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 <jayf@outlook.com> 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
>