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

When running multiple "dat share" only the first port is accessible from outside #947

Closed
mitar opened this issue Feb 25, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed
Milestone

Comments

@mitar
Copy link

mitar commented Feb 25, 2018

Slight followup to #945. I noticed that if I run dat share multiple times on my machine, only the first instance (the one using the default port) can be accessible from outside, but others are not (connection time outs).

I have INPUT policy ACCEPT on a machine testing it, but the machine is behind a NAT. I looked at upnp mappings on my router and it was empty. It is a cheap router, so maybe something is not being displayed, because I would expect that at least the first instance is seen there?

My guess is that maybe upnp uses the same service name for all instances so it confuses something and only the first port gets mapped?

@pfrazee
Copy link

pfrazee commented Feb 25, 2018

Interesting find. AFAIK Dat's not using upnp, it's using UDP hole-punching. Is that correct @mafintosh ?

@mitar
Copy link
Author

mitar commented Feb 25, 2018

That's then probably a reason why I could not find anything in the upnp list on the router. :-)

But data transmissions go over TCP, no? How are those ports opened on NAT?

(So I was testing with a server open and my computer behind NAT, so one peer is available for direct connections.)

@pfrazee
Copy link

pfrazee commented Feb 26, 2018

Dat uses both TCP and UTP (which is built on UDP). TCP only gets used (afaik) within a LAN and when transacting with public peers like Hashbase. UTP gets used on everything.

@okdistribute
Copy link
Collaborator

14.0.2 now accepts hole punching, so hopefully your computers will be discoverable now without explicit port forwarding. Please try it and let us know!

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants