[Users] Re: Users Digest, Vol 6, Issue 50

Michael Kahlke mjkahlke at comcast.net
Sat Nov 19 16:50:23 CET 2005


Check out http://www.brynosaurus.com/pub/net/p2pnat/, it's not quite what 
you're asking for but it does include a table of data gathered from 
volunteers, detailing the percentage of NATs that support udp/tcp 
hole-punching and hairpin (loopback) translation.  I'm concerned about the 
latter, it appears that not even ICE can resolve that issue.


> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:36:35 -0800
> From: Tavis P <tavis.lists at galaxytelecom.net>
> Subject: [Users] How Effective is STUN?
> To: users at openser.org, serusers at iptel.org
> Message-ID: <437E6583.5050905 at galaxytelecom.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> I'm trying to find some statistics as to what the ratio of Cone vs
> Symmetric NAT solutions deployed in the world are, has anyone done some
> research into this?
> I'm curious what percentage of users in certain demographics (broadband
> clients, for example) i can expect to be serviced using STUN alone, so i
> can come up with some figure to help me build out my network
> Even just some anecdotal information of peoples experiences would be
> very useful
> Tavis

More information about the Users mailing list