Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

discv5: additional text around NAT hole punching #231

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: discv5-v5.2
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

emhane
Copy link
Member

@emhane emhane commented Apr 14, 2023

Theory around the actual hole punching: keeping a hole punched, how a node discovers if it is behind a NAT and some on how the handling of holes maintains properties held by the p2p network.

@emhane emhane mentioned this pull request Apr 14, 2023
8 tasks
@fjl fjl changed the title WIP Nat theory part 2 discv5: text about NAT hole punching Apr 19, 2023
@fjl fjl mentioned this pull request Apr 19, 2023
2 tasks
Co-authored-by: Felix Lange <fjl@twurst.com>
@emhane emhane changed the title discv5: text about NAT hole punching WIP discv5: text around NAT hole punching Apr 21, 2023
@emhane emhane changed the title WIP discv5: text around NAT hole punching discv5: text around NAT hole punching Apr 21, 2023
@emhane
Copy link
Member Author

emhane commented Apr 21, 2023

Now, it is ready for review. If you may @fjl .

@fjl fjl changed the title discv5: text around NAT hole punching discv5: additional text around NAT hole punching Apr 25, 2023
@fjl
Copy link
Collaborator

fjl commented Apr 25, 2023

Right now, it isn't super clear from this text what the implementation requirements are. The text has both descriptions of implementation features and rationale-type content, where you explain 'common situations' and their outcomes.

Please add a section that clearly states the logic that implementations should apply. Specifically, please describe separately the rules for NAT traversal initiator, relay, and recipient.

@emhane
Copy link
Member Author

emhane commented Apr 27, 2023

Right now, it isn't super clear from this text what the implementation requirements are. The text has both descriptions of implementation features and rationale-type content, where you explain 'common situations' and their outcomes.

Please add a section that clearly states the logic that implementations should apply. Specifically, please describe separately the rules for NAT traversal initiator, relay, and recipient.

Ok, done, let me know what you think.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants