3 ms·
- you know each others IP's (or have a way to signal it) - can't decide on a port in the same message - don't suffer from NAT port randomization I'm not sayi
by athrowaway3z 7mo ago
- you know each others IP's (or have a way to signal it)
- can't decide on a port in the same message
- don't suffer from NAT port randomization
I'm not saying it will never happen, but the Venn diagram of this being the minimum complexity solution just doesn't seem very large?
- Arch485 7mo agoI think many people know how to google "what is my IP" and send that to a friend, but don't necessarily know what a port is. NAT randomization, I don't know. Depends on your setup, I guess.
- sholladay 7mo agoThere are plenty of free public STUN servers and ways to share the information they return. The real problem is the port randomization if any client is behind a symmetric NAT. The search space for randomly trying port numbers is too large. There are some ways to reduce the search space, like port prediction. But ultimately, a large dose of port scanning is the only way I know of to make the connection reliably. And there’s only so much of that you can do before triggering IPS or overwhelming the NAT. IPv6 makes this way easier, of course!