boardix


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» boardix   » Groups   » Codecrave   » CCC through routers

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: CCC through routers
Mystery Man
vote YES to the Heroes bill
Member # 1

 - posted      Profile for Mystery Man     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now that we have this lil break, I can pick up CCC again.

I think our biggest issue at this time is using CCC through routers. Ideas?

1. Primary & Secondary connections

Primary: Directly to your target buddy, the way it is now. You must not be behind any router.

Secondary: Piggybacked onto a Primary user, all necessary traffic is routed through them. I dunno exactly how this works... yet. You have to use it if you are behind a router.

--------------------
 -

Posts: 2726 | From: VP | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
SkyRat
Resident Director of Personal
Member # 10

 - posted      Profile for SkyRat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I gave my version the ability to change the used port to anything you want. Multiple people can use different ports when behind the same router. The only problem left is an going to be very difficult to solve. When a user does not have access to the router, there is no way they can recieve messages since there is no way they can tell the router to route packets with a certain port to them. An exotic method is probably possible to circumvent this, like having a perm. connection to other users or polling users at a certain rate to see if a message has been sent.

Which problem are you talking about (access to versus no access to)? Both?

[ December 13, 2003, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: SkyRat[] ]

--------------------
 -  -
quote:
With the stupid limit on sigs my googlism won't fit!!


Posts: 2518 | From: BFH | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
bigO
He Who Knows All
Member # 7

 - posted      Profile for bigO     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I personally feel that an all purpose solution should be implemented. And the only way I can think of doing this is to, whenever you sign on, send a mesage to every user on your list to say "Hey i'm stuck behind a router, just let me hang on to you." Then we could just implement a way to not close the socket. Should be as simple as adding a property to whatever class you have to descibe your buddies, and then just simple conditionals before you ever close a socket.

My 2 cents.

--------------------
Anybody can be cool, but AWESOME takes practice.

Posts: 4522 | From: VP luv | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
SkyRat
Resident Director of Personal
Member # 10

 - posted      Profile for SkyRat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well yeah need to be able to allow multiple ports if multiple people are behind routers on both ends. That is also simple, just added an int to my class, changed a link-list, a few conditionals, and changed my buddybase format a bit. But the hang'n on sounds like the simplest idea for someone behind a router they cannot configure. Not sure why I called it "exotic" earlier, possibly because it was late and I was overdramatic.

--------------------
 -  -
quote:
With the stupid limit on sigs my googlism won't fit!!


Posts: 2518 | From: BFH | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
bigO
He Who Knows All
Member # 7

 - posted      Profile for bigO     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SkyRat[]:
Well yeah need to be able to allow multiple ports if multiple people are behind routers on both ends.

Not really, one a connection is made, the prot doesnt matter so much. And since the person behind the router is initializing all connecting (no other way to do it), there shouldn't be a problem.

--------------------
Anybody can be cool, but AWESOME takes practice.

Posts: 4522 | From: VP luv | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
SkyRat
Resident Director of Personal
Member # 10

 - posted      Profile for SkyRat     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Person A behind a router starts up. They do not have access to the router, therefore no ports are forwarded to them. They attempt to connect to their buddies in search of the longterm connection idea. None of them are online for simplicity.

Now a second buddy signs on, Person B who is also behind a router but he/she does have access to the router but another person (C) behind the router has already claimed the chat port for themselves. So they (B) has no port forwarded to them. There is no way person A and B can communicate without channeling traffic through person C or allowing person B to specify a different port to communicate on.

Now if every buddy you want to chat with is behind a router and they do not have a port forwarded to them, none of them could chat. If you were to allow multiple ports, persons with access to routers could change this problem. I am assuming that people behind routers with access is greater than people behind without. However, two people behind different routers without access can never chat, unless there happens to be another person online without this problem that the people behind the router could channel their traffic through.

--------------------
 -  -
quote:
With the stupid limit on sigs my googlism won't fit!!


Posts: 2518 | From: BFH | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged


 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

kordix.com

(C)2000-2011 The Boardix Community

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0