19 Nov
2005
19 Nov
'05
4:50 p.m.
Tavis,
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.
Mike
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:36:35 -0800
From: Tavis P <tavis.lists(a)galaxytelecom.net>
Subject: [Users] How Effective is STUN?
To: users(a)openser.org, serusers(a)iptel.org
Message-ID: <437E6583.5050905(a)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