- From: Ben Garney <ben.garney@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 17:24:36 -0700
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Mark Frohnmayer <mark.frohnmayer at gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, <L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 2 Jun 2010, at 00:07, Mark Frohnmayer wrote: > >> A single UDP socket can host multiple connections (indexed by packet > >> source address), so even a modest limit on actual number of sockets > >> wouldn't be a big impediment. > > > > Um, NAT? > > You would want to index by the NAT'd address. In the case of peer > introduction and connection a third party is needed to provide the > external send-to address. > > In some cases you need to use UPNP to NAT, but in general the 3rd party connection facilitator will help. The UPNP is mostly needed so that clients can _host_, which is not the goal here. If we assume a public, carefully set up UDP host, then nearly anyone can connect if UDP is allowed at all. No NAT is required in this case. And I think this is the common case, since we are not trying to run service hosts in the browser at this time. If you have any sort of connection identifier (typically port will be different even if IP is not), then you can multiplex by that. (Also, hi! This is my first post. I'm Ben Garney, I worked at PushButton Labs on Flash game technology (www.pushbuttonengine.com, www.pushbuttonlabs.com). Naturally, seeing browser capabilities expand either by plugin or native capabilities is exciting. Before I worked at PBL I worked with Mark at GarageGames on networking technology, among other things.) Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100601/5e9fe5b5/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 17:24:36 UTC