is for - and I have no problem with waiting 2.2 hours, - it's better than if those people weren't sharing at all. Besides, I don't think you have any numbers on how many networks are effectively applying those policies. - You might very well be telling a lot of people to stop sharing files although their connection is perfectly alright. | Quote: Originally posted by trap_jaw
In some cases you will have to ask the admin of your network to set up port-forwarding for you, for example, - and that's not good if you are using Gnutella at a university or at school. | I think it's a safe bet to assume that high percentage of sudden problems uploading/downloading from a school or work location and I'll even go as far as saying from some ISPs is a problem. For example any one large school or University that decides to crack down on p2p use could affect upwards to 1,200 users with the implementation of a Qos Policy and this is assuming approximately 1% p2p use.
__________________
Lee Evans, President
LeeWare Development
http://www.leeware.com |
Similar Threads 
12Likes
Threaded Mode
