|
Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology! |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
17-07-02, 07:10 AM | #21 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 97
|
Quote:
passing everyone's port around with everyone's ip address means that peers have to go around asking other peers which port they are listening on.. and if you don't know which port a peer is listening on, the catch-22 is that it's impossible to ask them. |
|
17-07-02, 07:44 AM | #22 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: underground
Posts: 9
|
Hi.
People can run whatever port they like, it makes no difference to the operation of the client on the network. If every user on the Kazoo network changed their listening port to a random one, it wouldn't change a thing regarding how the network operates (as far as I'm aware). It'd simply make it more difficult for an ISP to run filters based on ports, there ain't a common port this way. I use 32200 for WinMX currently, simply refers to the current version number and helps avoid any complications during transfers caused by any common port filters in place anywhere on the network connection between me and whoever. There's no need for me to advertise or do anything special in order to operate using a different port other than to manually change it myself. If I'm a primary here's what happens... I start WinMX, it contacts the cache me:4363 contacts cache:7720 cache:7720 gives me IP: port of a OtherPrimary:6699 me:4224 connects into OtherPrimary:6699 (I'm online with the network now) Some other user, a secondary (SC) user contacts the cache for a Primary to connect into, the cache responds to the secondary user with it's cached IP:Port of my machine... SC:4256 contacts Cache:7701 Cache:7701 replys to SC:4256 SC:2432 connects into me:32200 I'm sharing files on the network. A remote user sends out a search request, it hits my Primary (me), I reply with the information to the user requesting results with the file details (name, size, type, etc), my IP, and my listening port to connect into. The remote user double-clicks the search result, the information contained within that search result directs the user to connect into my IP:Port, and the transfer starts (all going well). That's it really, changing ports doesn't change anything regarding how connections are made within the network (afaik). It just randomizes the ports that the application uses, meaning an ISP can't place a simple filter on any specifc port number, it wouldn't do anything. It's important each users port remains static, as many users have routers that need to forward incoming packets addressed to specific ports to the appropriate machine. So, upon installation of the client, it'd be preferable if the port was chosen at that point, from there on the router can be configured according to the port chosen during installation. Any user that can't handle port forwarding would chose the easy option of operating the client in the 'firewalled' mode that doesn't require any static listening ports to be defined or configured. I'm not gonna go into the 'firewalled' way of things, I'll just say it's no substitute for static listening ports and cannot be used unanimously. enough for now. dB. |
17-07-02, 04:59 PM | #23 | |
Madame Comrade
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Area 25
Posts: 5,587
|
A good thread with plenty of ideas and information – thanks alphabeater, db_, Scyth and others!
I think it is a good general approach to make p2p clients as unpredictable and adaptive as possible so that their use would be very hard to track, block or control by your ISP or anybody else. Random port selection from user-defined range is a good first measure against mechanical blocking. Fully encrypted communications between peers would be the next natural step. If your ISP has no way of telling what you communicate through protected pipes with other peers, p2p becomes externally indistinguishable from Virtual Private Networking practiced routinely by many businesses today. Quote:
- tg |
|
17-07-02, 05:02 PM | #24 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 454
|
Quote:
Yes, it is necessary to know the IP and port of at least one peer in order to bootstrap yourself onto the network. That information has to come from outside the network. This is normally done using a combination of static files and DNS resolution. Once you're on the network, the IPs and ports of the rest of the hosts become available to you. |
|
17-07-02, 05:37 PM | #25 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 97
|
Quote:
Quote:
in my opinion, the future of p2p doesn't lie in huge, global networks, but in smaller, more personal ones made up of friends and interconnected at certain points. |
||
17-07-02, 06:14 PM | #26 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 454
|
Quote:
|
|
17-07-02, 06:21 PM | #27 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 97
|
Quote:
i hear what you're saying, i'm just trying to find a way which means that people don't ever need to worry about ports again (unless they're behind a router/firewall, of course), because the program can do it for them. |
|
17-07-02, 06:33 PM | #28 | |
Madame Comrade
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Area 25
Posts: 5,587
|
Quote:
You are describing features of socially intelligent p2p topology, and I firmly believe that something like it will soon be implemented on decentralized p2p. Once available, group and community tools will make the whole decentralized scene so much more interesting and exciting! There will always be a place for a global and open sharing layer but groups and communities with their internal activities and their mutual interactions will take the game of p2p to a whole new level. - tg |
|
17-07-02, 07:35 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,024
|
Quote:
as for providing true anonymity, with untraceable downloads from untraceable hosts well, that’s like the holy grail in peer-to-peer applications. actually, it is the holy grail. it's one of those things you devote your life to finding but never do. still, a floating ip is as good a place as any to start. we probably have to protect filesharing just long enough for the riaa to give up or congress to heed the will of the people which might be a while (a long while). but i don’t really think it will be forever even if it’s going to feel like it. - js. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|